The in pool email said “middle of April”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know when the local school submits the AAP package to the Central Selection Committee and when parents can request a copy of the package?
[Report Post]

Usually it’s done by late February and the committee makes decisions in March. It might vary by school.

Thank you!

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know when the local school submits the AAP package to the Central Selection Committee and when parents can request a copy of the package?
[Report Post]

Usually it’s done by late February and the committee makes decisions in March. It might vary by school.

Does anybody know when the local school submits the AAP package to the Central Selection Committee and when parents can request a copy of the package?
[Report Post]

Anonymous wrote:They might have only let in 2/3 of ‘pool’ when the ‘pool’ was 132+. My guess is that if you’re in the pool, you’ll get in. Because the pool is smaller, but the program is about the same size. It allows them to account for other factors for the kids under 140, like socioeconomic factors, race, schools, etc. Unless you actually think they are making the program smaller, it’s not a huge deal. The problem are the kids with 132+ who may not realize that they need to Parent Refer. Feels like an odd game of ‘gotcha’ IMO. There’s been no official announcement of a pool email or anything so it’s possible people don’t even know it’s out. When I went through the process with DD a few years ago, I got the scores and then the pool letter in the mail later. I don’t know why they’re obfuscating the process.

PP, yes socioeconomic, race and school are already one of the big factors since they are now going with local norms. In fact they are as important as the cogat and GBRS.

They might have only let in 2/3 of ‘pool’ when the ‘pool’ was 132+. My guess is that if you’re in the pool, you’ll get in. Because the pool is smaller, but the program is about the same size. It allows them to account for other factors for the kids under 140, like socioeconomic factors, race, schools, etc. Unless you actually think they are making the program smaller, it’s not a huge deal. The problem are the kids with 132+ who may not realize that they need to Parent Refer. Feels like an odd game of ‘gotcha’ IMO. There’s been no official announcement of a pool email or anything so it’s possible people don’t even know it’s out. When I went through the process with DD a few years ago, I got the scores and then the pool letter in the mail later. I don’t know why they’re obfuscating the process.

Anonymous wrote:
Why increase the cutoff to 140 if you still plan to reject 1/3 of them? It didn’t even make sense when they rejected 1/3 when the cutoff was 132.
Can anyone please explain.

They don't plan to reject 1/3 of the in-pool kids. In the past, in-pool may mean a 132 NNAT and a 115 CogAT. Or it might mean a kid with a 110 NNAT and CogAT V/Q/N of 105/132/110. Or it could be a kid with high test scores, but a low GBRS, poor comments, and poor work samples.

The dcum speculation in the past is that kids who are only in pool on the NNAT, but with CogAT well below cutoff look like the NNAT score was a fluke. Or that kids who get high test scores, but low GBRS and/or poor work samples inflated their scores through prepping. I doubt that many kids with a CogAT composite >= 132 and a strong GBRS are in the 1/3 getting rejected. That will probably hold true this year, even in the schools with the higher in-pool cutoffs. Kids who make the 140 cutoff on NNAT only, but have a CogAT composite around 120 or the kids who get terrible GBRS are the in-pool kids who are likely to get rejected. With the generally higher cutoffs, it is likely that a much smaller fraction of the in-pool kids will be rejected this year.

Anonymous wrote:
You mean to say LII designation is as important as cogat scores?

No. I mean to say that at my kids' school, the ones designated as LII for both 1st and 2nd grade are likely to get a high GBRS. LII designation means little to the committee, but GBRS is much more important than the test scores.

Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
Marshall 151 140 ? ? ? Yes
Marshall 144 140 ? ? ? Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes
Robinson 140 ? 132 115 132 Yes
Lewis
Mt. Vernon
South Lakes
West Potomac

Just because 1/3 of in-pool kids were rejected in the past doesn't mean it will happen this year. Clearly they're doing things a bit differently now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

It is "amazing" if 1/3 of the >140 kids may get rejected/replaced from the APP program.

Why increase the cutoff to 140 if you still plan to reject 1/3 of them? It didn’t even make sense when they rejected 1/3 when the cutoff was 132.
Can anyone please explain.

No because we don't sit through the day long training the selection committee does. Perhaps ask one of them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than half of the kids in AAP were not in pool. This means none of the subscores were 132 or higher. My schools AART encourages parents to refer any kid marked as LII with a 120+ CogAT composite. Most kids in that profile get accepted.

to replace 1/3 of the kids who are already in pool?

Tracking (which is what advanced math is) works best when done based on what kids already know (their aptitude) not when done based on their ability (what the NNAT and CoGAT purport to measure). So why not let the high achieving LLII kid with a 120+ composite in if they clearly know their stuff?

It is "amazing" if 1/3 of the >140 kids may get rejected/replaced from the APP program.

Why increase the cutoff to 140 if you still plan to reject 1/3 of them? It didn’t even make sense when they rejected 1/3 when the cutoff was 132.
Can anyone please explain.

This makes me think it’s just bad luck if you are amongst the 1/3 rejected ones, even if there was no justification for rejection (which the committee doesn’t provide) Different files are reviewed by different members of committee. It’s bad luck if your file land up with the ones who al ate think that high scores means the child was prepped.

Anonymous wrote:That’s amazing your twins got the same score 140. That’s great!

Thank you

That’s amazing your twins got the same score 140. That’s great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes
Robinson 140 ? 132 115 132 Yes
Lewis
Mt. Vernon
South Lakes
West Potomac

This is a good and very helpful list. Anyone else receive theirs?

Today we received my twin's scores in Mail.
Marshall Pyramid
NNAT Cogat In Pool
144 140 Yes
151 140 Yes