My kid got rejected with 99th percentile Cogat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious who is on this committee?

Files are screened by AARTs from all over the county. Every file has at least 2 readers.

From what I've heard, the selection panels are formed from AARTs, AAP teachers, principals, and school counselors. You need 4 of the 6 people on the panel to vote for your child to get in. All of the people on the panels are going to have their own biases about who belongs in AAP or doesn't, so the process won't be completely consistent. Some groups will statistically be more lenient, while others will be more strict.

The teacher comments, work samples, parent questionnaire, and referral form are all important for framing how the committee views your child. If you have low scores but are good at articulating why your child would benefit from AAP, your child will probably get in. If you have high scores but the committee gets the impression that your child is prepped, your child won't get in.

This. OP, did you prep?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except AAP is not some specialized program for gifted kids. It’s AAP.

Except AAP is what FCPS uses to meet the gifted mandate set forth by the Virginia DOE. Thus it by definition is intended to serve the needs of gifted kids.

The gifted mandate is worthless. They could and many districts do serve the gifted population with a weekly 1-hr pullout. AAP is designed to meet different needs.

What different needs? I didn't realize that slightly above average, hothoused, UMC kids had any special needs that necessitated removal from a regular classroom. Most of those kids will bloom wherever they're planted. Gifted kids actually have different needs which can't be met in the regular classroom or in a weekly 1 hour pullout. So, what's the point of AAP if it's not to serve the needs of gifted kids rather than the wants of UMC parents?

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except AAP is not some specialized program for gifted kids. It’s AAP.

Except AAP is what FCPS uses to meet the gifted mandate set forth by the Virginia DOE. Thus it by definition is intended to serve the needs of gifted kids.

The gifted mandate is worthless. They could and many districts do serve the gifted population with a weekly 1-hr pullout. AAP is designed to meet different needs.

What different needs? I didn't realize that slightly above average, hothoused, UMC kids had any special needs that necessitated removal from a regular classroom. Most of those kids will bloom wherever they're planted. Gifted kids actually have different needs which can't be met in the regular classroom or in a weekly 1 hour pullout. So, what's the point of AAP if it's not to serve the needs of gifted kids rather than the wants of UMC parents?

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

I agree with FCPS's expanded gifted program model, but I disagree that "being extremely intelligent" is winning the genetic lottery. There are certainly some gifted kids who are "the whole package", mature, kind, extremely bright and creative, socially adept, etc. But so many, including mine, are not. And those kids' needs are not superior to the needs of the general student population but they are a bit different. Which is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

Maybe parents need to be responsible for helping their kids relate to other kids. The parents of non gifted socially inept kids need to deal with it themselves. If a gifted child needs speech therapy or OT, they should get it to the same extent as other kids. There shouldn't be a separate classroom for them. They can be with the academically advanced kids and get OT or speech therapy, or whatever else they need that's normally available to special ed kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

Maybe parents need to be responsible for helping their kids relate to other kids. The parents of non gifted socially inept kids need to deal with it themselves. If a gifted child needs speech therapy or OT, they should get it to the same extent as other kids. There shouldn't be a separate classroom for them. They can be with the academically advanced kids and get OT or speech therapy, or whatever else they need that's normally available to special ed kids.

We get it. You want your gifted kid in AAP but you want the other gifted kid to be in gen ed. FCPS wants both kids in AAP.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think aap is the answer to the needs of the profoundly gifted child either though. So the kid who is so gifted as to somehow fail the screening because he has the gifted traits of being a complete pain in the ass wouldn’t nessesarily be better served in aap.

I mean not a week goes by where someone here doesn’t complain about how easy aap is. It’s not a program built to turn around PITA gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

Maybe parents need to be responsible for helping their kids relate to other kids. The parents of non gifted socially inept kids need to deal with it themselves. If a gifted child needs speech therapy or OT, they should get it to the same extent as other kids. There shouldn't be a separate classroom for them. They can be with the academically advanced kids and get OT or speech therapy, or whatever else they need that's normally available to special ed kids.

I honestly don't think you have a "gifted" kid. If you have one, you will understand how difficult it is to have one.

[Anonymous]

The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Yup, mine included. I know a couple of truly gifted children, and it's really hard to meet their needs in anything akin to a traditional classroom.

[Anonymous]

Bad GBRS - find out what it is.

Also appeal

Also if you do not get in on appeal, you can retest once in FCPS. Retest next year or whenever is right fro your kid, submit a parent referral and chances are good your kid will get in.

Relax - I've had three kids go through the process and it is ARBITRARY!!! My one kid who was not accepted to AAP until 5th grade when we retested (for MS mainly) got into to TJ. The others wouldn't get in to TJ.

RELAX. This is not a big deal. Lots of wins are still ahead of you and it will all work out fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Thiis is 100% true. AAP is not a "gifted" program - its an advanced program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Thiis is 100% true. AAP is not a "gifted" program - its an advanced program.

Yep. My bright kid is served well in AAP but would be served just as well in a robust gen ed program. My gifted kid isn't being served well, but enjoys being a big fish in a small pond even in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Thiis is 100% true. AAP is not a "gifted" program - its an advanced program.

Yep. My bright kid is served well in AAP but would be served just as well in a robust gen ed program. My gifted kid isn't being served well, but enjoys being a big fish in a small pond even in AAP.

My gifted kid is being served well in AAP. When posters complain about AAP, I'm really not sure if it's due to the variability of FCPS schools or if people have very extreme expectations of what elementary school should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My gifted kid is being served well in AAP. When posters complain about AAP, I'm really not sure if it's due to the variability of FCPS schools or if people have very extreme expectations of what elementary school should be.

That. The experience at a strong center is completely different from that at a weak center. At some schools, AAP is gen ed with more homework and a couple extra projects.