Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

If you think that there are a high percentage of high SES kids with CoGATs below the 99th percentile then I have a bridge I would love to sell you. I am sure that there are a small percentage of kids at high SES centers and ES that fall into the 98th percentile and are in AAP but not that many. Your below 98th percentile CoGAT scores are coming from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools. All you have to do is look at the in-pool scores reported here for LIV applications to see what the score disparities are.

DP. In pool scores are only the top 10% of kids at each school, but 20% of kids are admitted to AAP. That means a large amount of kids have scores BELOW the in pool cutoff.

20% by 6th grade. It is not 20% in 3rd grade but grows as kids apply in later grades and move into the region. And the in-pool scores at most of the lower SES scores are in the 120's. The students at higher SES schools that are not in-pool and accepted are probably in the 132 range. The lower scores from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools are what drops the average into the mid 120's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

If you think that there are a high percentage of high SES kids with CoGATs below the 99th percentile then I have a bridge I would love to sell you. I am sure that there are a small percentage of kids at high SES centers and ES that fall into the 98th percentile and are in AAP but not that many. Your below 98th percentile CoGAT scores are coming from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools. All you have to do is look at the in-pool scores reported here for LIV applications to see what the score disparities are.

DP. In pool scores are only the top 10% of kids at each school, but 20% of kids are admitted to AAP. That means a large amount of kids have scores BELOW the in pool cutoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

The kids were in LII in first grade but not in second grade, there is no HOPE score used to make that determination. More likely the kids had lower iReady Scores and their performance in class was good but nothing that stood out so they were not seen as needing LII services in second grade. That pretty much meant that the Teachers and the AART were not likely to give a heavy endorsement for LIV.

The NNAT is pretty much ignored by the Committee, it is mainly used to get some additional kids into the pool so they can be looked at. The CoGAT holds more weight and that dropped from the NNAT, which is not seen as favorable. The iReady scores do not show kids who are advanced. Nothing about the scores that she posted screams kids who need LIV. Heck, I am not sold that they need LIII.

We don't know what school the kids are at, but I am guessing that it is a middle class or upper middle class school because the posted numbers would be more strongly considered at a Title 1 or near Title 1 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

If you think that there are a high percentage of high SES kids with CoGATs below the 99th percentile then I have a bridge I would love to sell you. I am sure that there are a small percentage of kids at high SES centers and ES that fall into the 98th percentile and are in AAP but not that many. Your below 98th percentile CoGAT scores are coming from the Title 1 and near Title 1 schools. All you have to do is look at the in-pool scores reported here for LIV applications to see what the score disparities are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

The bolded is just flat out wrong. The AAP equity report showed that in the 2018 2nd grade cohort (pre local norms), a score of 132 (98th percentile) on either the NNAT or CogAT composite was needed to be in-pool. 1409 kids in that cohort were in-pool. 2071 kids were found eligible. Not all of the in-pool kids were admitted to AAP, and some of the admitted kids had scores that were quite low on at least one test. The same report showed that GBRS was 4 times more important than CogAT scores for AAP eligibility, and the NNAT scores were largely ignored.

In PP's case, the kids were likely rejected due to low HOPE scores. If the teacher booted the kids from LII, then the HOPE was probably horrible.

Anonymous wrote: For OP, the only thing I can recommend is to not let your foot off the pedal - let it be known you want your child to receive services, and why. If you're at a non-center school, advocate for your child to be in the LLIV program as a fill-in. As sad as it is, the more vocal parents will influence decisions over the non-complainers. (it could also back-fire, but honestly the chances of that are slim given FCPS track record)

As much as I hate this approach and find it indefensible towards the poor teachers and administrators, I can't deny it's probably the most effective. Luckily, our principal had offered my DC a spot in LLIV already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

Except that iReady's are typically used as diagnostics to identify gaps and focus areas, not traditional achievement tests. This is the first year that they seemed to have emphasized it at all in the decision process.

Anecdotally, every child in AAP gets 99% (132 composite?) but the study done a few years back identified the actual average at 123 if I recall.

It's hard to achieve higher grade level skills in order to do well as you state without supplementation from home or other outside resources... which the OP states receives none. Maybe a disservice to the kids if AAP was the desired outcome.

Being bumped from LII is NOT a promising indicator of how the School and AART feel about your children.

For OP, the only thing I can recommend is to not let your foot off the pedal - let it be known you want your child to receive services, and why. If you're at a non-center school, advocate for your child to be in the LLIV program as a fill-in. As sad as it is, the more vocal parents will influence decisions over the non-complainers. (it could also back-fire, but honestly the chances of that are slim given FCPS track record)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they tell us which subject our kid is being pulled out for? We just got the invitation to level III services but no indication on which subject.

I was told by the AART at our school that Level III is not subject-based (unlike Level II). It is a holistic, creative, outside-the-box thinking time for every subject.

That seems so weird. DC is really strong at math and scored extremely high on the cogat/nnat but struggles with reading/slow processing so of course not a good fit for level 4. I wonder what level 3 is.

My child didn’t get into AAP, despite high NNAT, CogCat and iReady scores…except reading! Very low on reading. The WISC indicated a very low % processing, so I’m wondering if my child was disqualified for something like this. Doesn’t seem very “holistic” to me.

What did you think holistic means?

Honestly, level iv more immersive but all you really want is the math acceleration. By the time middle school comes around the difference between level 4 and level 3 in other subjects is tinsel.

That depends on the school. Especially at the lower performing middle schools, the value of LIV is that the class doesn't have to cater to kids who don't belong in honors

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

80% iReady scores do not indicate a child that needs extra services. It represents a child that is doing fine in the regular classroom. They are getting 4's because they have mastered grade level material but their iReady's don't show that they are ahead of grade level.

97% on the CoGAT shows that they are smart and capable, it is a great score. Most of the kids in LIV have scores in the 99th percentile. There are some kids in AAP in the 97-98th percentile but not that many and I suspect those kids are coming from Title 1 schools.

I doubt they were removed from LII accidently, I would guess that they were not performing at the level of the other kids in the LII groupings, at least, their iReady scores suggest that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they tell us which subject our kid is being pulled out for? We just got the invitation to level III services but no indication on which subject.

I was told by the AART at our school that Level III is not subject-based (unlike Level II). It is a holistic, creative, outside-the-box thinking time for every subject.

That seems so weird. DC is really strong at math and scored extremely high on the cogat/nnat but struggles with reading/slow processing so of course not a good fit for level 4. I wonder what level 3 is.

My child didn’t get into AAP, despite high NNAT, CogCat and iReady scores…except reading! Very low on reading. The WISC indicated a very low % processing, so I’m wondering if my child was disqualified for something like this. Doesn’t seem very “holistic” to me.

Your child is probably going to be considered for Advanced Math. Low reading scores are not a good fit for accelerated learning that requires lots of reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they tell us which subject our kid is being pulled out for? We just got the invitation to level III services but no indication on which subject.

I was told by the AART at our school that Level III is not subject-based (unlike Level II). It is a holistic, creative, outside-the-box thinking time for every subject.

That seems so weird. DC is really strong at math and scored extremely high on the cogat/nnat but struggles with reading/slow processing so of course not a good fit for level 4. I wonder what level 3 is.

My child didn’t get into AAP, despite high NNAT, CogCat and iReady scores…except reading! Very low on reading. The WISC indicated a very low % processing, so I’m wondering if my child was disqualified for something like this. Doesn’t seem very “holistic” to me.

What did you think holistic means?

Honestly, level iv more immersive but all you really want is the math acceleration. By the time middle school comes around the difference between level 4 and level 3 in other subjects is tinsel.

Yes, my DD is 2nd grade. Advanced Math letter was a simple permission letter for parents to authorize their kids to receive Advanced Math curriculum education. Same for level 3. I received two separate forms to send back to school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just some rando ‘creative, critical thinking’ exercise. It really is meaningless and a ‘head nod’ to the parent that we have some excellent program here that differentiates to all students. It’s all quite poorly executed.

It sounds meaningless and it probably is. But my kid would probably love getting pulled out for creative thinking exercises once in a while. Sad to hear it isn't executed well.

I got the invitation earlier this week. I had hoped she would be offered advanced math because she always tests at 99% for all the ireadys and cogat/nnat. She does struggle a lot with reading. I guess level 3 is her consolation prize.

Advanced Math tends to be decided in the fall. Many schools will use SOL scores and a final in class math assessment in the first month to firm up the Advanced Math groupings.

Some schools execute LIII well. DS was pulled out regularly at his school and seemed to enjoy the program. He brought home different projects that they worked on. The kids are less thrilled with the new AART but that is style thing and not a program thing.

So does Advanced Math not exist until 5th grade? Should those of us with 2nd graders not be worried about this yet?

I thought Advanced Math starts in 5th grade, so I got confused when I received the Advanced Math acceptance letter. The letter states that Advanced Math status will be reviewed annually though.

Would you mind sharing what this says? Is your child a 2nd grader? My 2nd grader received notification of Level II pull outs in math next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they tell us which subject our kid is being pulled out for? We just got the invitation to level III services but no indication on which subject.

I was told by the AART at our school that Level III is not subject-based (unlike Level II). It is a holistic, creative, outside-the-box thinking time for every subject.

That seems so weird. DC is really strong at math and scored extremely high on the cogat/nnat but struggles with reading/slow processing so of course not a good fit for level 4. I wonder what level 3 is.

My child didn’t get into AAP, despite high NNAT, CogCat and iReady scores…except reading! Very low on reading. The WISC indicated a very low % processing, so I’m wondering if my child was disqualified for something like this. Doesn’t seem very “holistic” to me.

Anonymous wrote:This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.

I think the cutoff is 132 on the COGAT and the cutoff at specific schools can be as high as 137. An IQ of 130 is not going to do much to help your case. You should be well qualified for level 3 and frankly math is really the only important element of this whole process.

This process is horrible. I have twins who have never received any academic tutoring. They were hand picked by the school for level 2 in 1st grade and randomly (accidentally?) booted from it despite 80% in iready and mostly 4s. 97% cogat 99% nnat 130 iq. Rejected for level iv. And I haven't heard boo on my level 3 application submitted in February.