Why is FCPS trying to keep high performing students out of AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

[Anonymous]

“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

The perfect example of why it should go back to a true gifted program - less than 5 percent. Then we'd be less likely to hear this kind of complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

It used to be that you needed to be on the PTA to get your kid in the program. If you donated or raised money for the school, your kid was placed with no questions asked in the AAP classroom. It's a flawed program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

The perfect example of why it should go back to a true gifted program - less than 5 percent. Then we'd be less likely to hear this kind of complaining.

PP here. I agree that a real gifted program rather than a top 20% one would be much more functional. But, another thing that would help is some transparency in the process. It's frustrating when your kid is one of the ones with high test scores and above grade level in all subjects who doesn't get in. It's perplexing when other kids are getting in who aren't even above grade level in one of the subjects and who, based on what the parents said, had lower test scores. It's completely galling when your above grade level gen ed kid can't get a reading group because there aren't enough above grade level kids in their classroom, but they still supposedly are having their needs met in gen ed. It's even worse when you have a kid in AAP who still doesn't get time with the teacher during language arts block because the teacher tells you at the conference that she'd love to spend time with your kid's group, but there are groups in her AAP classroom that are lower and need the bulk of her time.

The whole process should be simplified. Kids who are above grade level in math and reading and who have reasonably high CogAT scores should be admitted. Period.

[Anonymous]

I agree. There’s no need to separate kids out into their own gifted classroom. Especially when some of them are not advanced in one of the subjects. Let the kids who are advanced in math go to a separate class for math. Do the same for language arts. We don’t need a group of random teachers to be granted the power to stamp our child as gifted or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

I get that. It's partly because it's a larger group but also because everyone thinks their kids are above average!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

The perfect example of why it should go back to a true gifted program - less than 5 percent. Then we'd be less likely to hear this kind of complaining.

PP here. I agree that a real gifted program rather than a top 20% one would be much more functional. But, another thing that would help is some transparency in the process. It's frustrating when your kid is one of the ones with high test scores and above grade level in all subjects who doesn't get in. It's perplexing when other kids are getting in who aren't even above grade level in one of the subjects and who, based on what the parents said, had lower test scores. It's completely galling when your above grade level gen ed kid can't get a reading group because there aren't enough above grade level kids in their classroom, but they still supposedly are having their needs met in gen ed. It's even worse when you have a kid in AAP who still doesn't get time with the teacher during language arts block because the teacher tells you at the conference that she'd love to spend time with your kid's group, but there are groups in her AAP classroom that are lower and need the bulk of her time.

The whole process should be simplified. Kids who are above grade level in math and reading and who have reasonably high CogAT scores should be admitted. Period.

But then don't you get into the whole issue of why support gifted children and not the rest? My understanding is that this is all about logistics and the difficulty of addressing everyone's needs in one classroom. AAP makes it easier (but also introduces new issues).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t conflate in-pool with being accepted into LEVEL IV. I don’t understand the obsession with in-pool designation. If you know enough about the process and care enough to be here complaining about the pool cutoffs, then you know you should parent refer regardless and that the pool designation is just not that meaningful.

I understand the obsession a bit better after reading the comment on another thread about AAP being perceived by some parents as prestigious. I assume being in-pool also confers bragging rights in some circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

The perfect example of why it should go back to a true gifted program - less than 5 percent. Then we'd be less likely to hear this kind of complaining.

DP. In the 90s and 00s, the program was around 10-12% and has expanded since then. All of this yearning for a bygone era of less than 5% in the AAP program are yearning for something that hasn't existed in 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

The perfect example of why it should go back to a true gifted program - less than 5 percent. Then we'd be less likely to hear this kind of complaining.

PP here. I agree that a real gifted program rather than a top 20% one would be much more functional. But, another thing that would help is some transparency in the process. It's frustrating when your kid is one of the ones with high test scores and above grade level in all subjects who doesn't get in. It's perplexing when other kids are getting in who aren't even above grade level in one of the subjects and who, based on what the parents said, had lower test scores. It's completely galling when your above grade level gen ed kid can't get a reading group because there aren't enough above grade level kids in their classroom, but they still supposedly are having their needs met in gen ed. It's even worse when you have a kid in AAP who still doesn't get time with the teacher during language arts block because the teacher tells you at the conference that she'd love to spend time with your kid's group, but there are groups in her AAP classroom that are lower and need the bulk of her time.

The whole process should be simplified. Kids who are above grade level in math and reading and who have reasonably high CogAT scores should be admitted. Period.

But then don't you get into the whole issue of why support gifted children and not the rest? My understanding is that this is all about logistics and the difficulty of addressing everyone's needs in one classroom. AAP makes it easier (but also introduces new issues).

If that were the case, then why are they admitting kids who are on or below grade level in one or all subjects? Why are they rejecting kids who are above grade level in all subjects? The system would make sense if the teachers were more able to meet everyone's needs by having fewer instructional levels. That isn't the way it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

I get that. It's partly because it's a larger group but also because everyone thinks their kids are above average!

But that's exactly why they need objective standards and not a very subjective, opaque process with results that often don't even make sense to the AART. When my kid got rejected with high test scores, above grade level in all subjects, and high GBRS, we met with our very experienced AART. The school usually get around 25 kids into AAP. The AART said that in those 25, there are 5 that had nothing whatsoever in their packets to suggest that they belonged in AAP and another 5 who got rejected who absolutely fit the profile of an AAP student, had strong packets, and were surprise rejections. The other 20 kids who got in were somewhere on the spectrum of borderline but reasonable admits through obvious admits. Even the AART had no recourse to get answers from Gatehouse or take any steps to get kids admitted who were screwed over by the process.

Re: the bolded. That's true, but kind of obnoxious to say it given the context of people whose kids obviously should have been admitted, but weren't. I mean, I've had enough other people imply that my kid's AAP rejection meant that I was just a delusional parent who thought my average kid was above average. Are you suggesting that my kid who had an unprepped CogAT score in the low 130s, was above grade level in all subjects, had a perfect GBRS, got pass advanced on all SOLs and perfect scores on many, got an unprepped 98th percentile on IAAT, crushed algebra I in 7th, etc. is merely average and not AAP material?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

I get that. It's partly because it's a larger group but also because everyone thinks their kids are above average!

But that's exactly why they need objective standards and not a very subjective, opaque process with results that often don't even make sense to the AART. When my kid got rejected with high test scores, above grade level in all subjects, and high GBRS, we met with our very experienced AART. The school usually get around 25 kids into AAP. The AART said that in those 25, there are 5 that had nothing whatsoever in their packets to suggest that they belonged in AAP and another 5 who got rejected who absolutely fit the profile of an AAP student, had strong packets, and were surprise rejections. The other 20 kids who got in were somewhere on the spectrum of borderline but reasonable admits through obvious admits. Even the AART had no recourse to get answers from Gatehouse or take any steps to get kids admitted who were screwed over by the process.

Re: the bolded. That's true, but kind of obnoxious to say it given the context of people whose kids obviously should have been admitted, but weren't. I mean, I've had enough other people imply that my kid's AAP rejection meant that I was just a delusional parent who thought my average kid was above average. Are you suggesting that my kid who had an unprepped CogAT score in the low 130s, was above grade level in all subjects, had a perfect GBRS, got pass advanced on all SOLs and perfect scores on many, got an unprepped 98th percentile on IAAT, crushed algebra I in 7th, etc. is merely average and not AAP material?

I'm the pp you are quoting. No, I would not suggest that at all. If anything, your child's success without AAP is further evidence that AAP isn't necessary for success or a good indicator of it.

Did you ever get any closure about why your child was rejected? I assume you tried more than once. Also it's disconcerting that the AART said that.

I agree that we need a more objective process where one would expect a child like yours would be in. But unfortunately testing isn't the road to objectivity it once was, given the prep that is happening in some circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

I get that. It's partly because it's a larger group but also because everyone thinks their kids are above average!

But that's exactly why they need objective standards and not a very subjective, opaque process with results that often don't even make sense to the AART. When my kid got rejected with high test scores, above grade level in all subjects, and high GBRS, we met with our very experienced AART. The school usually get around 25 kids into AAP. The AART said that in those 25, there are 5 that had nothing whatsoever in their packets to suggest that they belonged in AAP and another 5 who got rejected who absolutely fit the profile of an AAP student, had strong packets, and were surprise rejections. The other 20 kids who got in were somewhere on the spectrum of borderline but reasonable admits through obvious admits. Even the AART had no recourse to get answers from Gatehouse or take any steps to get kids admitted who were screwed over by the process.

Re: the bolded. That's true, but kind of obnoxious to say it given the context of people whose kids obviously should have been admitted, but weren't. I mean, I've had enough other people imply that my kid's AAP rejection meant that I was just a delusional parent who thought my average kid was above average. Are you suggesting that my kid who had an unprepped CogAT score in the low 130s, was above grade level in all subjects, had a perfect GBRS, got pass advanced on all SOLs and perfect scores on many, got an unprepped 98th percentile on IAAT, crushed algebra I in 7th, etc. is merely average and not AAP material?

I'm the pp you are quoting. No, I would not suggest that at all. If anything, your child's success without AAP is further evidence that AAP isn't necessary for success or a good indicator of it.

Did you ever get any closure about why your child was rejected? I assume you tried more than once. Also it's disconcerting that the AART said that.

I agree that we need a more objective process where one would expect a child like yours would be in. But unfortunately testing isn't the road to objectivity it once was, given the prep that is happening in some circles.

I generally agree with you. If every school had advanced math and then also switched classrooms for language arts in a similar way, very few kids would "need" AAP.

You never get any closure. That's not how the system works. My kid eventually got admitted, but the timing made it pointless. Some of the damage was already done in the sense that my kid's self confidence was shot and friendships were ruined by the process.

Testing shouldn't keep kids out, but it should guarantee placement in the program. Since AAP only functions as a mildly accelerated program, the main tests should be the achievement tests. If the kid meets the bar for advanced math placement and is a grade level ahead in language arts, there is no point in keeping the kid out of AAP. In terms of instructional level, that's the placement that matches.