Anonymous wrote:We are at a mid-high SES school in the Woodson pyramid. Roughly 100 kids per grade, in a recent year that included my child, I was told we had more than 50 2nd graders apply to AAP and more than half of those were admitted.

Then a dozen or so left for the center, which was unusual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good pyramid is more important than getting into an AAP. Just buy in Woodson and let everything fall into places.

The in-pool cut-off is top 10% of combined COGAT and NNAT score of LOCAL SCHOOL. For example if you have 80 kids in second grade of an elementary school, there would be 8 kids in-pool.

Ok, but what if I want both, like many do? But it's not just top 10% right? There's also parent referral kids, which will partially overlap with the in-pool kids. Is 10% the total number selected from the base school?

There are about 20% of the FCPS kids in AAP but the in-pool from a school represents the top 10% of students on the NNAT and CoGAT.

In-pool is probably less important at the higher SES schools than it is in the Title 1 schools. The parents at the higher SES schools are better informed and preparing to refer if their child isn’t in-pool. The parents at Title 1 schools are less likely to be aware of AAP and less likely to parent refer. The pool is meant to capture kids who need to be challenged but are less likely to be considered without the pool or Teacher referrals.

Local scores for each school means that the top kids from each kids will be considered and yes, the kids from a Title 1 school will look very different then the kids at a higher SES school.

This is interesting to think about. If we assume--hypothetically--that at a high SES school 100% of the parents of kids who are in pool also refer their kids, then that essentially would mean all 20% are parent referred, with half also having the highest scores and the other half who knows...parent could do a lot to make the overall package look strong in the absence of top NNAT/CogAT scores.

Contrast this with a hypothetical low SES school where 0% of parents refer their kids, then you could in theory have the top 20% of test takers (assuming no teacher referrals in this hypothetical example). So in reality, what would happen in such a case? Would the other 10% come from teacher referrals or would the cutoff for in-pool be lowered to include more students? I would imagine that when teachers refer, they are probably looking at the test scores too.

That all said, I think it's a fiction that academically strong children at low SES schools are not prepped or do not have involved parents. Yet their parents may be less likely strategize to get their children admitted in the way that high SES parents do.

I can corroborate this as I am a parent of kids in a "low SES" school. While our incomes might not be in the top 10% of DMV households, I am not an URM nor is English my second language. We bought in this neighborhood because it is what we could afford when we were buying, and our mortgage interest rate is keeping us here for the foreseeable future. It's a diverse, walkable neighborhood school with LLIV which we've enjoyed, but my kids go to center because LLIV doesn't offer the same level of education as offered by the center. I am very involved in my children's education, supplement at home when possible, and have parent referred all three kids. (first two are in AAP, third is in process now). TBH, I think it's very unfair that students in my children's school can be "in pool" with lower scores, but that's not why my kids got in as their scores were quite good, GBRS were excellent, etc. I'd vote for a purely objective admissions policy based on test scores, and I don't really care if they're "prepped" or not as those kids (& their parents) help keep the academic standards up in the AAP program. If LLIV were only Level IV qualified kids, I'd consider keeping them at the base school. At present, though, it's more of a cluster approach, and I know that affects the curriculum.

I don't follow--why is that unfair? They are in pool in their school and likely had minimal prep. Personally I'd object much more to children with low scores and high ratings on other wishy washy indicators getting in. The in pool ones with slightly lower scores than those who've been heavily prepped can probably thrive in AAP with caring teachers.

I don't see why it's more fair to admit kids whose parents heavily prepped them. It's deceptive to use the word "objective" here. The less prepped kids with respectable scores are arguably showing a higher quality signal of their readiness for advanced work and enrichment.

PP you are quoting. It's not fair to lower the score threshold for "in pool" in some schools because it's painting with too broad a brush. You can't assume that all the students in a low SES school are academically disadvantaged. It's not about who is more deserving of AAP; it's a matter of who is AAP-ready. In my opinion, that's the kids with the higher scores, regardless of where they live and whether they "prepped." If the latter, one hopes that they will continue to work hard in AAP, keeping the standard high for all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good pyramid is more important than getting into an AAP. Just buy in Woodson and let everything fall into places.

The in-pool cut-off is top 10% of combined COGAT and NNAT score of LOCAL SCHOOL. For example if you have 80 kids in second grade of an elementary school, there would be 8 kids in-pool.

Ok, but what if I want both, like many do? But it's not just top 10% right? There's also parent referral kids, which will partially overlap with the in-pool kids. Is 10% the total number selected from the base school?

There are about 20% of the FCPS kids in AAP but the in-pool from a school represents the top 10% of students on the NNAT and CoGAT.

In-pool is probably less important at the higher SES schools than it is in the Title 1 schools. The parents at the higher SES schools are better informed and preparing to refer if their child isn’t in-pool. The parents at Title 1 schools are less likely to be aware of AAP and less likely to parent refer. The pool is meant to capture kids who need to be challenged but are less likely to be considered without the pool or Teacher referrals.

Local scores for each school means that the top kids from each kids will be considered and yes, the kids from a Title 1 school will look very different then the kids at a higher SES school.

This is interesting to think about. If we assume--hypothetically--that at a high SES school 100% of the parents of kids who are in pool also refer their kids, then that essentially would mean all 20% are parent referred, with half also having the highest scores and the other half who knows...parent could do a lot to make the overall package look strong in the absence of top NNAT/CogAT scores.

Contrast this with a hypothetical low SES school where 0% of parents refer their kids, then you could in theory have the top 20% of test takers (assuming no teacher referrals in this hypothetical example). So in reality, what would happen in such a case? Would the other 10% come from teacher referrals or would the cutoff for in-pool be lowered to include more students? I would imagine that when teachers refer, they are probably looking at the test scores too.

That all said, I think it's a fiction that academically strong children at low SES schools are not prepped or do not have involved parents. Yet their parents may be less likely strategize to get their children admitted in the way that high SES parents do.

I can corroborate this as I am a parent of kids in a "low SES" school. While our incomes might not be in the top 10% of DMV households, I am not an URM nor is English my second language. We bought in this neighborhood because it is what we could afford when we were buying, and our mortgage interest rate is keeping us here for the foreseeable future. It's a diverse, walkable neighborhood school with LLIV which we've enjoyed, but my kids go to center because LLIV doesn't offer the same level of education as offered by the center. I am very involved in my children's education, supplement at home when possible, and have parent referred all three kids. (first two are in AAP, third is in process now). TBH, I think it's very unfair that students in my children's school can be "in pool" with lower scores, but that's not why my kids got in as their scores were quite good, GBRS were excellent, etc. I'd vote for a purely objective admissions policy based on test scores, and I don't really care if they're "prepped" or not as those kids (& their parents) help keep the academic standards up in the AAP program. If LLIV were only Level IV qualified kids, I'd consider keeping them at the base school. At present, though, it's more of a cluster approach, and I know that affects the curriculum.

I don't follow--why is that unfair? They are in pool in their school and likely had minimal prep. Personally I'd object much more to children with low scores and high ratings on other wishy washy indicators getting in. The in pool ones with slightly lower scores than those who've been heavily prepped can probably thrive in AAP with caring teachers.

I don't see why it's more fair to admit kids whose parents heavily prepped them. It's deceptive to use the word "objective" here. The less prepped kids with respectable scores are arguably showing a higher quality signal of their readiness for advanced work and enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s about 20%.

Ok so it could be that 10% in pool overlaps with parent referred kids significantly, so it's definitely more than the top 10% of the kids in that grade.

That's not how it works. Let's say a school has 100 2nd graders, to keep things simple. 10 of those kids will be in pool. Another quite large group of kids who were not in pool will be parent referred for AAP. Packets are made for all of these kids, and then the central committee decides on placement. Across all of FCPS, around 20% of all FCPS kids (so around half of kids who are considered for AAP) are found eligible. There isn't some "overlap" between in pool and parent referred. Kids who are in pool are considered in pool, even if the parent fills out the referral form and questionnaire. Some in pool kids are not found eligible. Many referral kids are found eligible. In the past, the conventional wisdom was that 2/3 of the in pool kids and 1/2 of the parent referred kids were typically admitted to AAP. The numbers are almost certainly different now, though, with local pool designations.

At a high SES school with 100 2nd graders, only 10 are in pool, but it's likely that another 40-50 kids are parent referred. Probably around 30 kids will get admitted.
At a low SES school with 100 2nd graders, 10 are in pool and maybe another 10 are parent referred. Probably around 10-15 kids get admitted. My kids attended a Title I school, and the AART personally reached out to encourage parents to refer their kids if the kids were in LII for math and reading, and if the CogAT scores were 120+. I would imagine that high performing kids who were either ESOL or FARMS ended up being teacher referred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good pyramid is more important than getting into an AAP. Just buy in Woodson and let everything fall into places.

The in-pool cut-off is top 10% of combined COGAT and NNAT score of LOCAL SCHOOL. For example if you have 80 kids in second grade of an elementary school, there would be 8 kids in-pool.

Ok, but what if I want both, like many do? But it's not just top 10% right? There's also parent referral kids, which will partially overlap with the in-pool kids. Is 10% the total number selected from the base school?

There are about 20% of the FCPS kids in AAP but the in-pool from a school represents the top 10% of students on the NNAT and CoGAT.

In-pool is probably less important at the higher SES schools than it is in the Title 1 schools. The parents at the higher SES schools are better informed and preparing to refer if their child isn’t in-pool. The parents at Title 1 schools are less likely to be aware of AAP and less likely to parent refer. The pool is meant to capture kids who need to be challenged but are less likely to be considered without the pool or Teacher referrals.

Local scores for each school means that the top kids from each kids will be considered and yes, the kids from a Title 1 school will look very different then the kids at a higher SES school.

This is interesting to think about. If we assume--hypothetically--that at a high SES school 100% of the parents of kids who are in pool also refer their kids, then that essentially would mean all 20% are parent referred, with half also having the highest scores and the other half who knows...parent could do a lot to make the overall package look strong in the absence of top NNAT/CogAT scores.

Contrast this with a hypothetical low SES school where 0% of parents refer their kids, then you could in theory have the top 20% of test takers (assuming no teacher referrals in this hypothetical example). So in reality, what would happen in such a case? Would the other 10% come from teacher referrals or would the cutoff for in-pool be lowered to include more students? I would imagine that when teachers refer, they are probably looking at the test scores too.

That all said, I think it's a fiction that academically strong children at low SES schools are not prepped or do not have involved parents. Yet their parents may be less likely strategize to get their children admitted in the way that high SES parents do.

I can corroborate this as I am a parent of kids in a "low SES" school. While our incomes might not be in the top 10% of DMV households, I am not an URM nor is English my second language. We bought in this neighborhood because it is what we could afford when we were buying, and our mortgage interest rate is keeping us here for the foreseeable future. It's a diverse, walkable neighborhood school with LLIV which we've enjoyed, but my kids go to center because LLIV doesn't offer the same level of education as offered by the center. I am very involved in my children's education, supplement at home when possible, and have parent referred all three kids. (first two are in AAP, third is in process now). TBH, I think it's very unfair that students in my children's school can be "in pool" with lower scores, but that's not why my kids got in as their scores were quite good, GBRS were excellent, etc. I'd vote for a purely objective admissions policy based on test scores, and I don't really care if they're "prepped" or not as those kids (& their parents) help keep the academic standards up in the AAP program. If LLIV were only Level IV qualified kids, I'd consider keeping them at the base school. At present, though, it's more of a cluster approach, and I know that affects the curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good pyramid is more important than getting into an AAP. Just buy in Woodson and let everything fall into places.

The in-pool cut-off is top 10% of combined COGAT and NNAT score of LOCAL SCHOOL. For example if you have 80 kids in second grade of an elementary school, there would be 8 kids in-pool.

Ok, but what if I want both, like many do? But it's not just top 10% right? There's also parent referral kids, which will partially overlap with the in-pool kids. Is 10% the total number selected from the base school?

Of course we all want both, that's why there are preps. All I am saying is that don't buy in less competitive HS just to go to AAP.

The 10% is the in pool threshold. The top 10% of the kids in that elementary school will be in pool, no more, no less. The total AAP kid from a school is way more than that. Because in my son's elementary school there are 88 kids, so in pool is ~ 9. But the center school has approx one class for each feeder elementary school, so the total AAP kid from his school would be in the 20+.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it’s about 20%.

Ok so it could be that 10% in pool overlaps with parent referred kids significantly, so it's definitely more than the top 10% of the kids in that grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good pyramid is more important than getting into an AAP. Just buy in Woodson and let everything fall into places.

The in-pool cut-off is top 10% of combined COGAT and NNAT score of LOCAL SCHOOL. For example if you have 80 kids in second grade of an elementary school, there would be 8 kids in-pool.

Ok, but what if I want both, like many do? But it's not just top 10% right? There's also parent referral kids, which will partially overlap with the in-pool kids. Is 10% the total number selected from the base school?

There are about 20% of the FCPS kids in AAP but the in-pool from a school represents the top 10% of students on the NNAT and CoGAT.

In-pool is probably less important at the higher SES schools than it is in the Title 1 schools. The parents at the higher SES schools are better informed and preparing to refer if their child isn’t in-pool. The parents at Title 1 schools are less likely to be aware of AAP and less likely to parent refer. The pool is meant to capture kids who need to be challenged but are less likely to be considered without the pool or Teacher referrals.

Local scores for each school means that the top kids from each kids will be considered and yes, the kids from a Title 1 school will look very different then the kids at a higher SES school.

This is interesting to think about. If we assume--hypothetically--that at a high SES school 100% of the parents of kids who are in pool also refer their kids, then that essentially would mean all 20% are parent referred, with half also having the highest scores and the other half who knows...parent could do a lot to make the overall package look strong in the absence of top NNAT/CogAT scores.

Contrast this with a hypothetical low SES school where 0% of parents refer their kids, then you could in theory have the top 20% of test takers (assuming no teacher referrals in this hypothetical example). So in reality, what would happen in such a case? Would the other 10% come from teacher referrals or would the cutoff for in-pool be lowered to include more students? I would imagine that when teachers refer, they are probably looking at the test scores too.

That all said, I think it's a fiction that academically strong children at low SES schools are not prepped or do not have involved parents. Yet their parents may be less likely strategize to get their children admitted in the way that high SES parents do.