AAP decisions in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade
NGAT 128
NNAT 111
Didn’t ask for the HOPE score or packet
Behavior issues but a very supportive teacher
In

curious which ES he is. These scores are quite low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.

+1. The PP is so wrong. There is no magic formula where the committee knows who was prepped and who was not. They just look at the test scores, HOPE rating and work samples in front of them and make a decision based of off that. Most likely the HOPE and work samples carry the highest weight.

+2, except it's known that HOPE carries the most weight unless something has changed in the past 6 years. Prepped kids get in. Unprepped kids get in. It's a crap shoot, just like college. Get used to it, because this isn't changing for your kids' entire academic careers.

I’m not sure that HOPE carries that much more weight. I used to believe this. It may be the deciding factor for some students but I no longer believe that it counts more for all students. My older kid is in AAP. My 2nd grader just got in. Older kid had glowing teacher ratings. Younger kid’s ratings were mediocre in comparison so I was very worried. Younger kid’s other stats and work samples are strong which I believe outweighed the lower teacher ratings.

It's also true that it just takes 4 out of 6 teachers at a table to get a kid in (or 3 out of 6 to say no). They all get a few hours of training, but I'm sure it varies person to person, committee group to committee group, and year to year.

It also depends on what the HOPE ratings look like for other students in 2nd grade from the same school. So you can't compare HOPE ratings across schools. School A may give out higher ratings across the board, School B may give out more average ratings. At School A you need a higher rating to stand out than you do at School B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade
NGAT 128
NNAT 111
Didn’t ask for the HOPE score or packet
Behavior issues but a very supportive teacher
In

curious which ES he is. These scores are quite low.

DC has even lower scores and no behavior issues. Western Region 5 center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.

+1. The PP is so wrong. There is no magic formula where the committee knows who was prepped and who was not. They just look at the test scores, HOPE rating and work samples in front of them and make a decision based of off that. Most likely the HOPE and work samples carry the highest weight.

+2, except it's known that HOPE carries the most weight unless something has changed in the past 6 years. Prepped kids get in. Unprepped kids get in. It's a crap shoot, just like college. Get used to it, because this isn't changing for your kids' entire academic careers.

I’m not sure that HOPE carries that much more weight. I used to believe this. It may be the deciding factor for some students but I no longer believe that it counts more for all students. My older kid is in AAP. My 2nd grader just got in. Older kid had glowing teacher ratings. Younger kid’s ratings were mediocre in comparison so I was very worried. Younger kid’s other stats and work samples are strong which I believe outweighed the lower teacher ratings.

It's also true that it just takes 4 out of 6 teachers at a table to get a kid in (or 3 out of 6 to say no). They all get a few hours of training, but I'm sure it varies person to person, committee group to committee group, and year to year.

This. Not all panel members value the same things or view kids the same ways. There is a bit of luck of the draw with which particular panel is reviewing your case and how well your kid fits their own view of AAP. I've heard that if the parent comes across as annoying or presumptuous, they're more likely to reject the kid.

FWIW, my kid was rejected in 2nd with a low teacher rating. The same kid was admitted in 3rd with an incredibly high rating. My kid didn't change that much between 2nd and 3rd. There's a lot of subjectivity in every part of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade
NGAT 128
NNAT 111
Didn’t ask for the HOPE score or packet
Behavior issues but a very supportive teacher
In

curious which ES he is. These scores are quite low.

He didn’t make the pool but he’s my 3rd kid so my parent questionnaires by now are a thing of beauty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would parents want a child (esp who didn’t get into AAP) to get in?

My child was in-pool and got in, which doesn’t surprise me, but frankly I’m not 100% convinced the added stress is worth it (and we wouldn’t even be changing schools) although their teacher suggested she thought they would like the challenge. My child has a lot of interests outside of academics and I’m just not sold!

Except at those top centers, I don't think AAP adds stress - like not even a little bit. It just gives kids who are otherwise bored a faster pace in math. And for that? It was worth it for my kids.

What are those top centers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.

+1. The PP is so wrong. There is no magic formula where the committee knows who was prepped and who was not. They just look at the test scores, HOPE rating and work samples in front of them and make a decision based of off that. Most likely the HOPE and work samples carry the highest weight.

+2, except it's known that HOPE carries the most weight unless something has changed in the past 6 years. Prepped kids get in. Unprepped kids get in. It's a crap shoot, just like college. Get used to it, because this isn't changing for your kids' entire academic careers.

I’m not sure that HOPE carries that much more weight. I used to believe this. It may be the deciding factor for some students but I no longer believe that it counts more for all students. My older kid is in AAP. My 2nd grader just got in. Older kid had glowing teacher ratings. Younger kid’s ratings were mediocre in comparison so I was very worried. Younger kid’s other stats and work samples are strong which I believe outweighed the lower teacher ratings.

It's also true that it just takes 4 out of 6 teachers at a table to get a kid in (or 3 out of 6 to say no). They all get a few hours of training, but I'm sure it varies person to person, committee group to committee group, and year to year.

This. Not all panel members value the same things or view kids the same ways. There is a bit of luck of the draw with which particular panel is reviewing your case and how well your kid fits their own view of AAP. I've heard that if the parent comes across as annoying or presumptuous, they're more likely to reject the kid.

FWIW, my kid was rejected in 2nd with a low teacher rating. The same kid was admitted in 3rd with an incredibly high rating. My kid didn't change that much between 2nd and 3rd. There's a lot of subjectivity in every part of the process.

Or maybe your kid matured. I’ve heard that can happen.

Y’all are in for a treat when it comes to college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the HOPE scores play a vital role and these young, innocent kids are at the mercy of who their teachers like/dislike.

Can someone, who had better luck with the appeal process, please provide some information on the work samples? What kind of samples would be appealing, how to improve on the work samples. Appreciate it.

Search this forum. I’ve seen some good posts on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

It’s worth appealing. I don’t know how successful appeals are but your kid might have a good chance. The work samples may be the reason the other student got in and yours didn’t. MAP percentiles are pretty broad too so 98 may not be as competitive at your school. The other kid might be exceptional in math and have a higher NGAT quant score. My AAP kid got 99 percentile on MAP and math is far away my kid’s strength. My kid is above average but not exceptional in language arts. Math may be weighted more since it’s significantly faster paced in AAP. But I’m guessing. I’m also surprised the other kid’s parents shared their stats in such great detail. I have no idea what scores my kids’ best friends got.

Right, I have 2 other data points ,there's one got math 96% also in too . Before the result came out , they thought my DC was the most strong candidate in their small group , and when the result came out , DC was the only one who doesn't get in . It surprised them as well .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

It’s worth appealing. I don’t know how successful appeals are but your kid might have a good chance. The work samples may be the reason the other student got in and yours didn’t. MAP percentiles are pretty broad too so 98 may not be as competitive at your school. The other kid might be exceptional in math and have a higher NGAT quant score. My AAP kid got 99 percentile on MAP and math is far away my kid’s strength. My kid is above average but not exceptional in language arts. Math may be weighted more since it’s significantly faster paced in AAP. But I’m guessing. I’m also surprised the other kid’s parents shared their stats in such great detail. I have no idea what scores my kids’ best friends got.

Right, I have 2 other data points ,there's one got math 96% also in too . Before the result came out , they thought my DC was the most strong candidate in their small group , and when the result came out , DC was the only one who doesn't get in . It surprised them as well .

Did you all compare work samples too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

It’s worth appealing. I don’t know how successful appeals are but your kid might have a good chance. The work samples may be the reason the other student got in and yours didn’t. MAP percentiles are pretty broad too so 98 may not be as competitive at your school. The other kid might be exceptional in math and have a higher NGAT quant score. My AAP kid got 99 percentile on MAP and math is far away my kid’s strength. My kid is above average but not exceptional in language arts. Math may be weighted more since it’s significantly faster paced in AAP. But I’m guessing. I’m also surprised the other kid’s parents shared their stats in such great detail. I have no idea what scores my kids’ best friends got.

Right, I have 2 other data points ,there's one got math 96% also in too . Before the result came out , they thought my DC was the most strong candidate in their small group , and when the result came out , DC was the only one who doesn't get in . It surprised them as well .

Did you all compare work samples too?

Your kid's finger painting left me wanting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We applied in third grade for second time and not in.

If second time you don’t succeed, admit your kid has the dumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

It’s worth appealing. I don’t know how successful appeals are but your kid might have a good chance. The work samples may be the reason the other student got in and yours didn’t. MAP percentiles are pretty broad too so 98 may not be as competitive at your school. The other kid might be exceptional in math and have a higher NGAT quant score. My AAP kid got 99 percentile on MAP and math is far away my kid’s strength. My kid is above average but not exceptional in language arts. Math may be weighted more since it’s significantly faster paced in AAP. But I’m guessing. I’m also surprised the other kid’s parents shared their stats in such great detail. I have no idea what scores my kids’ best friends got.

Right, I have 2 other data points ,there's one got math 96% also in too . Before the result came out , they thought my DC was the most strong candidate in their small group , and when the result came out , DC was the only one who doesn't get in . It surprised them as well .

Did you all compare work samples too?

Your kid's finger painting left me wanting.

Are you, pp? Is that a no? Obviously teacher input matters, but work samples do too. If you haven't seen the other work samples for comparison, it's possible that your child’s work samples could be stronger.

I think additional work samples can be submitted on appeal, which might be the best strategy for a kid like yours, given that you already have good scores and can't change the teacher recommendations at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

It’s worth appealing. I don’t know how successful appeals are but your kid might have a good chance. The work samples may be the reason the other student got in and yours didn’t. MAP percentiles are pretty broad too so 98 may not be as competitive at your school. The other kid might be exceptional in math and have a higher NGAT quant score. My AAP kid got 99 percentile on MAP and math is far away my kid’s strength. My kid is above average but not exceptional in language arts. Math may be weighted more since it’s significantly faster paced in AAP. But I’m guessing. I’m also surprised the other kid’s parents shared their stats in such great detail. I have no idea what scores my kids’ best friends got.

Right, I have 2 other data points ,there's one got math 96% also in too . Before the result came out , they thought my DC was the most strong candidate in their small group , and when the result came out , DC was the only one who doesn't get in . It surprised them as well .

Did you all compare work samples too?

Your kid's finger painting left me wanting.

Are you, pp? Is that a no? Obviously teacher input matters, but work samples do too. If you haven't seen the other work samples for comparison, it's possible that your child’s work samples could be stronger.

I think additional work samples can be submitted on appeal, which might be the best strategy for a kid like yours, given that you already have good scores and can't change the teacher recommendations at this point.

I said your kid’s finger painting. My kid’s finger painting is on point. Perhaps your child gets their lack of reading comprehension from you.

[Anonymous]

APPEAL ADVICE please

NGAT 143
"In Pool", Longfellow pyramid
NAT 139
iReady 457
MAP 201
Report Cards mosty 4s; a couple 3s

Still didnt get in. Based on scores, thinking HOPE score? or work samples? Teacher doesnt seem to know child since fairly quiet and does as asked. But, very very bored at school and concerned over this for next year.