Kid Not Eligible for AAP though scores seem great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would save a lot of time if they had test cutoffs--e.g., reading level of 28 and 98th percentile is an automatic in, or something like that.

But that’s going backwards. These types of programs used to get filled that way. People finally came to realize test scores aren’t everything and they need to look at more. Yes, it is harder and difficult to ensure consistency, but that doesn’t mean going back to the old way is better. I think they genuinely do the best they can and allowing appeals and referrals every year in addition to outside testing (i.e. WISC, SB, etc) as well as allowing one re-test is a pretty good attempt to ensure catching kids.

I don’t know. I was in FCPS GT in the 80’s and everyone in my class seemed legitimately really smart. Can’t say the same for my kid’s AAP classmates.

Maybe you just don’t remember what 8-11 year olds are really like,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"My kid's score:
NNAT:131
CoGAT: 134
GBRS: 3O, 1F
The reasoning/commentary by teacher and grades each quarter were great, however AAP marked as ineligible. DRA: 28. What are my options here so that I can get my kid to be considered for AAP? Kid is good at communication and got a certificate, kid participated in spelling bee and was only 1 from the class to be selected, good at constructive/out of box thinking. "

Those are good scores and in most programs we would say that they are excellent scores. But in FCPS there are kids with far higher scores who did not get into AAP. The scores are in pool but right at the cut off for in pool and we don't know what the sub section scores are. Earning a certificate may or may not be a big thing, my kid participated in the Virginia Reads program and got a certificate. It is not that big a deal, what is the certificate in. Participating in a spelling bee is cool but not really that exciting.

The comments are always going to be positive, your childs teacher sent a message to the committee by giving your child three occasionally on the GBRS. The teachers are not going to write negative comments. They know that parents can get the packets and are not going to risk saying that a child is not a good fit for these reasons. So the comments are going to be positive. The occasionally markings indicate that the teacher does not think your child is a good fit because they only sometimes see the characteristics that AAP is looking for in its students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would save a lot of time if they had test cutoffs--e.g., reading level of 28 and 98th percentile is an automatic in, or something like that.

But that’s going backwards. These types of programs used to get filled that way. People finally came to realize test scores aren’t everything and they need to look at more. Yes, it is harder and difficult to ensure consistency, but that doesn’t mean going back to the old way is better. I think they genuinely do the best they can and allowing appeals and referrals every year in addition to outside testing (i.e. WISC, SB, etc) as well as allowing one re-test is a pretty good attempt to ensure catching kids.

No test scores are not everything and the tests can be prepped but they could set a standard that guarantees admission, maybe a NNAT and CogAT 142 or higher is automatic admission. While the tests can be prepped, those are high enough scores that a kid who prepped was most likely in the 99th percentile anyway (around a 132) and likely very smart if not gifted.

Set an in pool score that requires GBRS from teachers, the current NNAT and CogAT of 132. Parents can choose to write a letter or not but that bench mark is still there for kids who may be a good fit and whose parents are not as aware that the program exists.

Allow for parent referrals for anyone not in pool using the methods that are used today.

This would decrease the number of packets that AART have to put together and GBRSs that teachers have to complete and the number of packets that are reviewed.

I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"My kid's score:
NNAT:131
CoGAT: 134
GBRS: 3O, 1F
The reasoning/commentary by teacher and grades each quarter were great, however AAP marked as ineligible. DRA: 28. What are my options here so that I can get my kid to be considered for AAP? Kid is good at communication and got a certificate, kid participated in spelling bee and was only 1 from the class to be selected, good at constructive/out of box thinking. "

Those are good scores and in most programs we would say that they are excellent scores. But in FCPS there are kids with far higher scores who did not get into AAP. The scores are in pool but right at the cut off for in pool and we don't know what the sub section scores are. Earning a certificate may or may not be a big thing, my kid participated in the Virginia Reads program and got a certificate. It is not that big a deal, what is the certificate in. Participating in a spelling bee is cool but not really that exciting.

The comments are always going to be positive, your childs teacher sent a message to the committee by giving your child three occasionally on the GBRS. The teachers are not going to write negative comments. They know that parents can get the packets and are not going to risk saying that a child is not a good fit for these reasons. So the comments are going to be positive. The occasionally markings indicate that the teacher does not think your child is a good fit because they only sometimes see the characteristics that AAP is looking for in its students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would save a lot of time if they had test cutoffs--e.g., reading level of 28 and 98th percentile is an automatic in, or something like that.

But that’s going backwards. These types of programs used to get filled that way. People finally came to realize test scores aren’t everything and they need to look at more. Yes, it is harder and difficult to ensure consistency, but that doesn’t mean going back to the old way is better. I think they genuinely do the best they can and allowing appeals and referrals every year in addition to outside testing (i.e. WISC, SB, etc) as well as allowing one re-test is a pretty good attempt to ensure catching kids.

No test scores are not everything and the tests can be prepped but they could set a standard that guarantees admission, maybe a NNAT and CogAT 142 or higher is automatic admission. While the tests can be prepped, those are high enough scores that a kid who prepped was most likely in the 99th percentile anyway (around a 132) and likely very smart if not gifted.

Set an in pool score that requires GBRS from teachers, the current NNAT and CogAT of 132. Parents can choose to write a letter or not but that bench mark is still there for kids who may be a good fit and whose parents are not as aware that the program exists.

Allow for parent referrals for anyone not in pool using the methods that are used today.

This would decrease the number of packets that AART have to put together and GBRSs that teachers have to complete and the number of packets that are reviewed.

I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

Your kid must have gotten in with lower scores and great teacher reviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"My kid's score:
NNAT:131
CoGAT: 134
GBRS: 3O, 1F
The reasoning/commentary by teacher and grades each quarter were great, however AAP marked as ineligible. DRA: 28. What are my options here so that I can get my kid to be considered for AAP? Kid is good at communication and got a certificate, kid participated in spelling bee and was only 1 from the class to be selected, good at constructive/out of box thinking. "

Those are good scores and in most programs we would say that they are excellent scores. But in FCPS there are kids with far higher scores who did not get into AAP. The scores are in pool but right at the cut off for in pool and we don't know what the sub section scores are. Earning a certificate may or may not be a big thing, my kid participated in the Virginia Reads program and got a certificate. It is not that big a deal, what is the certificate in. Participating in a spelling bee is cool but not really that exciting.

The comments are always going to be positive, your childs teacher sent a message to the committee by giving your child three occasionally on the GBRS. The teachers are not going to write negative comments. They know that parents can get the packets and are not going to risk saying that a child is not a good fit for these reasons. So the comments are going to be positive. The occasionally markings indicate that the teacher does not think your child is a good fit because they only sometimes see the characteristics that AAP is looking for in its students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would save a lot of time if they had test cutoffs--e.g., reading level of 28 and 98th percentile is an automatic in, or something like that.

But that’s going backwards. These types of programs used to get filled that way. People finally came to realize test scores aren’t everything and they need to look at more. Yes, it is harder and difficult to ensure consistency, but that doesn’t mean going back to the old way is better. I think they genuinely do the best they can and allowing appeals and referrals every year in addition to outside testing (i.e. WISC, SB, etc) as well as allowing one re-test is a pretty good attempt to ensure catching kids.

No test scores are not everything and the tests can be prepped but they could set a standard that guarantees admission, maybe a NNAT and CogAT 142 or higher is automatic admission. While the tests can be prepped, those are high enough scores that a kid who prepped was most likely in the 99th percentile anyway (around a 132) and likely very smart if not gifted.

Set an in pool score that requires GBRS from teachers, the current NNAT and CogAT of 132. Parents can choose to write a letter or not but that bench mark is still there for kids who may be a good fit and whose parents are not as aware that the program exists.

Allow for parent referrals for anyone not in pool using the methods that are used today.

This would decrease the number of packets that AART have to put together and GBRSs that teachers have to complete and the number of packets that are reviewed.

I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

That's because presumably you have a child that fits into that description. Obviously if you didn't, you would want it to be more selective to help your child's education. Essentially - we all want what would work best for our own kids, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

.

You can think that but who knows if it is at all true. Just like I can think that a holistic approach is more likely to create an inquisitive, lively, and vibrant classroom full of intelligent kids who engage and discuss and learn. Instead of a room or robot test takers who obediently do as they are told and are intelligent but yield a dull learning environment. And who will be the same great test takers in virtually any environment.

FTR I am essentially playing devil’s advocate since my child does have high test scores but also doesn’t suffer from a holistic approach that shows strengths and characteristics DC has that tests don’t show. I’m not a this side or that side or sour grapes position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

DP. I like the inclusion of so many above average kids in AAP. Maybe it slows down the curriculum, slighting my "actually gifted" kid academically, but it gives him a larger cohort, which has more value.

[Anonymous]

I would like the inclusion of kids holistically if the process found kids who were truly special in some way not identified by standardized tests. The current system seems to identify a lot of generically bright, enriched, UMC kids with motivated parents. A kid from a highly enriched home environment who is slightly above average intelligence and slightly advanced does not need to be placed in a special program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

Well, my 2E kid -- HF ASD -- has never scored well in any IQ type test (CogAT, WISC) because she gets fatigues during the WISC and distracted in the CogAT. She was in AAP due to GBRS (120s on the CogAT). She is currently a junior in HS, taking 5 AP's; and getting mostly A's. And she has gotten 5's in every AP test she has taken to date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would save a lot of time if they had test cutoffs--e.g., reading level of 28 and 98th percentile is an automatic in, or something like that.

But that’s not how you figure out which children need a different approach to learning than is available in the regular classroom.

Its not Creative Academics, its Advanced Academics.

FCPS says that AAP is for children whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom. Test scores don’t give enough information about a child to know whether the child needs the AAP classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like the inclusion of kids holistically if the process found kids who were truly special in some way not identified by standardized tests. The current system seems to identify a lot of generically bright, enriched, UMC kids with motivated parents. A kid from a highly enriched home environment who is slightly above average intelligence and slightly advanced does not need to be placed in a special program.

But because they use NNAT and CogAT as their tests (which are highly preppable), these "generically bright, enriched, UMC kids motivated parents" score inflated, high scores, and they might seem like gifted kids based on scores anyways.. So just relying on the scores won't be the answer anyways. I bet that will increase the amount of prepping even more. There isn't a one fits all solution here. Term "Holistic approach" is like an insurance for FCPS. There is no way the committee can make this a consistently fair process across the board given the volume, and this gives them the flexibility on admission...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like the inclusion of kids holistically if the process found kids who were truly special in some way not identified by standardized tests. The current system seems to identify a lot of generically bright, enriched, UMC kids with motivated parents. A kid from a highly enriched home environment who is slightly above average intelligence and slightly advanced does not need to be placed in a special program.

But because they use NNAT and CogAT as their tests (which are highly preppable), these "generically bright, enriched, UMC kids motivated parents" score inflated, high scores, and they might seem like gifted kids based on scores anyways.. So just relying on the scores won't be the answer anyways. I bet that will increase the amount of prepping even more. There isn't a one fits all solution here. Term "Holistic approach" is like an insurance for FCPS. There is no way the committee can make this a consistently fair process across the board given the volume, and this gives them the flexibility on admission...

This exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

Well, my 2E kid -- HF ASD -- has never scored well in any IQ type test (CogAT, WISC) because she gets fatigues during the WISC and distracted in the CogAT. She was in AAP due to GBRS (120s on the CogAT). She is currently a junior in HS, taking 5 AP's; and getting mostly A's. And she has gotten 5's in every AP test she has taken to date.

How can you even claim 2e (gifted?) if she doesn’t score well on an IQ test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

DP. I like the inclusion of so many above average kids in AAP. Maybe it slows down the curriculum, slighting my "actually gifted" kid academically, but it gives him a larger cohort, which has more value.

As long as they are not excluding kids that actually have the scores to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like the holistic approach. I don’t think a high score should automatically get you in. There are always ways to beat the test. I think looking at work samples and teacher comments is important too.

I think the holistic approach is the reason so many slightly above average kids are in AAP, slowing down the curriculum for everyone else. UMC kids with involved parents who are providing enrichment are going to have relatively strong classroom performance and better work products, which in turn gets them into programs like AAP.

DP. I like the inclusion of so many above average kids in AAP. Maybe it slows down the curriculum, slighting my "actually gifted" kid academically, but it gives him a larger cohort, which has more value.

As long as they are not excluding kids that actually have the scores to get in.

It’s got to be more than just test scores. The kids have to show some kind of creative thinking, or work product, or have a teacher review!