Anonymous
Post 12/17/2024 09:56     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
In addition to wanting to avoid fielding questions from parents, they may want to avoid having parents use the score in their referrals (which yes, are now past due anyway). At least once a day on this platform, a poster is guiding another to articulate why their student can’t get what they need in genEd to justify why they need AAP. This just provides one more data point to game the system. (I’m not saying that’s always a disingenuous argument, but I think we can all agree that AAP admissions has become a little bit about how well parents can construct a packet or make a compelling argument vs. purely the academic potential of a student.)
Let the scores speak for themselves and then use the referral packet to independently provide supplemental info.
Anonymous
Post 12/17/2024 09:49     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Truly ridiculous considering its information that they probably have sitting somewhere
Anonymous
Post 12/17/2024 08:43     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Guess we are really getting this the last day of school before break.
Anonymous
Post 12/17/2024 08:26     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.


I thought it was going to be emailed?


In pool notification is emailed. CogAT scores with breakdown is mailed.


But CogAT scores should appear on ParentVUE before received in mail, no?


This typically happens. Sometimes the score breakdown appears in documents though. You have to check both the test tab and the documents tab. Just depends on how your school puts it in.
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 20:53     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
I got the notification and got the mail today. It was to confirm when my kid will be dismissed (1pm vs 4pm for his school) for the upcoming 3-hour early release Mondays…
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 20:31     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.


I thought it was going to be emailed?


Someone said they got notification about an fcps letter so speculated maybe it was the letter. Don’t know if that person came back for an update.
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 19:58     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.


I thought it was going to be emailed?


In pool notification is emailed. CogAT scores with breakdown is mailed.


But CogAT scores should appear on ParentVUE before received in mail, no?
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 19:38     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.


I thought it was going to be emailed?


In pool notification is emailed. CogAT scores with breakdown is mailed.
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 18:28     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.


I thought it was going to be emailed?
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 17:59     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.



I just got mail from FCPS for my 2nd grader (but not my other child). It was a reminder the calendar for the rest of the school year. Womp womp.
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 17:02     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Nothing here as well. 20151
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 16:08     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
I got nothing
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 15:49     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:I subscribed to USPS informed delivery, and one of the scanned images for today is a letter from my kid’s school. This might be the in-pool letter or Cogat score? My kid is in 2nd grade.


Just picked up our mail. Nothing.
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 11:47     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They said that in pool is 10% of the school using either NNAT or Cogat. If that’s true I think my kid would be in pool because of 160 NNAT but I haven’t received anything.


Who is "they?" In prior years it was reported on this board as an average of NNAT and CogAT, but no one has ever been able to say they were told authoritatively what the format was.


There are several other threads on this board where posters suggested that in pool is “either or”, not “and”. So yeah not like an official source or anything. Regardless, no one had posted anything about receiving in pool letter here so it’s safe to assume no one has received anything yet


I believe the top 10% was for equity so that the lower SES kids could qualify but I don’t think less kids on the top end should be hurt by this. Maybe make the cutoff higher like 135 AND also add top 10% from schools who don’t have enough kids who make the cutoff.

Is this local top 10% calculation what is delaying things?


From what I’ve seen on here, the top 10% based on some calculation of NNAT and CoGAT scores are automatically referred, but the program ends up being about 20% of all students. Knowing that all in-pool referrals don’t end up getting in, that means over half of these classes are just based on parent referrals (maybe also a couple school referrals, but my understanding is that those are few and far between). Maybe I’m alone in this, but why only automatically refer 10%? If they referred say the top 40%, then they could whittle it down from there to 20%. Parents could still refer if they wanted, if they weren’t in the top 40% or wanted to supplement, and that way you’re not missing a kid that just missed the 10% cutoff whose parents didn’t refer for whatever reason (lack of time/resources/knowledge of the system, language barriers, personal hardships, etc). Why refer only half of what the program can accept, relying on parent referrals for the remainder? Feels like gatekeeping to me. Is the concern with this the resources to put together that many packets? From what I’ve also seen on here, there are a large number of parent referrals anyways. But maybe I’m missing something.


The state requires parent referrals, so they can't get rid of them. Parent referrals make up I want to say 85% (but I am not looking at the 2020 report here so it might be a little lower) of the workload.

Remember for every kid screened the school has to put forward a fairly substantial packet - HOPE, work samples, report cards, test scores - so every additional kid is more work and more time your 2nd grader's teacher is in a meeting in February.


I didn’t say to get rid of parent referrals. I said expand the automatic referrals to encompass more children who might be best suited for the program, rather than relying pretty heavily on parent referrals (being that at least half the kids in the current program were only considered at all due to parent referrals, ie. not in-pool).

I get the resource argument with the packets, that’s why I mentioned it. I would want to know on average how many packets schools are having to make under the current system. I’ve read on here that something like 50% of second graders end up being referred for consideration, between in-pool and parent referrals. If that’s the case, I doubt expanding the percentage of automatic referrals is going to increase the workload substantially in creating packets. If you expand automatic referrals, you’re going to capture a lot of the kids who are already having parent referrals submitted. My point is that you may just get a few additional kids who then wouldn’t be missed because they were in the top 11% but their parent didn’t refer. Maybe the cutoff should be less than 40%, I’d maybe base it off of current referral numbers so as to not increase the packet preparing workload too substantially. But to refer only 10% and rely entirely on parent referrals for the other half(+) of children that get in seems illogical to me.


This was obviously done to help higher FARMs high URM schools. It hurts the kids at our low FARMs school where half the school may have qualified under old system.

Our middle school (cooper) also had far fewer kids go to TJ.
Anonymous
Post 12/16/2024 11:34     Subject: Did anyone receive an in pool letter?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They said that in pool is 10% of the school using either NNAT or Cogat. If that’s true I think my kid would be in pool because of 160 NNAT but I haven’t received anything.


Who is "they?" In prior years it was reported on this board as an average of NNAT and CogAT, but no one has ever been able to say they were told authoritatively what the format was.


There are several other threads on this board where posters suggested that in pool is “either or”, not “and”. So yeah not like an official source or anything. Regardless, no one had posted anything about receiving in pool letter here so it’s safe to assume no one has received anything yet


I believe the top 10% was for equity so that the lower SES kids could qualify but I don’t think less kids on the top end should be hurt by this. Maybe make the cutoff higher like 135 AND also add top 10% from schools who don’t have enough kids who make the cutoff.

Is this local top 10% calculation what is delaying things?


From what I’ve seen on here, the top 10% based on some calculation of NNAT and CoGAT scores are automatically referred, but the program ends up being about 20% of all students. Knowing that all in-pool referrals don’t end up getting in, that means over half of these classes are just based on parent referrals (maybe also a couple school referrals, but my understanding is that those are few and far between). Maybe I’m alone in this, but why only automatically refer 10%? If they referred say the top 40%, then they could whittle it down from there to 20%. Parents could still refer if they wanted, if they weren’t in the top 40% or wanted to supplement, and that way you’re not missing a kid that just missed the 10% cutoff whose parents didn’t refer for whatever reason (lack of time/resources/knowledge of the system, language barriers, personal hardships, etc). Why refer only half of what the program can accept, relying on parent referrals for the remainder? Feels like gatekeeping to me. Is the concern with this the resources to put together that many packets? From what I’ve also seen on here, there are a large number of parent referrals anyways. But maybe I’m missing something.


The state requires parent referrals, so they can't get rid of them. Parent referrals make up I want to say 85% (but I am not looking at the 2020 report here so it might be a little lower) of the workload.

Remember for every kid screened the school has to put forward a fairly substantial packet - HOPE, work samples, report cards, test scores - so every additional kid is more work and more time your 2nd grader's teacher is in a meeting in February.


I didn’t say to get rid of parent referrals. I said expand the automatic referrals to encompass more children who might be best suited for the program, rather than relying pretty heavily on parent referrals (being that at least half the kids in the current program were only considered at all due to parent referrals, ie. not in-pool).

I get the resource argument with the packets, that’s why I mentioned it. I would want to know on average how many packets schools are having to make under the current system. I’ve read on here that something like 50% of second graders end up being referred for consideration, between in-pool and parent referrals. If that’s the case, I doubt expanding the percentage of automatic referrals is going to increase the workload substantially in creating packets. If you expand automatic referrals, you’re going to capture a lot of the kids who are already having parent referrals submitted. My point is that you may just get a few additional kids who then wouldn’t be missed because they were in the top 11% but their parent didn’t refer. Maybe the cutoff should be less than 40%, I’d maybe base it off of current referral numbers so as to not increase the packet preparing workload too substantially. But to refer only 10% and rely entirely on parent referrals for the other half(+) of children that get in seems illogical to me.