Anonymous wrote:Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted. Will they be forced to take more in AAP classes this year or will most of the pool kids get weeded out by GRBS? Also, seems like there shouldn't be much room for parent referred kids if the pool is so large.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:thanks - useful site - but dont see the Feb 7th Meeting minutes?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.
http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml
They haven't updated since December. The PP must be pretty hardcore about getting her kid in to be attending the committee meetings.
Anonymous wrote:The PP was just trying to help. No need to bring out the knives.
"The PP must be pretty hardcore about getting her kid in to be attending the committee meetings. "
Anonymous wrote:thanks - useful site - but dont see the Feb 7th Meeting minutes?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.
http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.
http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml
Anonymous wrote:No - these are highly standardized test - scores usually will not change year over year.
Its more likely that parents are reporting this information on this forum. And of course, the one's who scored high tend to be more vocal.
Difference between 130 and 132 is negligible. As I recall both are in the highest bucket.
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.
Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The benchmark scores vary each year to result in about 2,000 students in the pool. When the NNAT2 (vs. the NNAT) was first given, the number of kids in the pool dropped when they kept the benchmark at 132 so they lowered it to 130. With the Cogat Form 7 this year, if they had left the benchmark at 130, they would have over 5,000 kids in the pool. (That's 5,000 screening files to prepare and review.) So they adjusted the benchmark score to 132 to include a 132 on any CogAT subtest. They were still over 3,000 kids in the pool. So they contacted the author of the test, who suggested they use the CogAT composite of 132. That results in a little over 2,500 students in the pool.
They can cook the numbers however they want. Everyone I know whose child got a 132 on a subtest did a referral--so the screening files still need to be prepared.
Anonymous wrote:The benchmark scores vary each year to result in about 2,000 students in the pool. When the NNAT2 (vs. the NNAT) was first given, the number of kids in the pool dropped when they kept the benchmark at 132 so they lowered it to 130. With the Cogat Form 7 this year, if they had left the benchmark at 130, they would have over 5,000 kids in the pool. (That's 5,000 screening files to prepare and review.) So they adjusted the benchmark score to 132 to include a 132 on any CogAT subtest. They were still over 3,000 kids in the pool. So they contacted the author of the test, who suggested they use the CogAT composite of 132. That results in a little over 2,500 students in the pool.