AAP Results 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

I don't think any specific factor should be "the most important factor." A kid who is academically advanced and has a high GBRS, but low CogAT belongs in AAP. So does the kid who is academically advanced with high test scores that the teacher doesn't like or get. Likewise, the kid who has very high test scores and a high GBRS, but is on-grade level rather than being ahead belongs in AAP. It's absurd to bar any of these kids from accessing an advanced curriculum.

GBRS is pretty arbitrary and can drastically change from year to year. It shouldn't be used to exclude kids from AAP when they otherwise have the profile of an AAP kid.

I think a cogat of 150+ is generally sure shot with 99% iready even in high ses schools. NNAT 150+ helps but not as much as cogat. Anybody know of exceptions?

A cogAT of 150+ is an excessively high bar. That would be like 2 kids in the entire county.

My white child (this is relevant because we all know the bar is set to be Asian > White > Black-Hispanic) scored above a 150 on the COGAT and a 147 on the NNAT, 99% iready. His teacher e-mailed me before putting in the AAP packet saying, "sorry, but your child has not demonstrated to me that they have the capability to perform well on advanced work." Lol get focked lady. He did, luckily make it into AAP and is thriving there despite his idiot teacher. This is why I think GBRS is trash

Huh? Doesn't the 99% on iReady demonstrate that? Weird.

No, it just demonstrates they do well on a standardized test, which is an indicator of how they perform on a very well-defined set of reading/math assessments at a given point in time.

But it tells you absolutely nothing about how the student responds to challenges, how motivated they are, if they are creative thinkers, how they perform/respond in the classroom, etc. all of which are necessary for sustained capability to perform well on advanced work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

You are making huge assumptions here. There are a lot of gen ed students with much higher IQs than those in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

You are making huge assumptions here. There are a lot of gen ed students with much higher IQs than those in AAP.

DP. Probably some, yes, but not a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

You are making huge assumptions here. There are a lot of gen ed students with much higher IQs than those in AAP.

We all know that AAP is heavily diluted. A true gifted program usually has an IQ cut off of 145 as a baseline. Which better serve the needs of those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

You are making huge assumptions here. There are a lot of gen ed students with much higher IQs than those in AAP.

We all know that AAP is heavily diluted. A true gifted program usually has an IQ cut off of 145 as a baseline. Which better serve the needs of those kids.

Agreed - my child isn't gifted. Top 15-20% sure... However, I'm glad to be with an accelerated class where they'll be the one getting attention instead of the kids who can't read or do simple math yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

You are making huge assumptions here. There are a lot of gen ed students with much higher IQs than those in AAP.

We all know that AAP is heavily diluted. A true gifted program usually has an IQ cut off of 145 as a baseline. Which better serve the needs of those kids.

That's absurd, unless you're viewing the Davidson Institute as the only "true gifted program." An IQ of 145 is at the 1 in 1000 level. Very few regions have enough students to support a gifted program with that high of a cutoff. FCPS has around 14,000 students per grade level. Statistically speaking, only 14 FCPS kids per grade level would meet a 145+ threshold. This would be an insufficient cohort for any type of program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

You are making huge assumptions here. There are a lot of gen ed students with much higher IQs than those in AAP.

We all know that AAP is heavily diluted. A true gifted program usually has an IQ cut off of 145 as a baseline. Which better serve the needs of those kids.

This is nonsense. Generally, a gifted program uses two standard deviations for an IQ cutoff which is 130 for the WISC (and 132 for the Cogat).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

So the super special kids are unable to grasp the simplest behavioral rules and thus should be catered to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

So the super special kids are unable to grasp the simplest behavioral rules and thus should be catered to?

The AAP kids should be smart enough to develop enough self control to not disrupt their classrooms. A certain amount of EQ is important in life and their parents should focus on that as well as their IQs.

[Anonymous]

ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues have nothing to do with intelligence. Children can be smart, very bright, gifted, ahead in school and struggle with behavior because of ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues. It can be harder for parents of said children to receive a 504 plan or an IEP if their smart child with one of the above issues because the schools tend to require a child be failing or struggling academically in order to provide services for a child.

That said, the parents of kids who score high on the various tests with ok to crappy GBRSs and who are complaining about their child being bored and that is why their behavior is awful are not saying that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or some other issue that is affecting their behavior in the classroom. These parents tend to complain that the Teacher just doesn’t like their kid and won’t acknowledge their child's genius. I tend to think that there are behavior problems that the parents are not addressing with their kids.

The parents who mention that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or other similar issues at least gives the appearance that they are aware that their child is struggling with behavior and that it impacting the child and the classroom. The parent who just assumes that their genius child is going to behavior better in AAP because the program will meet their kids needs and school will suddenly not be boring and their child will no longer be disruptive are delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues have nothing to do with intelligence. Children can be smart, very bright, gifted, ahead in school and struggle with behavior because of ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues. It can be harder for parents of said children to receive a 504 plan or an IEP if their smart child with one of the above issues because the schools tend to require a child be failing or struggling academically in order to provide services for a child.

That said, the parents of kids who score high on the various tests with ok to crappy GBRSs and who are complaining about their child being bored and that is why their behavior is awful are not saying that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or some other issue that is affecting their behavior in the classroom. These parents tend to complain that the Teacher just doesn’t like their kid and won’t acknowledge their child's genius. I tend to think that there are behavior problems that the parents are not addressing with their kids.

The parents who mention that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or other similar issues at least gives the appearance that they are aware that their child is struggling with behavior and that it impacting the child and the classroom. The parent who just assumes that their genius child is going to behavior better in AAP because the program will meet their kids needs and school will suddenly not be boring and their child will no longer be disruptive are delusional.

Take a look at psychological studies on profoundly gifted kids, these kids might show signs of ADHD but can not be diagnosed since they don’t have attention issues. A reasonable amount of questioning against everything is what moves humanity forward, think about 400 years ago humans were still believing earth is flat and it’s the center of universe…. And Wave–particle duality…. If it doesn’t take people to question and take what’s been taught face value how a society move forward? We often dislike questioning and arguing in our schools, but these qualities are valuable in today’s corporate world, and these kids should be taught how to question and discuss other possibilities instead of argue, but their curiosity should not be discouraged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues have nothing to do with intelligence. Children can be smart, very bright, gifted, ahead in school and struggle with behavior because of ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues. It can be harder for parents of said children to receive a 504 plan or an IEP if their smart child with one of the above issues because the schools tend to require a child be failing or struggling academically in order to provide services for a child.

That said, the parents of kids who score high on the various tests with ok to crappy GBRSs and who are complaining about their child being bored and that is why their behavior is awful are not saying that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or some other issue that is affecting their behavior in the classroom. These parents tend to complain that the Teacher just doesn’t like their kid and won’t acknowledge their child's genius. I tend to think that there are behavior problems that the parents are not addressing with their kids.

The parents who mention that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or other similar issues at least gives the appearance that they are aware that their child is struggling with behavior and that it impacting the child and the classroom. The parent who just assumes that their genius child is going to behavior better in AAP because the program will meet their kids needs and school will suddenly not be boring and their child will no longer be disruptive are delusional.

Take a look at psychological studies on profoundly gifted kids, these kids might show signs of ADHD but can not be diagnosed since they don’t have attention issues. A reasonable amount of questioning against everything is what moves humanity forward, think about 400 years ago humans were still believing earth is flat and it’s the center of universe…. And Wave–particle duality…. If it doesn’t take people to question and take what’s been taught face value how a society move forward? We often dislike questioning and arguing in our schools, but these qualities are valuable in today’s corporate world, and these kids should be taught how to question and discuss other possibilities instead of argue, but their curiosity should not be discouraged.

You wonder why so many parents make their kids take enrichment classes outside the FCPS system. They are encouraged to think outside the box and not be confirmative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues have nothing to do with intelligence. Children can be smart, very bright, gifted, ahead in school and struggle with behavior because of ADHD, anxiety, and other similar issues. It can be harder for parents of said children to receive a 504 plan or an IEP if their smart child with one of the above issues because the schools tend to require a child be failing or struggling academically in order to provide services for a child.

That said, the parents of kids who score high on the various tests with ok to crappy GBRSs and who are complaining about their child being bored and that is why their behavior is awful are not saying that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or some other issue that is affecting their behavior in the classroom. These parents tend to complain that the Teacher just doesn’t like their kid and won’t acknowledge their child's genius. I tend to think that there are behavior problems that the parents are not addressing with their kids.

The parents who mention that their kid has ADHD, anxiety, or other similar issues at least gives the appearance that they are aware that their child is struggling with behavior and that it impacting the child and the classroom. The parent who just assumes that their genius child is going to behavior better in AAP because the program will meet their kids needs and school will suddenly not be boring and their child will no longer be disruptive are delusional.

Take a look at psychological studies on profoundly gifted kids, these kids might show signs of ADHD but can not be diagnosed since they don’t have attention issues. A reasonable amount of questioning against everything is what moves humanity forward, think about 400 years ago humans were still believing earth is flat and it’s the center of universe…. And Wave–particle duality…. If it doesn’t take people to question and take what’s been taught face value how a society move forward? We often dislike questioning and arguing in our schools, but these qualities are valuable in today’s corporate world, and these kids should be taught how to question and discuss other possibilities instead of argue, but their curiosity should not be discouraged.

You wonder why so many parents make their kids take enrichment classes outside the FCPS system. They are encouraged to think outside the box and not be confirmative.

It doesn't require disrupting the class to be a free thinker/express new ideas. But if they are so special that they can't conform to classroom rules in a public school system, there might be more appropriate settings for some kids.