Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. It should be majorly over hauled to be a gifted class for the top 2%.

Anonymous wrote:The CoGat score not having a standardized baseline criterion across schools makes this a 100% DEI initiative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

That is on the parents.

In-Pool was meant to capture the kids whose parents don’t know about AAP and would not have a clue how to refer. It is meant to be the top percentage of kids in the school, hence the 10% cut off for local norms. If parents knew about AAP and thought their kid belonged in AAP then they should have been doing the work for a parental referral. They were lazy, that is about it. They can apply next year, which is what they should have done it this year.

So you’re saying the parent A that knows about AAP and has very intelligent children is “lazy” because the school raised the cutoff and they didn’t “self-refer”? Now because the school raised the cutoff they are now expected to do the school’s job next year?

But the school raised the cutoff only to help parent B that’s stupid and clueless about AAP and also happens to have less intelligent children than parent A. So parent B should just get an automatic push through of their not so smart children? Why? Are the clueless parents with less intelligent children considered lazy too?

Also what happens if parent A is also stupid and clueless? Can they get a stupid and clueless pass for their highly intelligent kid too? How’s that work if they’re too stupid and clueless to even know what a pass is?

The clueless parents of intelligent kids should be saved by their kid being in-pool. If their kid is not in the top 10% of their school AND the parents are not paying attention to the emails, flyers sent home, and AART telling people to apply because of how the pool works then that is on them.

The kids who are at the higher test score schools tend to have parents who are hyper focused on school and applying any way. If the parent doesn’t and realizes it late then they can apply next year. Missing a year of AAP is not going to hurt a kid. News flash, missing all of AAP is not going to hurt a kid.

In fact, missing a year of school is not going to hurt a kid. Why even have public school at all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.

Oh please. The local norms should not have excluded kids with scores above 132, which they are currently doing. The program was designed to select students without requiring parents intervention. So all students with scores above 132 should be included, regardless of "local norms". Just because some parents prep their kids doesn't mean that all students are prepped - so students with scores above 132 should be in-pool, regardless of their base school.

I agree with this, it should be all students above 132 (or whatever the desired national norm is) and if that doesn't identify at least 10%, use local school norm for the top 10% of the school. Really no reason to be either or.

But I disagree with the assertion of the thread that local norms are now illegal.

If local norms are preventing children from one school to be overlooked or have to go through additional steps like a parent referral then it’s absolutely DEI and the current administration has made it clear that DEI programs may lose federal funding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

That is on the parents.

In-Pool was meant to capture the kids whose parents don’t know about AAP and would not have a clue how to refer. It is meant to be the top percentage of kids in the school, hence the 10% cut off for local norms. If parents knew about AAP and thought their kid belonged in AAP then they should have been doing the work for a parental referral. They were lazy, that is about it. They can apply next year, which is what they should have done it this year.

So you’re saying the parent A that knows about AAP and has very intelligent children is “lazy” because the school raised the cutoff and they didn’t “self-refer”? Now because the school raised the cutoff they are now expected to do the school’s job next year?

But the school raised the cutoff only to help parent B that’s stupid and clueless about AAP and also happens to have less intelligent children than parent A. So parent B should just get an automatic push through of their not so smart children? Why? Are the clueless parents with less intelligent children considered lazy too?

Also what happens if parent A is also stupid and clueless? Can they get a stupid and clueless pass for their highly intelligent kid too? How’s that work if they’re too stupid and clueless to even know what a pass is?

The clueless parents of intelligent kids should be saved by their kid being in-pool. If their kid is not in the top 10% of their school AND the parents are not paying attention to the emails, flyers sent home, and AART telling people to apply because of how the pool works then that is on them.

The kids who are at the higher test score schools tend to have parents who are hyper focused on school and applying any way. If the parent doesn’t and realizes it late then they can apply next year. Missing a year of AAP is not going to hurt a kid. News flash, missing all of AAP is not going to hurt a kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? A kid with a super high score who isn't in pool likely has a parent who refers. The pool is for kids whose parents have no idea what AAP is. This is a big nothing burger.

Sounds like DEI standards.

State law requires it and the pool was around long before DEI was a thing. It was always there to catch kids whose parents don’t know about the opportunity because the GT/AAP type programs should not be something available only to people in the know.

Sounds like you just want to hoard opportunity.

The truth is that most of the kids who are looked at for AAP are parent referred. The Pool is a safe guard that the state requires. Every AART tells parents that they should parent refer regardless of in-pool status because it is can help a child’s application. If you are choosing to ignore what the AART says and what every person on this board says, a board that you are participating in, that is on you.

FCPS sends out regular emails that reminds parents that AAP meetings are coming up and that applications are coming due. You miss that, then it is on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

That is on the parents.

In-Pool was meant to capture the kids whose parents don’t know about AAP and would not have a clue how to refer. It is meant to be the top percentage of kids in the school, hence the 10% cut off for local norms. If parents knew about AAP and thought their kid belonged in AAP then they should have been doing the work for a parental referral. They were lazy, that is about it. They can apply next year, which is what they should have done it this year.

So you’re saying the parent A that knows about AAP and has very intelligent children is “lazy” because the school raised the cutoff and they didn’t “self-refer”? Now because the school raised the cutoff they are now expected to do the school’s job next year?

But the school raised the cutoff only to help parent B that’s stupid and clueless about AAP and also happens to have less intelligent children than parent A. So parent B should just get an automatic push through of their not so smart children? Why? Are the clueless parents with less intelligent children considered lazy too?

Also what happens if parent A is also stupid and clueless? Can they get a stupid and clueless pass for their highly intelligent kid too? How’s that work if they’re too stupid and clueless to even know what a pass is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? A kid with a super high score who isn't in pool likely has a parent who refers. The pool is for kids whose parents have no idea what AAP is. This is a big nothing burger.

Sounds like DEI standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because these people didn’t refer as they were confident their kids would be in pool now they are mad and have to wait until next year

That is on the parents.

In-Pool was meant to capture the kids whose parents don’t know about AAP and would not have a clue how to refer. It is meant to be the top percentage of kids in the school, hence the 10% cut off for local norms. If parents knew about AAP and thought their kid belonged in AAP then they should have been doing the work for a parental referral. They were lazy, that is about it. They can apply next year, which is what they should have done it this year.

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? A kid with a super high score who isn't in pool likely has a parent who refers. The pool is for kids whose parents have no idea what AAP is. This is a big nothing burger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.

Oh please. The local norms should not have excluded kids with scores above 132, which they are currently doing. The program was designed to select students without requiring parents intervention. So all students with scores above 132 should be included, regardless of "local norms". Just because some parents prep their kids doesn't mean that all students are prepped - so students with scores above 132 should be in-pool, regardless of their base school.

I agree with this, it should be all students above 132 (or whatever the desired national norm is) and if that doesn't identify at least 10%, use local school norm for the top 10% of the school. Really no reason to be either or.

But I disagree with the assertion of the thread that local norms are now illegal.

Anonymous wrote:The in-pool scores changed regularly based on testing over time, there was never a set score. Local Norms are based on the top 10% of kids at a particular school, there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It is simply saying that advanced at each school looks different.

And no student was denied services by local norms because parents can refer. They can also refer in 3rd-7th grade.