Got it re benchmark, agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your scores are good but not spectacular. The issue is it’s difficult for a kid coming in from outside the district - whether that’s a different public school district or private school - to get into AAP. The committee has a certain way that they want the recommendations and teacher forms filled out, that the 2nd grade FCPS teachers (who are the ones doing all this since full time AAP starts in 3rd) understand and others don’t. It’s not fair, especially with the transient nature of this area with lots of kids moving in and out, but that’s the business.

Additionally, Archer is an AAP center, so if that happens to be your neighborhood school, you won’t be able to be principal placed into AAP with high grades, unfortunately. So that’s another complicating factor.

Now for the somewhat good news, the difference between AAP and elementary gen ed in the core subject of ELA has blurred with the intro of the new ELA curriculum, Benchmark. There are lots of issues with Benchmark in the upper grades 3+, not going to get into that here. But AAP and Gen Ed are both using Benchmark. That leaves math as the main differentiator. I’m not sure how AAP centers do it or Louise Archer in particular. But at my kids’ LLIV school, they have kids switching class for math starting in 3rd when they start advanced math. Some schools start advanced math in 5th. So if the math grades and scores are good, you could try to push for inclusion in the advanced math portion and get the benefit of the main differentiator in the curriculum. But I’m not sure how much of an option this is at AAP centers because the rules are different vs. local AAP schools.

Np, curious to hear your thoughts on issues with benchmark in 3+. I know the lack of books/that it’s all excerpts (unless a teacher chooses to add a book) is one. Curious to hear others.

Yes, the lack of longer texts for kids who already know how to read (vs the younger kids who are still learning how to read) is a huge issue. It’s all the silly “excerpts” which is what they see on the SOL’s (and other state tests). It seems very shallow and teaching to the test. And it takes up A LOT of time - so they don’t even have time for novels and longer works. The excerpts are boring, not engaging to the kids, and the materials aren’t always the highest quality.

I also have a K student and I like the focus on phonics for the young students. I wish they could have done Benchmark for K-2 when the kids are still learning, and then something else that’s more challenging and engaging for the upper grades.

Anonymous wrote:Your scores are good but not spectacular. The issue is it’s difficult for a kid coming in from outside the district - whether that’s a different public school district or private school - to get into AAP. The committee has a certain way that they want the recommendations and teacher forms filled out, that the 2nd grade FCPS teachers (who are the ones doing all this since full time AAP starts in 3rd) understand and others don’t. It’s not fair, especially with the transient nature of this area with lots of kids moving in and out, but that’s the business.

Additionally, Archer is an AAP center, so if that happens to be your neighborhood school, you won’t be able to be principal placed into AAP with high grades, unfortunately. So that’s another complicating factor.

Now for the somewhat good news, the difference between AAP and elementary gen ed in the core subject of ELA has blurred with the intro of the new ELA curriculum, Benchmark. There are lots of issues with Benchmark in the upper grades 3+, not going to get into that here. But AAP and Gen Ed are both using Benchmark. That leaves math as the main differentiator. I’m not sure how AAP centers do it or Louise Archer in particular. But at my kids’ LLIV school, they have kids switching class for math starting in 3rd when they start advanced math. Some schools start advanced math in 5th. So if the math grades and scores are good, you could try to push for inclusion in the advanced math portion and get the benefit of the main differentiator in the curriculum. But I’m not sure how much of an option this is at AAP centers because the rules are different vs. local AAP schools.

Np, curious to hear your thoughts on issues with benchmark in 3+. I know the lack of books/that it’s all excerpts (unless a teacher chooses to add a book) is one. Curious to hear others.

Op, what did you submit for work samples?

Anonymous wrote:The mean is not the most trust worthy of descriptive statistics, it is easily influenced by outliers. The mode or median would give us a far better idea of what scores looked like. We know 3/4 of the kids in-pool are accepted into AAP and all of those kids, in the report that you have, scored 132 or higher on the exams given.

The stats you are using are older, I think close to 10 years old now. The in-pool test score today from a good number of schools is in the high 130’s to the mid 140’s. The parent referal scores from those schools are going to be in the 130s. That is true for at least three pyramids, McLean, Langley, and Oakton. I would not be surprised if the scores from Madison and Chantilly are in the high 130s to low 140s.

The 118 and 120s we hear about are outliers and outliers drive down the mean. I would guess the kids not in-pool today were more likely to be in the 125-135 range on their test scores, although we have pretty much zero data from the new exam to speculate about.

That said, a kid coming from a private school is likely to get into AAP with a WISC in the 129 range. That is not a score that is going to get an FCPS student during the first round or on appeal. A 129 is a great score but it is not a score that gets you into AAP in FCPS without some explanation or extenuating circumstances.

The screener tests are easily prepped. A lot of kids have very inflated scores due to prep, but they're not true 99th percentile kids. Fairfax is not that special and does not have 10x the number of statistically expected gifted kids. Most of the 132+ on CogAT/NGAT kids would have IQs in the 120s if they were tested with the WISC.

Or, to put things a different way, FCPS has around 2000 kids per grade level in AAP. They also have around 800 kids earn National merit commended and NMSF combined. This is after poaching the top kids from Loudoun, Arlington, etc. So, maybe 700 of those kids are true FCPS kids. Probably 100 of those were deemed "not good enough" for AAP (like my DD, who was a NMSF but not AAP worthy). So, let's assume that around 600 former AAP kids earn a national merit award. That's set at the national 97th percentile. This means that around 70% of the former AAP kids are not even in the national top 3%, even with all of the AAP programming and all of the PSAT prep.

A 129 WISC would put OP's kid above the median in AAP if they IQ tested all of the kids. But I agree that it's not a score that gets one into AAP, since they aren't especially focused on test scores.

Your scores are good but not spectacular. The issue is it’s difficult for a kid coming in from outside the district - whether that’s a different public school district or private school - to get into AAP. The committee has a certain way that they want the recommendations and teacher forms filled out, that the 2nd grade FCPS teachers (who are the ones doing all this since full time AAP starts in 3rd) understand and others don’t. It’s not fair, especially with the transient nature of this area with lots of kids moving in and out, but that’s the business.

Additionally, Archer is an AAP center, so if that happens to be your neighborhood school, you won’t be able to be principal placed into AAP with high grades, unfortunately. So that’s another complicating factor.

Now for the somewhat good news, the difference between AAP and elementary gen ed in the core subject of ELA has blurred with the intro of the new ELA curriculum, Benchmark. There are lots of issues with Benchmark in the upper grades 3+, not going to get into that here. But AAP and Gen Ed are both using Benchmark. That leaves math as the main differentiator. I’m not sure how AAP centers do it or Louise Archer in particular. But at my kids’ LLIV school, they have kids switching class for math starting in 3rd when they start advanced math. Some schools start advanced math in 5th. So if the math grades and scores are good, you could try to push for inclusion in the advanced math portion and get the benefit of the main differentiator in the curriculum. But I’m not sure how much of an option this is at AAP centers because the rules are different vs. local AAP schools.

The mean is not the most trust worthy of descriptive statistics, it is easily influenced by outliers. The mode or median would give us a far better idea of what scores looked like. We know 3/4 of the kids in-pool are accepted into AAP and all of those kids, in the report that you have, scored 132 or higher on the exams given.

The stats you are using are older, I think close to 10 years old now. The in-pool test score today from a good number of schools is in the high 130’s to the mid 140’s. The parent referal scores from those schools are going to be in the 130s. That is true for at least three pyramids, McLean, Langley, and Oakton. I would not be surprised if the scores from Madison and Chantilly are in the high 130s to low 140s.

The 118 and 120s we hear about are outliers and outliers drive down the mean. I would guess the kids not in-pool today were more likely to be in the 125-135 range on their test scores, although we have pretty much zero data from the new exam to speculate about.

That said, a kid coming from a private school is likely to get into AAP with a WISC in the 129 range. That is not a score that is going to get an FCPS student during the first round or on appeal. A 129 is a great score but it is not a score that gets you into AAP in FCPS without some explanation or extenuating circumstances.

How about attend Louise archer for general ed?

Do you have time to appeal or is that done ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much is his WISC score?

His WISC score is 129 last year and 124 the year before.

When my kids were in 2nd grade, the cutoff was 132.

Thanks! That's good to know. Sounds like they are looking for the 99% percent on WISC. I thought the 132 was for the Cogat test.

That's not true, though. They're not looking for any particular test score, and there is no WISC score that will stand on its own for admissions. They're holistically looking at the child to determine placement. For the WISC, they are looking at the subscores. They're also looking at any achievement scores. And they're looking the work samples as well as the teacher's impressions and the parent questionnaire.

Did you submit any achievement tests, like iready or MAP scores? Did you submit work samples? Plenty of 97th percentile kids and lower are admitted into AAP, but they have iready/MAP scores that corroborate the ability/IQ scores, they have strong work samples, and they have the support of their teachers. You're applying to a more affluent school, so realistically, there will be a decent number of 90th percentile and higher kids in the gen ed classroom. Your kid is likely indistinguishable from the bottom half of the kids in the AAP classroom and the top 20% of the kids in the gen ed classroom at your zoned school. The committee members are going to be irritated that you seem to think your kid is too good for gen ed when the kid is very borderline for their zoned school.

It is true and not true at the same time. The vast majority of kids in AAP will have test scores in the 99th percentile. There are cases where kids have lower scores but those are a smaller percentage of kids and even those tend to be in the 95th percentile or higher. So yes, there are kids who score in the high 120’s but they are rare or they are kids who were in Young Scholars or at Title 1 schools. The 97th percentile kids are coming from lower SES schools.

As for subscores, you are not likely to have a subscore that is in the 99th percentile and end up with a total score of 129, that would mean a different subscore is at or sub 129.

There is a known bias against private school kids moving into AAP. FCPS schools are not good enough for you unless you are in the AAP program? That is not appreciated. The committee doesn’t trust what teachers at private schools are saying in their letters or reports for a variety of reasons.

Citation for the bolded? You're completely, utterly wrong, and unlike you, I at least have the receipts. I'll use the data for white kids, since they aren't getting any bump for being URM, they're generally not low SES, and they're less likely to have scores inflated by prep.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

Page 66 has the charts for 2nd graders admitted to AAP in the studied year. The mean NNAT score for white kids *admitted* to AAP was 118 (national 88th-ish percentile). The mean score on CogAT verbal for white kids admitted to AAP was 122 (national 91st or 92nd percentile or thereabouts). The mean CogAT Q is a bit higher at 127, but that's still only around the 96th percentile. And the mean NV is 124. These aren't all 99th percentile kids or even close.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't like private school people who give the impression their kid is too special for public gen ed. It was offputting to them that you keep applying and then sending your kid back to private.

Agree. And he's certainly not getting in with 120s on the IQ test. Scores that low are only good for underrepresented minorities, ESL, etc.

The overwhelming majority of kids in AAP have IQs in the 120s. Around 16-20% of the 3rd-6th grade FCPS kids are admitted into AAP. A 120 IQ is the 90th percentile. A 130 is the 97.5th percentile. Fairfax County is not that special and is not overflowing with gifted kids. The only reason that the CogAT and now NGAT scores are so high is that people prep for these tests, while the tests were normed using kids who didn't prep.

The issue isn't that the WISC is "too low". Packets are viewed holistically. The issue is probably that there isn't anything else in the packet to suggest that the kid needs advanced academics. They're going to ignore the teacher's rating, since the kid is coming from private. OP didn't say that any achievement scores were included, so there's no way to know whether the kid is an advanced reader or advanced in math. We don't know if any work samples were included, and if so, whether they were any good. On top of that, they're going to view OP's kid negatively, since OP likely gave the impression that they viewed their kid as too good for regular FCPS classes.

If a 129 WISC is the only thing of any substance in the packet, then yeah. A 129 is too low. But focusing on the WISC in appeals rather than on the rest of a weak packet is a bad idea. OP's kid probably could get admitted on appeals if OP can provide evidence that the kid is at least one year ahead in both math and language arts, and the kid is capable of producing high quality work. That plus a letter clearly articulating why the kid's needs cannot be met in a regular classroom could be persuasive. FWIW, I don't think even a 99.9th percentile WISC is "high enough" if the packet is otherwise weak.