AAP official percentage of 20.8%

[Anonymous]

The per-grade numbers for our school don't make any sense. I wouldn't trust any of those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The per-grade numbers for our school don't make any sense. I wouldn't trust any of those numbers.

The AAP centers seem to have a weird glitch where the gen ed totals are listed at the bottom for each grade, but no bar is shown. For my center, the number of kids listed for the grade seems to correspond to the number in gen ed, and the AAP numbers when you hover over the blue bars seem correct, but they don't list the total number of kids correctly, nor do they show the gen ed green bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The per-grade numbers for our school don't make any sense. I wouldn't trust any of those numbers.

The AAP centers seem to have a weird glitch where the gen ed totals are listed at the bottom for each grade, but no bar is shown. For my center, the number of kids listed for the grade seems to correspond to the number in gen ed, and the AAP numbers when you hover over the blue bars seem correct, but they don't list the total number of kids correctly, nor do they show the gen ed green bar.

At my non-center school, if you assume the total number of kids in grades 3-6 is the gen ed number, and add to that the AAP numbers, you still don't get the correct total. I'm guessing these numbers are not ready for prime time, which is why the dashboard is not public.

[Anonymous]

We just moved to McLean for better schools. I believe half of the classes in 3-6 are AAP. We are a center. I’m not sure how many kids from the base school but more than 20%.

We are new to the area but the homes that feed into our school are $1-5 million homes. I feel like most parents are lawyers or doctors. While not necessarily gifted, these parents all highly educated and make a high income. No surprise that so many of their kids are also high achieving. Before you say it is just SES and money, the actual kids are so bright and motivated while also having great resources at both home and school.

20% sounds right to me for kids to be advanced. I never say my kid is gifted. He is hard working and advanced in academics.

I was always told I was gifted. Everything came easy to me. DH, on the other hand, studied the hardest. He now is at the top of his
Field and earns a seven figure income. He always says being gifted is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nationally --- shouldn't these kids be in AAP? There are some general national standards as to what constitutes, "gifted". We live in a highly educated, high IQ area. No surprise, in the least, that so many kids "should" qualify.

Now, how to best serve them and everyone? I would like to see the total AAP Center numbers at no more than 2x the enrollment of TJ. Keep gifted kids at the base school - with differential instruction w/in the same classroom. Flexible grouping for instruction so all students can advance to the best of their ability/effort.

The issue is that fcps does not keep a hard cut off score of 132 or so. They have their automatic referral number, then accept parent referrals for kids in the 120s or so. That change is the issue and why AAP has exploded.

If they maintained a hard cut off of 132, and maybe allowed for referrals for 130-31, the program would still be very robust, but would not be this gargantuan monstrosity that we have now.

For those in the 120s-131, the schools could offer traditional level 3 pull out enrichment services and advanced math.

Everyone would be better served, the centers would still be quite full, and the base schools would be able to offer full level 3 enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nationally --- shouldn't these kids be in AAP? There are some general national standards as to what constitutes, "gifted". We live in a highly educated, high IQ area. No surprise, in the least, that so many kids "should" qualify.

Now, how to best serve them and everyone? I would like to see the total AAP Center numbers at no more than 2x the enrollment of TJ. Keep gifted kids at the base school - with differential instruction w/in the same classroom. Flexible grouping for instruction so all students can advance to the best of their ability/effort.

Nationally, 2% are gifted. It would be reasonable in the FCPS area for 4-5% to be gifted. If you want to include, bright, motivated, almost-gifted kids, the range could stretch up to 10%. There's no way 20% are gifted.

Which is irrelevant because AAP is NOT a G&T program. It's a sped-up and deeper version of the standard curriculum, and I'd assume any truly gifted students would be bored and better served by grade skipping or getting a merit scholarship to an elite private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nationally --- shouldn't these kids be in AAP? There are some general national standards as to what constitutes, "gifted". We live in a highly educated, high IQ area. No surprise, in the least, that so many kids "should" qualify.

Now, how to best serve them and everyone? I would like to see the total AAP Center numbers at no more than 2x the enrollment of TJ. Keep gifted kids at the base school - with differential instruction w/in the same classroom. Flexible grouping for instruction so all students can advance to the best of their ability/effort.

The issue is that fcps does not keep a hard cut off score of 132 or so. They have their automatic referral number, then accept parent referrals for kids in the 120s or so. That change is the issue and why AAP has exploded.

If they maintained a hard cut off of 132, and maybe allowed for referrals for 130-31, the program would still be very robust, but would not be this gargantuan monstrosity that we have now.

For those in the 120s-131, the schools could offer traditional level 3 pull out enrichment services and advanced math.

Everyone would be better served, the centers would still be quite full, and the base schools would be able to offer full level 3 enrichment.

Isn’t the difference between 120 and 132 just two questions?

These are second graders. I don’t think a kid who misses 2 questions should be disqualified from a program.

My kid got a 141 composite but scored 124 on the verbal. I think he got 5 questions wrong. I know he got one wrong in quant and can’t remember how many wrong but I think it was 3 wrong and he got like 138. Don’t have the paper in front of me.

I didn’t ask my kid but from these boards, there may have been some confusing questions or pictures of things kids weren’t familiar with (flip phone).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nationally --- shouldn't these kids be in AAP? There are some general national standards as to what constitutes, "gifted". We live in a highly educated, high IQ area. No surprise, in the least, that so many kids "should" qualify.

Now, how to best serve them and everyone? I would like to see the total AAP Center numbers at no more than 2x the enrollment of TJ. Keep gifted kids at the base school - with differential instruction w/in the same classroom. Flexible grouping for instruction so all students can advance to the best of their ability/effort.

The issue is that fcps does not keep a hard cut off score of 132 or so. They have their automatic referral number, then accept parent referrals for kids in the 120s or so. That change is the issue and why AAP has exploded.

If they maintained a hard cut off of 132, and maybe allowed for referrals for 130-31, the program would still be very robust, but would not be this gargantuan monstrosity that we have now.

For those in the 120s-131, the schools could offer traditional level 3 pull out enrichment services and advanced math.

Everyone would be better served, the centers would still be quite full, and the base schools would be able to offer full level 3 enrichment.

+1. Also, don't forget that the creators of the CogAT have stated that it's particularly vulnerable to prepping. https://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/default-source/dlohman/thoughts-on-policies-to-mitigate-effects-of-practice-tests-and-coaching.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Considering how prevalent the prepping is in this area, a decent chunk of the 132+ kids wouldn't have made the cutoff without the prepping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Which is irrelevant because AAP is NOT a G&T program. It's a sped-up and deeper version of the standard curriculum, and I'd assume any truly gifted students would be bored and better served by grade skipping or getting a merit scholarship to an elite private.

The State of Virginia mandates that gifted children be provided a gifted program. Either FCPS is violating that mandate, or AAP is the FCPS gifted program. Since FCPS is using AAP to satisfy the gifted mandate, then it needs to actually serve gifted students.

IME, grade skipping is not a great solution for many kids. The instructional pace is still slow enough that the grade-skipped kids catch up quickly and are soon bored at the top of the new class. It also assumes that the kids are socially advanced enough to handle being surrounded by older children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Isn’t the difference between 120 and 132 just two questions?

These are second graders. I don’t think a kid who misses 2 questions should be disqualified from a program.

My kid got a 141 composite but scored 124 on the verbal. I think he got 5 questions wrong. I know he got one wrong in quant and can’t remember how many wrong but I think it was 3 wrong and he got like 138. Don’t have the paper in front of me.

I didn’t ask my kid but from these boards, there may have been some confusing questions or pictures of things kids weren’t familiar with (flip phone).

The difference is more than two questions. The CogAT is a very crude instrument though, with a very low ceiling, and I'd be happier if they found a better test. A hard cutoff of 132 wouldn't disqualify kids who failed to make the cut. The kids would simply need to get an IQ or achievement test with a composite in the top 2%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nationally --- shouldn't these kids be in AAP? There are some general national standards as to what constitutes, "gifted". We live in a highly educated, high IQ area. No surprise, in the least, that so many kids "should" qualify.

Now, how to best serve them and everyone? I would like to see the total AAP Center numbers at no more than 2x the enrollment of TJ. Keep gifted kids at the base school - with differential instruction w/in the same classroom. Flexible grouping for instruction so all students can advance to the best of their ability/effort.

The issue is that fcps does not keep a hard cut off score of 132 or so. They have their automatic referral number, then accept parent referrals for kids in the 120s or so. That change is the issue and why AAP has exploded.

If they maintained a hard cut off of 132, and maybe allowed for referrals for 130-31, the program would still be very robust, but would not be this gargantuan monstrosity that we have now.

For those in the 120s-131, the schools could offer traditional level 3 pull out enrichment services and advanced math.

Everyone would be better served, the centers would still be quite full, and the base schools would be able to offer full level 3 enrichment.

Isn’t the difference between 120 and 132 just two questions?

These are second graders. I don’t think a kid who misses 2 questions should be disqualified from a program.

My kid got a 141 composite but scored 124 on the verbal. I think he got 5 questions wrong. I know he got one wrong in quant and can’t remember how many wrong but I think it was 3 wrong and he got like 138. Don’t have the paper in front of me.

I didn’t ask my kid but from these boards, there may have been some confusing questions or pictures of things kids weren’t familiar with (flip phone).

Isn't the difference between a 110 and a 120 just a question or two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn’t the difference between 120 and 132 just two questions?

These are second graders. I don’t think a kid who misses 2 questions should be disqualified from a program.

My kid got a 141 composite but scored 124 on the verbal. I think he got 5 questions wrong. I know he got one wrong in quant and can’t remember how many wrong but I think it was 3 wrong and he got like 138. Don’t have the paper in front of me.

I didn’t ask my kid but from these boards, there may have been some confusing questions or pictures of things kids weren’t familiar with (flip phone).

The difference is more than two questions. The CogAT is a very crude instrument though, with a very low ceiling, and I'd be happier if they found a better test. A hard cutoff of 132 wouldn't disqualify kids who failed to make the cut. The kids would simply need to get an IQ or achievement test with a composite in the top 2%.

I agree.

A kid with a 120 score has just as many if not more peers in the gen ed class as they do in AAP.

Keep AAP at the top 2%. The level 3 base programs will then be full and have lots of enrichment for all those smart kids in the 120s to get challenged at school.

Both programs will be full, and none of them bloated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn’t the difference between 120 and 132 just two questions?

These are second graders. I don’t think a kid who misses 2 questions should be disqualified from a program.

My kid got a 141 composite but scored 124 on the verbal. I think he got 5 questions wrong. I know he got one wrong in quant and can’t remember how many wrong but I think it was 3 wrong and he got like 138. Don’t have the paper in front of me.

I didn’t ask my kid but from these boards, there may have been some confusing questions or pictures of things kids weren’t familiar with (flip phone).

The difference is more than two questions. The CogAT is a very crude instrument though, with a very low ceiling, and I'd be happier if they found a better test. A hard cutoff of 132 wouldn't disqualify kids who failed to make the cut. The kids would simply need to get an IQ or achievement test with a composite in the top 2%.

I agree.

A kid with a 120 score has just as many if not more peers in the gen ed class as they do in AAP.

Keep AAP at the top 2%. The level 3 base programs will then be full and have lots of enrichment for all those smart kids in the 120s to get challenged at school.

Both programs will be full, and none of them bloated.

Both my kids made it at 99th percentile. They had friends who seemed equally smart in class that didn’t score as high. I believe they would do equally well in AAP.

I don’t even know why I’m arguing this. My kids are smart and should be in AAP. They have smart parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nationally --- shouldn't these kids be in AAP? There are some general national standards as to what constitutes, "gifted". We live in a highly educated, high IQ area. No surprise, in the least, that so many kids "should" qualify.

Now, how to best serve them and everyone? I would like to see the total AAP Center numbers at no more than 2x the enrollment of TJ. Keep gifted kids at the base school - with differential instruction w/in the same classroom. Flexible grouping for instruction so all students can advance to the best of their ability/effort.

Nationally, 2% are gifted. It would be reasonable in the FCPS area for 4-5% to be gifted. If you want to include, bright, motivated, almost-gifted kids, the range could stretch up to 10%. There's no way 20% are gifted.

Which is irrelevant because AAP is NOT a G&T program. It's a sped-up and deeper version of the standard curriculum, and I'd assume any truly gifted students would be bored and better served by grade skipping or getting a merit scholarship to an elite private.

As the parent of two "truly gifted" students, I disagree with you. I don't want my kids to skip grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Both my kids made it at 99th percentile. They had friends who seemed equally smart in class that didn’t score as high. I believe they would do equally well in AAP.

I don’t even know why I’m arguing this. My kids are smart and should be in AAP. They have smart parents.

AAP is so watered down that any reasonably bright child would do well. The problem is that the reasonably bright kids are so abundant that the pace ends up being too slow for the gifted kids. The debate boils down to whether you think AAP should be an accelerated program that ought to be accessible to any reasonably bright, motivated child, or whether you think AAP should be a much faster program accessed only by the kids whose needs truly can't be met otherwise.