ignorant != stupid. Ignorant means the person may be unaware of the facts. A genius is still ignorant of many things. It's only an insult if you make it one.

LOL how is this equity when title I school kids can get in with lower scores and higher SES schools require a higher Cogat score? Equity means equitable across the board right, not giving an unfair advantage to title I school students.

I have no idea what’s going on and I wonder if there are trolls on this forum but for what it’s worth, my DC is in pool and has a NNAT of 139. We are in a high SES center school (probably the highest in Fairfax county). I don’t know what the Cogat score is yet. I will send in a referral and a questionnaire. I have no work samples but I know her teacher is amazing and will submit good ones.

Anonymous wrote:Wow.
This is going to cause test prep frenzy at those kinds of schools.

This is equity! They already assume kids in high performing schools get scores as they are prepped. Kids don’t get the credit they deserve and are always considered prepped. Prepping can’t increase scores from 120 to 145.

Anonymous wrote:Or this forum is anonymous and many people are uninformed/ignorant. Maybe their THIRD grader got a 138 but they aren't "in-pool" since there is no pool for third grade, so they come on here telling everyone the AART said 138 is not in-pool at their school.

I was the 138 poster. My child is in 2nd grade. Despite her 138 and 99th percentile, she did not get in pool. My AART said the pool was smaller this year. My guess is that our school must have been high performing and 140 or higher was this the cut off, but she obviously is not going to tell me specifics nor am I going to ask or make a big deal out of it since it’s done. This obviously seems ridiculous that a 99th percentile score didn’t get in, but that’s apparently just how it shook out this year.

I know this board is anonymous, but calling people “ignorant” is just rude. Showing a little kindness, especially given the craziness of this whole process, would be greatly appreciated.

Anonymous wrote:We got our son's report just now. He scored 137 and NOT IN POOL. He's a 2nd grader and we are in Chantilly pyramid. Yes, they are definitely doing the local norm thing.

Well at least that makes me feel better that we didn't get the in-pool email (don't have DC's score yet).

Wow.
This is going to cause test prep frenzy at those kinds of schools.

We got our son's report just now. He scored 137 and NOT IN POOL. He's a 2nd grader and we are in Chantilly pyramid. Yes, they are definitely doing the local norm thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fairly sure applicants from Title I schools have been more likely to be admitted with lower scores even in prior years when they weren't in-pool. Not attaching any value judgment here, just an observation.

Looking at the report from May 2020, that seems likely.

Yup, which is why I am guessing that the higher in-pool bars are going to be at higher SES schools and the lower bar lower SES schools.

Of course they are. We already know that higher SES schools have higher test scores. The 95th percentile of a range of scores from 99-150 will always be higher than a range from 85-130 (for example).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fairly sure applicants from Title I schools have been more likely to be admitted with lower scores even in prior years when they weren't in-pool. Not attaching any value judgment here, just an observation.

Looking at the report from May 2020, that seems likely.

Yup, which is why I am guessing that the higher in-pool bars are going to be at higher SES schools and the lower bar lower SES schools.

They basically already said that in the attachment to Brabrand's memo. The pilot program that was only at schools with level IV (and also allowed national norms if they were lower than local) drastically increased the pool from title 1 schools - numbers like from 1 in 2019 to 11 in 2020.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fairly sure applicants from Title I schools have been more likely to be admitted with lower scores even in prior years when they weren't in-pool. Not attaching any value judgment here, just an observation.

Looking at the report from May 2020, that seems likely.

Yup, which is why I am guessing that the higher in-pool bars are going to be at higher SES schools and the lower bar lower SES schools.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fairly sure applicants from Title I schools have been more likely to be admitted with lower scores even in prior years when they weren't in-pool. Not attaching any value judgment here, just an observation.

Looking at the report from May 2020, that seems likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are transitioning to all Local Level IV, and everything seems to be pointing that way, then I can see local levels being set to try and limit the number of LLIV classrooms to a set number of classes, probably between 1-2 dependent on the size of the school. So if you are at a high SES school and limiting the AAP LLIV to 2 classrooms, you end up with a CogAT cut off in the 140's while a similar size Title I school will probably end up with a 120. You would end up with the same number of kids in each of the LLIV but the bar for admission is normed based on the schools scores.

But that is a hypothetical situation at the moment.

Out of pure curiosity, how does this work at smaller elementary schools (for example, a LLIV school with two 2nd grade classrooms)? If you're setting a local standard to fill a LLIV room for 3rd grade, it would seem you'd need a lower CogAT (of whatever test) cutoff to pull in enough kids givent the small pool to choose from, unless everyone at the school is above-average. But perhaps I'm missing something . . . we have no horse in this race, so haven't studied closely.

I am at a smaller school, 4 classes per grade. Right now it is 1 LLIV and 3 other classes. I can see larger schools having enough kids to have 1 LLIV classes and the rest gen ed.

Me again. I guess I am seeing LLIV as having enough space to bring in the Level III kids for LA and the Advanced Math kids for math, so that it would eliminate the need for those pull outs. You don't need 25 kids in LLIV for that to work. If you are pulling 10 kids into the class for Math and 10 for LA from the Gen Ed classes, you could have 15 kids is LLIV. The AART at our school says that about 10 kids a year are selected into LLIV with the standard 132 cut off so you really wouldn't need to do much to get 15 kids in a LLIV class. But we are a higher then average SES school, not many FARMs kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are transitioning to all Local Level IV, and everything seems to be pointing that way, then I can see local levels being set to try and limit the number of LLIV classrooms to a set number of classes, probably between 1-2 dependent on the size of the school. So if you are at a high SES school and limiting the AAP LLIV to 2 classrooms, you end up with a CogAT cut off in the 140's while a similar size Title I school will probably end up with a 120. You would end up with the same number of kids in each of the LLIV but the bar for admission is normed based on the schools scores.

But that is a hypothetical situation at the moment.

Out of pure curiosity, how does this work at smaller elementary schools (for example, a LLIV school with two 2nd grade classrooms)? If you're setting a local standard to fill a LLIV room for 3rd grade, it would seem you'd need a lower CogAT (of whatever test) cutoff to pull in enough kids givent the small pool to choose from, unless everyone at the school is above-average. But perhaps I'm missing something . . . we have no horse in this race, so haven't studied closely.

I am at a smaller school, 4 classes per grade. Right now it is 1 LLIV and 3 other classes. I can see larger schools having enough kids to have 1 LLIV classes and the rest gen ed.

well - that seems like a lawsuit in the making...

I'm fairly sure applicants from Title I schools have been more likely to be admitted with lower scores even in prior years when they weren't in-pool. Not attaching any value judgment here, just an observation.