Anonymous wrote:OP, just so you know, schools don't look kindly upon people who share info (positive or negative) on DCUM. You've totally outed yourself to the Island Creek AART.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are misunderstanding the local pool cutoffs. In pool vs out of pool designation only matters in that the school will automatically generate a LIV packet for review by the central committee if your child is in-pool. What is likely happening is that in the lower performing, Title I, higher FARMS schools, many parents don't fully understand the system and aren't referring kids with scores in the 120-131 range. With lowered building in-pool norms, those kids will now be considered for AAP.

The same thing could be accomplished with increased teacher referrals, but then teacher biases could keep kids out who otherwise ought to be considered.

I thought that was the point of the Local Level IV. You bring in the kids who might not be looked at and provide them Level IV services.

And what they're doing is basically turning everything into local level IV over the course of the next 5 years or so. First rolling out local level IV where it isn't, then moving to the local screening.

That I understand and I am fine with. Although I thought it was still going to be a Central Committee and then local placement through the Principal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are misunderstanding the local pool cutoffs. In pool vs out of pool designation only matters in that the school will automatically generate a LIV packet for review by the central committee if your child is in-pool. What is likely happening is that in the lower performing, Title I, higher FARMS schools, many parents don't fully understand the system and aren't referring kids with scores in the 120-131 range. With lowered building in-pool norms, those kids will now be considered for AAP.

The same thing could be accomplished with increased teacher referrals, but then teacher biases could keep kids out who otherwise ought to be considered.

I thought that was the point of the Local Level IV. You bring in the kids who might not be looked at and provide them Level IV services.

And what they're doing is basically turning everything into local level IV over the course of the next 5 years or so. First rolling out local level IV where it isn't, then moving to the local screening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are misunderstanding the local pool cutoffs. In pool vs out of pool designation only matters in that the school will automatically generate a LIV packet for review by the central committee if your child is in-pool. What is likely happening is that in the lower performing, Title I, higher FARMS schools, many parents don't fully understand the system and aren't referring kids with scores in the 120-131 range. With lowered building in-pool norms, those kids will now be considered for AAP.

The same thing could be accomplished with increased teacher referrals, but then teacher biases could keep kids out who otherwise ought to be considered.

I thought that was the point of the Local Level IV. You bring in the kids who might not be looked at and provide them Level IV services.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are misunderstanding the local pool cutoffs. In pool vs out of pool designation only matters in that the school will automatically generate a LIV packet for review by the central committee if your child is in-pool. What is likely happening is that in the lower performing, Title I, higher FARMS schools, many parents don't fully understand the system and aren't referring kids with scores in the 120-131 range. With lowered building in-pool norms, those kids will now be considered for AAP.

The same thing could be accomplished with increased teacher referrals, but then teacher biases could keep kids out who otherwise ought to be considered.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are misunderstanding the local pool cutoffs. In pool vs out of pool designation only matters in that the school will automatically generate a LIV packet for review by the central committee if your child is in-pool. What is likely happening is that in the lower performing, Title I, higher FARMS schools, many parents don't fully understand the system and aren't referring kids with scores in the 120-131 range. With lowered building in-pool norms, those kids will now be considered for AAP.

The same thing could be accomplished with increased teacher referrals, but then teacher biases could keep kids out who otherwise ought to be considered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local standards are for Principal Placement. There will be a district cut off for in-pool scores and there will be local cut offs for Principal Placement.

That’s not what the Island Creek AART said today. (And we’re not a center school, so there is no principal placement here). She was very explicit that the county is making a change this year, and that each school will have its own cut off for in-pool scores. It’s always possible she’s wrong, but that’s what she told us.

That would be a huge change. Massive. And kind of bullshit.

I have no problem with Principal Placement for Local Level IV and Principals placing kids who were not in-pool but I think that a county wide pool score is fine. Most kids have a local option for Level IV. I fail to see why that needs to change.

Do we really think that kids whose school sets an in-pool score of 120 to send to the Committee are likely to get those kids accepted? Teachers can refer kids not in pool who they think belong in AAP.

The GFES AART said that while some schooled may have a higher average, there is no limit to how many kids can be accepted from each school. She mentioned that the in pool average is set by the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local standards are for Principal Placement. There will be a district cut off for in-pool scores and there will be local cut offs for Principal Placement.

That’s not what the Island Creek AART said today. (And we’re not a center school, so there is no principal placement here). She was very explicit that the county is making a change this year, and that each school will have its own cut off for in-pool scores. It’s always possible she’s wrong, but that’s what she told us.

That would be a huge change. Massive. And kind of bullshit.

I have no problem with Principal Placement for Local Level IV and Principals placing kids who were not in-pool but I think that a county wide pool score is fine. Most kids have a local option for Level IV. I fail to see why that needs to change.

Do we really think that kids whose school sets an in-pool score of 120 to send to the Committee are likely to get those kids accepted? Teachers can refer kids not in pool who they think belong in AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP Principal placement almost exclusively occurs at non-center schools.

The schools with local level IV have maybe 20 kids qualify for AAP but choose to remain at neighborhood school. Level IV class has room for a few more so the principal fills those spots.

OP; This info is totally new to me. I thought that only the center school principals can do principal placement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local standards are for Principal Placement. There will be a district cut off for in-pool scores and there will be local cut offs for Principal Placement.

That’s not what the Island Creek AART said today. (And we’re not a center school, so there is no principal placement here). She was very explicit that the county is making a change this year, and that each school will have its own cut off for in-pool scores. It’s always possible she’s wrong, but that’s what she told us.

Anonymous wrote:OP Principal placement almost exclusively occurs at non-center schools.

The schools with local level IV have maybe 20 kids qualify for AAP but choose to remain at neighborhood school. Level IV class has room for a few more so the principal fills those spots.