AAP Criteria

[Anonymous]

Too many kids in the pool? Only 10% of kids are in the pool for each school. Is this from this year or prior year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how it works. 100-200 people, comprising AAP teachers, school counselors, AARTs, and more are split into small groups to review files. The criterion for getting in is that over half of the people reviewing your child's file vote that the child should be admitted. The files are viewed holistically, meaning that the same panel might reject someone with high scores and then accept someone with low scores if something else in the file convinced them that kid #2 belongs in AAP but kid #1 doesn't.

But no notes or comparisons that would be subject to ferpa or foia, because they really don't want anyone to see the sausage making

It's no different than what goes on in magnet school admissions, or TJ, or private high schools, or colleges (state or private). I'm not sure why people think there's a strict formula to use. It is no different than a job interview, or anything else in life where a bunch of people apply, but some make it and others don't. Every year a ton of parents are up in arms about "why" their kid was rejected. There is NO single answer. The reviewers who touched your kid's file didn't believe he/she belonged in AAP in comparison to the other files they reviewed. That is the essence of the "holistic" review. Trying to find the silver bullet on AAP admissions is just futile. Collectively, we waste a lot of time on this on a yearly basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The system is flawed. My child got in because we advocated for them and didn’t want them in a general education classroom with the variety of learning needs. They’re not gifted by any stretch.

None (or perhaps one handful) of the kids in AAP are truly gifted. Any parent thinking that AAP is for a gifted kid has never met a gifted kid. It's a program for kids who can handle some additional busy work and learning a ton of math relatively quickly, though plenty of kids in AAP struggle a lot in advanced math pace. Let's not make AAP something it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how it works. 100-200 people, comprising AAP teachers, school counselors, AARTs, and more are split into small groups to review files. The criterion for getting in is that over half of the people reviewing your child's file vote that the child should be admitted. The files are viewed holistically, meaning that the same panel might reject someone with high scores and then accept someone with low scores if something else in the file convinced them that kid #2 belongs in AAP but kid #1 doesn't.

But no notes or comparisons that would be subject to ferpa or foia, because they really don't want anyone to see the sausage making

It's no different than what goes on in magnet school admissions, or TJ, or private high schools, or colleges (state or private). I'm not sure why people think there's a strict formula to use. It is no different than a job interview, or anything else in life where a bunch of people apply, but some make it and others don't. Every year a ton of parents are up in arms about "why" their kid was rejected. There is NO single answer. The reviewers who touched your kid's file didn't believe he/she belonged in AAP in comparison to the other files they reviewed. That is the essence of the "holistic" review. Trying to find the silver bullet on AAP admissions is just futile. Collectively, we waste a lot of time on this on a yearly basis.

This. It's pointless to try to figure out the system. AARTs who have been preparing AAP files for 20 years are still often baffled by the results. My school's AART said that every year, there are about 5 kids that they expected to get in who instead were mysteriously rejected, and another 5 or so kids who do not fit the AAP profile who mysteriously got in.

It's entirely possible that the panel reviewing your child only admitted 10% of the files they reviewed. It's possible that an adjacent panel accepted everyone. There's no way to find out, and there isn't necessarily much consistency to the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how it works. 100-200 people, comprising AAP teachers, school counselors, AARTs, and more are split into small groups to review files. The criterion for getting in is that over half of the people reviewing your child's file vote that the child should be admitted. The files are viewed holistically, meaning that the same panel might reject someone with high scores and then accept someone with low scores if something else in the file convinced them that kid #2 belongs in AAP but kid #1 doesn't.

But no notes or comparisons that would be subject to ferpa or foia, because they really don't want anyone to see the sausage making

It's no different than what goes on in magnet school admissions, or TJ, or private high schools, or colleges (state or private). I'm not sure why people think there's a strict formula to use. It is no different than a job interview, or anything else in life where a bunch of people apply, but some make it and others don't. Every year a ton of parents are up in arms about "why" their kid was rejected. There is NO single answer. The reviewers who touched your kid's file didn't believe he/she belonged in AAP in comparison to the other files they reviewed. That is the essence of the "holistic" review. Trying to find the silver bullet on AAP admissions is just futile. Collectively, we waste a lot of time on this on a yearly basis.

I think it is a small number of parents who are up in arms and I suspect that many of those are predisposed to assume that the system is out to get their kid for some specific reason.

[Anonymous]

Kids from my DC’s class that I know where advanced in math and reading/writing got in this year.
The system is not that messed up. It’s pretty much merit based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids from my DC’s class that I know where advanced in math and reading/writing got in this year.
The system is not that messed up. It’s pretty much merit based.

I think you meant “were” in your sentence.

You “are” wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from my DC’s class that I know where advanced in math and reading/writing got in this year.
The system is not that messed up. It’s pretty much merit based.

I think you meant “were” in your sentence.

You “are” wrong.

DP. I see the same pattern. The system of admissions is reasonable, IME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from my DC’s class that I know where advanced in math and reading/writing got in this year.
The system is not that messed up. It’s pretty much merit based.

I think you meant “were” in your sentence.

You “are” wrong.

DP. I see the same pattern. The system of admissions is reasonable, IME.

“Pretty much” merit based = arbitrary and capricious

Some of you posters are not developing an argument very well from a realistic point.

[Anonymous]

Merit based for some but not all is bot really merit based now is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from my DC’s class that I know where advanced in math and reading/writing got in this year.
The system is not that messed up. It’s pretty much merit based.

I think you meant “were” in your sentence.

You “are” wrong.

DP. I see the same pattern. The system of admissions is reasonable, IME.

“Pretty much” merit based = arbitrary and capricious

Some of you posters are not developing an argument very well from a realistic point.

From a realistic point, all 10 of the people who think their DC was wrongly rejected have posted here on DCUM. Out of 2000 or so admitted students and however many rejected students. Realistically, the selection is pretty much flawless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from my DC’s class that I know where advanced in math and reading/writing got in this year.
The system is not that messed up. It’s pretty much merit based.

I think you meant “were” in your sentence.

You “are” wrong.

DP. I see the same pattern. The system of admissions is reasonable, IME.

The kids in my sons class who were accepted made sense to me, the one kid I know who was not also made sense to me. Smart enough child and a good kid but he isn't interested in school or learning and spends most of his time complaining about having to do any work. He can do it quickly when he has to do it, and his Mom makes him do his work, but he is not the kid who is looking for extra work or exploring topics in greater depth. One of my kids best friends, we love having him over. The kids I know who were accepted are more interested in talking about what ever random subject interests them with a level of detail that is impressive. They are more interested in what is going on the activities I see them at.

None of them scream gifted! or genius! but you can see a difference in their focus and motivation.

It is more then possible that some kids are missed who belong in AAP, that is why there are appeals and you can reapply. It is more then likely that the individual school and Center matter in terms of what kids the Teachers think need to be in AAP because Gen Ed won't meet their needs. My kids GBRSs might have been different if he was at Great Falls or an ES in McLean or Langley and not in Reston. He might not stand out there as much because of the clusters of families and kids. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Merit based for some but not all is bot really merit based now is it?

Or merit based is going to be different based on what your school can provide. A Title I school can provide far less to a bright kid then a high SES school in Langley. The kid who needs AAP in a Title 1 is very different then the kid who needs AAP in Langley. That is what you are struggling with. The kids with lower test scores are most likely at the Title I schools and not the high SES schools.

The parents of the kids with high test scores not getting in are not likely at the poorer performing schools. Their kids are most likely on schools where the Gen Ed classes are strong, maybe even the schools where the Gen Ed classes actually use the AAP Curriculum in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Merit based for some but not all is bot really merit based now is it?

Tell that to the thousands of kids who get rejected on a yearly basis from tier 1 high schools (public and private). As another poster said: job, college, school ... even marriage ... someone else can get the guy or girl. The system is as much merit as it is the untangible of a certain way the application came through to the panel. Maybe the teacher summary of the CO was mediocre compared to the other applicants, maybe the parent referral write-ups failed to provide a good picture of the child and what he/she can get out of LIV and also bring to LIV. Could be a lot of things. Unless people start posting those applications publicly, it's very difficult to say why a child is rejected. For all we know, the OP's child's application could have been very mediocre in comparison to the 20 others the set of panellists were screening. And in that case, it is a 'merit based' system. You just dislike the result. But the family that was accepted could have a totally different view.

[Anonymous]

Both sides are correct. I'm the PP with the AART who said that each year, around 5 kids from their school get rejected who should have been accepted. Alongside those 5 kids are 25 kids who belonged in AAP and got in. The 5 wrongfully rejected kids generally get in on appeal, get in the following year, or get principal placed.

It stinks when your kid is one of the ones who has to deal with appeals or applying the next year when they should have been admitted. By the end of third grade, after two rounds of applications and appeals, the number of kids who belong in AAP but keep getting rejected is very small.