My kids are at one of the "higher performing elementary schools" and the Assistant Principal told us it would be 132 for "in pool."

^^^

Hm...now looking at that I can't find it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the local norm they are using? Top 10%? Top 15%? Is it that any one score within the target range qualifies or do all scores have to be in range? Do all schools now have local norms or only Title I? Has anyone seen this information in board docs?

95th percentile or above for the building per what Brabrand said in October.

Do you have a link to this? I can’t seem to find it.

That's because it was weirdly never publicized. One SB member included it in an update email, but that's it.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C7TSU8744C3E/$file/2021%20Oct%20-%20local%20norm%20expansion%20briefing.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are allowing low scores way below 132 cutoff ( 125 or even less) from lower performing schools to increase the number of URMs. So, it’s fair to increase the cutoff in high performing schools like Haycock and other Vienna, great falls and McLean schools.
And they say AAP has no admission limit. There is a cap. To take few more students from low performing schools they have to let go some deserving bright kids from high performing schools. Welcome to the country and county of Equity!

That is not how it works. The schools with lower scores, probably Title I schools with more URM, are not the schools with the kids you think will get edged out. The kids coming from schools with lower scores would not be attending the schools or Centers for the kids you claim will be edged out. If there is a cap, and I do think that there is one, it is by individual school and Center. The kid from Hutchingson with a lower score is not going to affect the kid from Great Falls because they go to different Centers.

Exactly, so they don't need to make a higher cut-off at the high-performing schools. But apparently now a 137 NNAT isn't high enough to be in-pool. Not that it matters, because 90% of students at those schools will have parent referrals anyway.

We're at a high performing center and our AART said our in-pool score was likely to be around 132. I would be shocked if any school in FCPS had a pool cut-off over 137. Maybe not all the letters have gone out? The first year they did AAP acceptances via email it took a while.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the local norm they are using? Top 10%? Top 15%? Is it that any one score within the target range qualifies or do all scores have to be in range? Do all schools now have local norms or only Title I? Has anyone seen this information in board docs?

95th percentile or above for the building per what Brabrand said in October.

Do you have a link to this? I can’t seem to find it.

Anonymous wrote:Hi, parent of only child (2nd grade) trying to navigate the AAP process. (Title 1, Mount Vernon pyramid) Is the in-pool email only based on tests scores? We did not receive an email and I know his NNAT was not anything to write home about. We also have not received the Cogat score.

I guess what I'm asking is, does it matter too much if your child is in the "pool"? My son's teacher told me a while ago she is recommending him and I'm doing the parent recommendation form (although I doubt that carries much weight). Also, if you apply for Level IV, is it possible that they could tell you that your child only qualifies for Level II or III and they place them in that? Rather than saying if they don't meet the standards for Level IV, you're out of AAP altogether. I still feel like a new mom with this stuff, any information is appreciated. Thank you!

If the teacher is recommending him that's a great sign. From past years they seem to place more weight on that than the test scores. Also, yes, if they aren't in Level IV they can still have Level II or Level III if your school participates in that (ours does not).

So from this year each school will have their own cut off score? Not the 132 that all schools had earlier?

Kids who are in-pool stand a better chance of being accepted. The last report on the matter said that 2/3 of in-pool kids were accepted and 1/2 of the parent referred kids were accepted. There are more kids who are parent referred then in-pool kids that are reviewed.

The change in what it means to be in-pool could change those numbers. If there are people on the committee who think that test scores are important, then lower test scores kids in-pool might be in trouble.

If your kids Teacher is planning referring for your kid then you should get good GBRS and those carry more weight then the test scores with the committee.

Anonymous wrote:Hi, parent of only child (2nd grade) trying to navigate the AAP process. (Title 1, Mount Vernon pyramid) Is the in-pool email only based on tests scores? We did not receive an email and I know his NNAT was not anything to write home about. We also have not received the Cogat score.

I guess what I'm asking is, does it matter too much if your child is in the "pool"? My son's teacher told me a while ago she is recommending him and I'm doing the parent recommendation form (although I doubt that carries much weight). Also, if you apply for Level IV, is it possible that they could tell you that your child only qualifies for Level II or III and they place them in that? Rather than saying if they don't meet the standards for Level IV, you're out of AAP altogether. I still feel like a new mom with this stuff, any information is appreciated. Thank you!

In-pool is based on test scores. In the past it was one test score across the entire county. This year, it is based on test scores from the local schools. We don't have a clue how local schools selected their test scores. Or I don't have a clue and I haven't seen anyone post how that is happening. I would guess that schools are setting the cut off to include something like the top 10% from their school but that is a guess.

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the local norm they are using? Top 10%? Top 15%? Is it that any one score within the target range qualifies or do all scores have to be in range? Do all schools now have local norms or only Title I? Has anyone seen this information in board docs?

95th percentile or above for the building per what Brabrand said in October.

Hi, parent of only child (2nd grade) trying to navigate the AAP process. (Title 1, Mount Vernon pyramid) Is the in-pool email only based on tests scores? We did not receive an email and I know his NNAT was not anything to write home about. We also have not received the Cogat score.

I guess what I'm asking is, does it matter too much if your child is in the "pool"? My son's teacher told me a while ago she is recommending him and I'm doing the parent recommendation form (although I doubt that carries much weight). Also, if you apply for Level IV, is it possible that they could tell you that your child only qualifies for Level II or III and they place them in that? Rather than saying if they don't meet the standards for Level IV, you're out of AAP altogether. I still feel like a new mom with this stuff, any information is appreciated. Thank you!

So what’s the local norm they are using? Top 10%? Top 15%? Is it that any one score within the target range qualifies or do all scores have to be in range? Do all schools now have local norms or only Title I? Has anyone seen this information in board docs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the pool cut-off could be lower than 132 for some schools, does that mean it could also be higher than 132 at others? For example, what if the cut-off for the top 10% of scores at some higher-performing schools was 135?

My understanding is centers still go by (the lower of local or) a county pool. Only casting a wider net not a narrower one.

I was posting this, but it appears that's no longer true and they only use building norms. Brabrand put something out about that in October.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are allowing low scores way below 132 cutoff ( 125 or even less) from lower performing schools to increase the number of URMs. So, it’s fair to increase the cutoff in high performing schools like Haycock and other Vienna, great falls and McLean schools.
And they say AAP has no admission limit. There is a cap. To take few more students from low performing schools they have to let go some deserving bright kids from high performing schools. Welcome to the country and county of Equity!

That is not how it works. The schools with lower scores, probably Title I schools with more URM, are not the schools with the kids you think will get edged out. The kids coming from schools with lower scores would not be attending the schools or Centers for the kids you claim will be edged out. If there is a cap, and I do think that there is one, it is by individual school and Center. The kid from Hutchingson with a lower score is not going to affect the kid from Great Falls because they go to different Centers.

Exactly, so they don't need to make a higher cut-off at the high-performing schools. But apparently now a 137 NNAT isn't high enough to be in-pool. Not that it matters, because 90% of students at those schools will have parent referrals anyway.

Or they have CogAT scores and are basing in-pool on the CogAT scores and not the NNAT. The NNAT is pretty much ignored as it is so this would make sense to me.

Or they decided to set it based on the score that the top 10% of the class received on the NNAT and it was higher than a 137 at that school.

We don't know but I don't think most people care about the NNAT and I suspect that a kid in an upper middle class area will have parents that refer anyway.

Whatever it is, if there is a cap at a school for AAP a kid from a school that will use a lower score to identify in-pool kids is not going to hurt the chances of a kid who is at a school where the cap might be over 137 on the NNAT. If you are so annoyed that a school might have a lower in-pool score then your schools score, feel free to move to that school. I am sure Hutchingson would love to have yor 136 scoring NNAT kid and they would totally be in-pool there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are allowing low scores way below 132 cutoff ( 125 or even less) from lower performing schools to increase the number of URMs. So, it’s fair to increase the cutoff in high performing schools like Haycock and other Vienna, great falls and McLean schools.
And they say AAP has no admission limit. There is a cap. To take few more students from low performing schools they have to let go some deserving bright kids from high performing schools. Welcome to the country and county of Equity!

That is not how it works. The schools with lower scores, probably Title I schools with more URM, are not the schools with the kids you think will get edged out. The kids coming from schools with lower scores would not be attending the schools or Centers for the kids you claim will be edged out. If there is a cap, and I do think that there is one, it is by individual school and Center. The kid from Hutchingson with a lower score is not going to affect the kid from Great Falls because they go to different Centers.

Exactly, so they don't need to make a higher cut-off at the high-performing schools. But apparently now a 137 NNAT isn't high enough to be in-pool. Not that it matters, because 90% of students at those schools will have parent referrals anyway.