What percentage of AAP kids are truly genius level gifted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify the 89% math was iready math in early September. I don’t have any other math score but I assume it has gone up.

I’m not questioning if he’s gifted or just bright, I thought most aap are bright and not truly gifted….

Most kids in AAP are scoring in the 99th percentile in one iReady and probably 95th or higher percentile in the second. DS was 99th percentile for both iReadys and Passed Advanced for all of his SOLs, including 600s two out of four years in reading and math and a 600 on the science SOL. He is not a genius, but he is really smart.

The 89th percentile in Math is strong but not high enough for AAP at most schools.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

My first was a 99th percentile kid, all the time.

My second was a low-90th percentile kid.

My third was like 88th percentile.

All 3 were admitted to AAP.

Very tired of the "if your kid is merely bright they don't belong in AAP" tropes. People - it's not that special. It's 20% of the county.

This. The top 20% of the country is not all geniuses. Not even close.

This fact is what makes it so hard for people to accept that their child didn't get in. It would be one thing if AAP only took truly gifted 1-3% of kids in FCPS. Then you're in good company. I think it's hard for parents to accept that their kid can't even make the lowered standard. It's a real knock on the ego.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, here. OP's kid was in pool with 99th percentile test scores. The teacher told the parents that OP's kid is "very bright," so the kid must be showing advanced behaviors in class. The teacher seems to think that AAP is a program only for that truly gifted 1-3% and not for the regular bright kids. I can see why OP is confused when the majority of kids in AAP are comparable to or even less bright than OP's kid. This is the problem with using a very subjective rating scale as the primary metric for AAP admissions. Not every teacher is going to be on the same page regarding the level of kids in AAP and how generously or harshly they're supposed to rate them when filling out the HOPE.

No teacher in FCPS believes AAP is for the top 1-3%. It would have to be their first day teaching or first day on the planet to draw that conclusion .The teacher was explaining to OP why their kid didn't make it in.

You would be wrong with this. I've met teachers who still think that AAP is some huge pressure cooker. I've also met teachers who buy the FCPS verbiage that AAP is for kids who have needs that cannot be met in the regular classroom. OP's kid's teacher appears to be one of these if she thinks that OP's kid doesn't belong in AAP because the kid is merely "very bright" but not "gifted."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"only very high level genius like Elon musk or bill gates type kids."

As a parent of 2 kids who are profoundly gifted and very quirky, to say the least, I can confirm this is BS. They were both rejected with FSIQ > 3 SD. We are not at a super competitive high SES school. My kids do not fit the FCPS neat-and-tidy profile of a kid who "needs AAP." They don't ask for more worksheets with alacrity. My guess is they appear disengaged because, frankly, they are. One child got in but AAP is still way below their needs. We are having a hard time supporting them. But the system does not automatically select brilliant kids. From what I have observed in my n=1, FCPS selects kids who are above average reading+math and appear to like school. That's it.

As a parent of one kid like this, I would urge you to homeschool if at all possible. Your kids will get nothing out of FCPS at the elementary level.

[Anonymous]

This is what I'm starting to realize. Thanks for your input. The financial hardship of one of us not working has stopped us so far, but I realize more every day the trade we're making. We very well may take this route next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify the 89% math was iready math in early September. I don’t have any other math score but I assume it has gone up.

I’m not questioning if he’s gifted or just bright, I thought most aap are bright and not truly gifted….

Most kids in AAP are scoring in the 99th percentile in one iReady and probably 95th or higher percentile in the second. DS was 99th percentile for both iReadys and Passed Advanced for all of his SOLs, including 600s two out of four years in reading and math and a 600 on the science SOL. He is not a genius, but he is really smart.

The 89th percentile in Math is strong but not high enough for AAP at most schools.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

My first was a 99th percentile kid, all the time.

My second was a low-90th percentile kid.

My third was like 88th percentile.

All 3 were admitted to AAP.

Very tired of the "if your kid is merely bright they don't belong in AAP" tropes. People - it's not that special. It's 20% of the county.

This. The top 20% of the country is not all geniuses. Not even close.

This fact is what makes it so hard for people to accept that their child didn't get in. It would be one thing if AAP only took truly gifted 1-3% of kids in FCPS. Then you're in good company. I think it's hard for parents to accept that their kid can't even make the lowered standard. It's a real knock on the ego.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, here. OP's kid was in pool with 99th percentile test scores. The teacher told the parents that OP's kid is "very bright," so the kid must be showing advanced behaviors in class. The teacher seems to think that AAP is a program only for that truly gifted 1-3% and not for the regular bright kids. I can see why OP is confused when the majority of kids in AAP are comparable to or even less bright than OP's kid. This is the problem with using a very subjective rating scale as the primary metric for AAP admissions. Not every teacher is going to be on the same page regarding the level of kids in AAP and how generously or harshly they're supposed to rate them when filling out the HOPE.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My child did not get into AAP in second grade, even though the teacher was very complimentary of him and said he would do well in AAP. She gave him poor marks on the HOPE, with a couple completely unhelpful comments. In third grade I applied again. Again the teacher was very complimentary of him. This time the teacher gave him much more positive marks, checked more of the "exceptional talent" boxes, and very put very complimentary comments into the hope. Nothing else about my child changed in that year. In third grade he was accepted.

Also I'm also tired of people saying that AAP is for gifted students and most students have a 99% iready. Plenty of children are accepted with lower iReady scores, including mine.

I would guess that the high SES schools have classes where the vast majority of students have iReadys in the 95th percentile or higher. I would expect lower CoGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores at the schools with higher FARMs rate. If you are coming out of a school where kids are encouraged academically at home then you are less likely to be accepted with iReady scores that are lower. The programs are starting to match the schools and the schools feeding them. I don't think that is a problem, LIV probably should be geared to the top 10% of each school. It has grown because there are parents who are so focused on their kids being in that top group. One of the recommendations from the AAP audit in 2020 was to remove parental referrals and appeals because it is primarily used by wealthier families.

Can you imagine the outrage if the process was changed to only accepting the in-pool kids?

So yes, there are kids with lower iReady scores, but they are not close to being in the majority. Just like there are kids with CoGAT scores in the 115's, but they are not close to being in the majority. Overall, the kids in AAP will have CoGATs in the mid 130's or higher and iReadys in the 95th percentile. And I would guess that the kids with lower CoGATs and iReadys are kids whose parents appealed and reapplied or are URM at high FARMs schools. Parents should be looking out for their kids but let's not pretend that the Committee is allowing in lots of kids with lower scores in schools feeding McLean, Langley, or Oakton HS.

Another recommendation from the AAP Audit was that the percentile for in pool was too high and should be lower then 98th percentile in order to capture more gifted children. FCPS decided to do the opposite and now most high SES schools top 10% are higher than 99th percentile, some are 99.something percentile. This is ridiculous. A lot of students in the highest SES schools have inherited their parent’s genes for intelligence, coming from parents who are doctors, lawyers, etc.

A student in the 98th or 99th percentile shouldn’t be rejected from AAP just because their school is wealthier. All advanced children should have an opportunity for the Advanced Academic Program. Having peers in the regular education class that also got rejected from AAP because of the bias against high SES students does not do anything at all to provide a student with a more advanced and in depth education. It just “potentially” provides a few other students that are equally not engaged or challenged.

They did lower the threshold, they just did at the school level. The CoGAT/NNAT score at a Title 1 school is far lower then it is at a high SES school. They did not do it across the county, probably because the in-pool applications would have jumped a lot and not captured the kids at the Title 1 schools.

The criteria are now based on localized peer groups instead of a county wide criterion. The OPs child will have other kids like her in her class. If you widened the aperture for AAP anymore, you would have created the system that the county is desperately trying not to create by tracking kids based on ability and test scores. I think that there is room for tracking but the County, and I suspect educators across the country, dislike the idea because you will end up with classes that appear to be segregated with the poor kids, typically URM, in the lowest class, and the white and Asian kids in the other tracks. There will be places where this is less likely to happen, your high SES areas, but any school that is Title 1 or near Title 1 will look like this. And that will set of alarms and lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify the 89% math was iready math in early September. I don’t have any other math score but I assume it has gone up.

I’m not questioning if he’s gifted or just bright, I thought most aap are bright and not truly gifted….

Most kids in AAP are scoring in the 99th percentile in one iReady and probably 95th or higher percentile in the second. DS was 99th percentile for both iReadys and Passed Advanced for all of his SOLs, including 600s two out of four years in reading and math and a 600 on the science SOL. He is not a genius, but he is really smart.

The 89th percentile in Math is strong but not high enough for AAP at most schools.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

My first was a 99th percentile kid, all the time.

My second was a low-90th percentile kid.

My third was like 88th percentile.

All 3 were admitted to AAP.

Very tired of the "if your kid is merely bright they don't belong in AAP" tropes. People - it's not that special. It's 20% of the county.

This. The top 20% of the country is not all geniuses. Not even close.

This fact is what makes it so hard for people to accept that their child didn't get in. It would be one thing if AAP only took truly gifted 1-3% of kids in FCPS. Then you're in good company. I think it's hard for parents to accept that their kid can't even make the lowered standard. It's a real knock on the ego.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, here. OP's kid was in pool with 99th percentile test scores. The teacher told the parents that OP's kid is "very bright," so the kid must be showing advanced behaviors in class. The teacher seems to think that AAP is a program only for that truly gifted 1-3% and not for the regular bright kids. I can see why OP is confused when the majority of kids in AAP are comparable to or even less bright than OP's kid. This is the problem with using a very subjective rating scale as the primary metric for AAP admissions. Not every teacher is going to be on the same page regarding the level of kids in AAP and how generously or harshly they're supposed to rate them when filling out the HOPE.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My child did not get into AAP in second grade, even though the teacher was very complimentary of him and said he would do well in AAP. She gave him poor marks on the HOPE, with a couple completely unhelpful comments. In third grade I applied again. Again the teacher was very complimentary of him. This time the teacher gave him much more positive marks, checked more of the "exceptional talent" boxes, and very put very complimentary comments into the hope. Nothing else about my child changed in that year. In third grade he was accepted.

Also I'm also tired of people saying that AAP is for gifted students and most students have a 99% iready. Plenty of children are accepted with lower iReady scores, including mine.

I would guess that the high SES schools have classes where the vast majority of students have iReadys in the 95th percentile or higher. I would expect lower CoGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores at the schools with higher FARMs rate. If you are coming out of a school where kids are encouraged academically at home then you are less likely to be accepted with iReady scores that are lower. The programs are starting to match the schools and the schools feeding them. I don't think that is a problem, LIV probably should be geared to the top 10% of each school. It has grown because there are parents who are so focused on their kids being in that top group. One of the recommendations from the AAP audit in 2020 was to remove parental referrals and appeals because it is primarily used by wealthier families.

Can you imagine the outrage if the process was changed to only accepting the in-pool kids?

So yes, there are kids with lower iReady scores, but they are not close to being in the majority. Just like there are kids with CoGAT scores in the 115's, but they are not close to being in the majority. Overall, the kids in AAP will have CoGATs in the mid 130's or higher and iReadys in the 95th percentile. And I would guess that the kids with lower CoGATs and iReadys are kids whose parents appealed and reapplied or are URM at high FARMs schools. Parents should be looking out for their kids but let's not pretend that the Committee is allowing in lots of kids with lower scores in schools feeding McLean, Langley, or Oakton HS.

Sure but my daughter was in pool and not accepted with the teachers and AART telling me that the kids that are getting into AAP are only very high level genius like Elon musk or bill gates type kids.

I am sorry that your kids Teacher is unclear on who lands in AAP. You did note that her HOPE scores were mainly in the middle categories, nothing exceptional but no nevers, so I don't think the Teacher seems like they were harsh. The teacher can see that your child is bright but doesn't think that she is gifted, which is probably true. Your teacher has no clue why your child wasn't accepted because she was not involved in that decision, outside of providing samples and completing the HOPE. I don't think that the committee makes comments on why a child was not accepted. Your kids teacher is guessing. This is why our school flat out told parents that teachers would not discuss AAP eligibility, packets, or results with parents. The topic was off limits. The school provided the packet when asked but would not review documents that the parent submitted or discuss anything in the packet with parents. Part of that was because after they put the packet together, the school has no input on the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify the 89% math was iready math in early September. I don’t have any other math score but I assume it has gone up.

I’m not questioning if he’s gifted or just bright, I thought most aap are bright and not truly gifted….

Most kids in AAP are scoring in the 99th percentile in one iReady and probably 95th or higher percentile in the second. DS was 99th percentile for both iReadys and Passed Advanced for all of his SOLs, including 600s two out of four years in reading and math and a 600 on the science SOL. He is not a genius, but he is really smart.

The 89th percentile in Math is strong but not high enough for AAP at most schools.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

My first was a 99th percentile kid, all the time.

My second was a low-90th percentile kid.

My third was like 88th percentile.

All 3 were admitted to AAP.

Very tired of the "if your kid is merely bright they don't belong in AAP" tropes. People - it's not that special. It's 20% of the county.

This. The top 20% of the country is not all geniuses. Not even close.

This fact is what makes it so hard for people to accept that their child didn't get in. It would be one thing if AAP only took truly gifted 1-3% of kids in FCPS. Then you're in good company. I think it's hard for parents to accept that their kid can't even make the lowered standard. It's a real knock on the ego.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, here. OP's kid was in pool with 99th percentile test scores. The teacher told the parents that OP's kid is "very bright," so the kid must be showing advanced behaviors in class. The teacher seems to think that AAP is a program only for that truly gifted 1-3% and not for the regular bright kids. I can see why OP is confused when the majority of kids in AAP are comparable to or even less bright than OP's kid. This is the problem with using a very subjective rating scale as the primary metric for AAP admissions. Not every teacher is going to be on the same page regarding the level of kids in AAP and how generously or harshly they're supposed to rate them when filling out the HOPE.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My child did not get into AAP in second grade, even though the teacher was very complimentary of him and said he would do well in AAP. She gave him poor marks on the HOPE, with a couple completely unhelpful comments. In third grade I applied again. Again the teacher was very complimentary of him. This time the teacher gave him much more positive marks, checked more of the "exceptional talent" boxes, and very put very complimentary comments into the hope. Nothing else about my child changed in that year. In third grade he was accepted.

Also I'm also tired of people saying that AAP is for gifted students and most students have a 99% iready. Plenty of children are accepted with lower iReady scores, including mine.

I would guess that the high SES schools have classes where the vast majority of students have iReadys in the 95th percentile or higher. I would expect lower CoGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores at the schools with higher FARMs rate. If you are coming out of a school where kids are encouraged academically at home then you are less likely to be accepted with iReady scores that are lower. The programs are starting to match the schools and the schools feeding them. I don't think that is a problem, LIV probably should be geared to the top 10% of each school. It has grown because there are parents who are so focused on their kids being in that top group. One of the recommendations from the AAP audit in 2020 was to remove parental referrals and appeals because it is primarily used by wealthier families.

Can you imagine the outrage if the process was changed to only accepting the in-pool kids?

So yes, there are kids with lower iReady scores, but they are not close to being in the majority. Just like there are kids with CoGAT scores in the 115's, but they are not close to being in the majority. Overall, the kids in AAP will have CoGATs in the mid 130's or higher and iReadys in the 95th percentile. And I would guess that the kids with lower CoGATs and iReadys are kids whose parents appealed and reapplied or are URM at high FARMs schools. Parents should be looking out for their kids but let's not pretend that the Committee is allowing in lots of kids with lower scores in schools feeding McLean, Langley, or Oakton HS.

PP who mentioned kids with lower iReadies who are in. Our center/base had a 10% FARMS rate. Not the lowest in the county but not high by any means.

+1. That PP is just flat out wrong.
Here are two anecdotes from my kid's mid-SES AAP center:
-There were around 85 kids in 3rd grade AAP and another 85 in gen ed. Only 40 kids scored pass advanced on the 3rd grade reading SOL, meaning over half of the kids in AAP were not advanced.
-My kid's above grade level reading group still rarely got time with the teacher. At conferences, she said that she was so sad that she barely had time with my kid's group, but she had to focus on the groups that were on or even below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify the 89% math was iready math in early September. I don’t have any other math score but I assume it has gone up.

I’m not questioning if he’s gifted or just bright, I thought most aap are bright and not truly gifted….

Most kids in AAP are scoring in the 99th percentile in one iReady and probably 95th or higher percentile in the second. DS was 99th percentile for both iReadys and Passed Advanced for all of his SOLs, including 600s two out of four years in reading and math and a 600 on the science SOL. He is not a genius, but he is really smart.

The 89th percentile in Math is strong but not high enough for AAP at most schools.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

My first was a 99th percentile kid, all the time.

My second was a low-90th percentile kid.

My third was like 88th percentile.

All 3 were admitted to AAP.

Very tired of the "if your kid is merely bright they don't belong in AAP" tropes. People - it's not that special. It's 20% of the county.

This. The top 20% of the country is not all geniuses. Not even close.

This fact is what makes it so hard for people to accept that their child didn't get in. It would be one thing if AAP only took truly gifted 1-3% of kids in FCPS. Then you're in good company. I think it's hard for parents to accept that their kid can't even make the lowered standard. It's a real knock on the ego.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, here. OP's kid was in pool with 99th percentile test scores. The teacher told the parents that OP's kid is "very bright," so the kid must be showing advanced behaviors in class. The teacher seems to think that AAP is a program only for that truly gifted 1-3% and not for the regular bright kids. I can see why OP is confused when the majority of kids in AAP are comparable to or even less bright than OP's kid. This is the problem with using a very subjective rating scale as the primary metric for AAP admissions. Not every teacher is going to be on the same page regarding the level of kids in AAP and how generously or harshly they're supposed to rate them when filling out the HOPE.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My child did not get into AAP in second grade, even though the teacher was very complimentary of him and said he would do well in AAP. She gave him poor marks on the HOPE, with a couple completely unhelpful comments. In third grade I applied again. Again the teacher was very complimentary of him. This time the teacher gave him much more positive marks, checked more of the "exceptional talent" boxes, and very put very complimentary comments into the hope. Nothing else about my child changed in that year. In third grade he was accepted.

Also I'm also tired of people saying that AAP is for gifted students and most students have a 99% iready. Plenty of children are accepted with lower iReady scores, including mine.

I would guess that the high SES schools have classes where the vast majority of students have iReadys in the 95th percentile or higher. I would expect lower CoGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores at the schools with higher FARMs rate. If you are coming out of a school where kids are encouraged academically at home then you are less likely to be accepted with iReady scores that are lower. The programs are starting to match the schools and the schools feeding them. I don't think that is a problem, LIV probably should be geared to the top 10% of each school. It has grown because there are parents who are so focused on their kids being in that top group. One of the recommendations from the AAP audit in 2020 was to remove parental referrals and appeals because it is primarily used by wealthier families.

Can you imagine the outrage if the process was changed to only accepting the in-pool kids?

So yes, there are kids with lower iReady scores, but they are not close to being in the majority. Just like there are kids with CoGAT scores in the 115's, but they are not close to being in the majority. Overall, the kids in AAP will have CoGATs in the mid 130's or higher and iReadys in the 95th percentile. And I would guess that the kids with lower CoGATs and iReadys are kids whose parents appealed and reapplied or are URM at high FARMs schools. Parents should be looking out for their kids but let's not pretend that the Committee is allowing in lots of kids with lower scores in schools feeding McLean, Langley, or Oakton HS.

PP who mentioned kids with lower iReadies who are in. Our center/base had a 10% FARMS rate. Not the lowest in the county but not high by any means.

+1. That PP is just flat out wrong.
Here are two anecdotes from my kid's mid-SES AAP center:
-There were around 85 kids in 3rd grade AAP and another 85 in gen ed. Only 40 kids scored pass advanced on the 3rd grade reading SOL, meaning over half of the kids in AAP were not advanced.
-My kid's above grade level reading group still rarely got time with the teacher. At conferences, she said that she was so sad that she barely had time with my kid's group, but she had to focus on the groups that were on or even below grade level.

Just before Covid (I think? Maybe just after), AAP teachers started complaining that their students were not ready for the reading curriculum. I blame Lucy Calkins + Covid. Sounds like it's still bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify the 89% math was iready math in early September. I don’t have any other math score but I assume it has gone up.

I’m not questioning if he’s gifted or just bright, I thought most aap are bright and not truly gifted….

Most kids in AAP are scoring in the 99th percentile in one iReady and probably 95th or higher percentile in the second. DS was 99th percentile for both iReadys and Passed Advanced for all of his SOLs, including 600s two out of four years in reading and math and a 600 on the science SOL. He is not a genius, but he is really smart.

The 89th percentile in Math is strong but not high enough for AAP at most schools.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

My first was a 99th percentile kid, all the time.

My second was a low-90th percentile kid.

My third was like 88th percentile.

All 3 were admitted to AAP.

Very tired of the "if your kid is merely bright they don't belong in AAP" tropes. People - it's not that special. It's 20% of the county.

This. The top 20% of the country is not all geniuses. Not even close.

This fact is what makes it so hard for people to accept that their child didn't get in. It would be one thing if AAP only took truly gifted 1-3% of kids in FCPS. Then you're in good company. I think it's hard for parents to accept that their kid can't even make the lowered standard. It's a real knock on the ego.

That doesn't seem to be the problem, here. OP's kid was in pool with 99th percentile test scores. The teacher told the parents that OP's kid is "very bright," so the kid must be showing advanced behaviors in class. The teacher seems to think that AAP is a program only for that truly gifted 1-3% and not for the regular bright kids. I can see why OP is confused when the majority of kids in AAP are comparable to or even less bright than OP's kid. This is the problem with using a very subjective rating scale as the primary metric for AAP admissions. Not every teacher is going to be on the same page regarding the level of kids in AAP and how generously or harshly they're supposed to rate them when filling out the HOPE.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My child did not get into AAP in second grade, even though the teacher was very complimentary of him and said he would do well in AAP. She gave him poor marks on the HOPE, with a couple completely unhelpful comments. In third grade I applied again. Again the teacher was very complimentary of him. This time the teacher gave him much more positive marks, checked more of the "exceptional talent" boxes, and very put very complimentary comments into the hope. Nothing else about my child changed in that year. In third grade he was accepted.

Also I'm also tired of people saying that AAP is for gifted students and most students have a 99% iready. Plenty of children are accepted with lower iReady scores, including mine.

I would guess that the high SES schools have classes where the vast majority of students have iReadys in the 95th percentile or higher. I would expect lower CoGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores at the schools with higher FARMs rate. If you are coming out of a school where kids are encouraged academically at home then you are less likely to be accepted with iReady scores that are lower. The programs are starting to match the schools and the schools feeding them. I don't think that is a problem, LIV probably should be geared to the top 10% of each school. It has grown because there are parents who are so focused on their kids being in that top group. One of the recommendations from the AAP audit in 2020 was to remove parental referrals and appeals because it is primarily used by wealthier families.

Can you imagine the outrage if the process was changed to only accepting the in-pool kids?

So yes, there are kids with lower iReady scores, but they are not close to being in the majority. Just like there are kids with CoGAT scores in the 115's, but they are not close to being in the majority. Overall, the kids in AAP will have CoGATs in the mid 130's or higher and iReadys in the 95th percentile. And I would guess that the kids with lower CoGATs and iReadys are kids whose parents appealed and reapplied or are URM at high FARMs schools. Parents should be looking out for their kids but let's not pretend that the Committee is allowing in lots of kids with lower scores in schools feeding McLean, Langley, or Oakton HS.

PP who mentioned kids with lower iReadies who are in. Our center/base had a 10% FARMS rate. Not the lowest in the county but not high by any means.

+1. That PP is just flat out wrong.
Here are two anecdotes from my kid's mid-SES AAP center:
-There were around 85 kids in 3rd grade AAP and another 85 in gen ed. Only 40 kids scored pass advanced on the 3rd grade reading SOL, meaning over half of the kids in AAP were not advanced.
-My kid's above grade level reading group still rarely got time with the teacher. At conferences, she said that she was so sad that she barely had time with my kid's group, but she had to focus on the groups that were on or even below grade level.

Just before Covid (I think? Maybe just after), AAP teachers started complaining that their students were not ready for the reading curriculum. I blame Lucy Calkins + Covid. Sounds like it's still bad.

My anecdotes are pre Covid. I doubt things have improved in the last 4 years

[Anonymous]

The poster above me has hit the nail squarely on the head. Your child's teacher has no idea why they were not selected for AAP, and it's honestly a little surprising they were willing to discuss it with you at all. It's possible that the teacher misunderstands the AAP program, and put in a lack-luster effort on your child's behalf. You would not be the first parent to hit that issue, and you won't be the last.

AAP Level IV decisions are made at the county level, your child's teacher put in the packet but has no other insight into what the central committee did or did not think about your child's application. And the process that central committee uses to determine eligibility for Level IV is intentionally kept opaque to parents. People on this board extrapolate a lot about what aspects are weighted more than others, but the reality is we have no real way of knowing what that committee thought when they looked at your kid's application. And neither does your child's teacher.

If it helps, we hit a similar barrier last year. Our girl had all 99th percentile test scores and what we thought were strong student samples from us, but the teacher packet was a complete dud. We were rejected, appealed, and were denied again last year.

This year, same kid, totally different story. Looking at her teacher packet from this year, you would be hard pressed to believe this is the same kid as the packet describing her last year. My daughter did not magically become a different person, though. She just had a teacher who saw the best in her and encouraged her. She got in this year, no issues. (We did also submit a 138 WISC score this year, which might have helped? But again, there's no way to know what did and didn't move the needle once the packet went to the central committee.)

In short, no one knows why your kid wasn't found eligible except the handful of people on the central committee who reviewed the packet. But teachers really do matter, and your situation is deeply frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The poster above me has hit the nail squarely on the head. Your child's teacher has no idea why they were not selected for AAP, and it's honestly a little surprising they were willing to discuss it with you at all. It's possible that the teacher misunderstands the AAP program, and put in a lack-luster effort on your child's behalf. You would not be the first parent to hit that issue, and you won't be the last.

AAP Level IV decisions are made at the county level, your child's teacher put in the packet but has no other insight into what the central committee did or did not think about your child's application. And the process that central committee uses to determine eligibility for Level IV is intentionally kept opaque to parents. People on this board extrapolate a lot about what aspects are weighted more than others, but the reality is we have no real way of knowing what that committee thought when they looked at your kid's application. And neither does your child's teacher.

If it helps, we hit a similar barrier last year. Our girl had all 99th percentile test scores and what we thought were strong student samples from us, but the teacher packet was a complete dud. We were rejected, appealed, and were denied again last year.

This year, same kid, totally different story. Looking at her teacher packet from this year, you would be hard pressed to believe this is the same kid as the packet describing her last year. My daughter did not magically become a different person, though. She just had a teacher who saw the best in her and encouraged her. She got in this year, no issues. (We did also submit a 138 WISC score this year, which might have helped? But again, there's no way to know what did and didn't move the needle once the packet went to the central committee.)

In short, no one knows why your kid wasn't found eligible except the handful of people on the central committee who reviewed the packet. But teachers really do matter, and your situation is deeply frustrating.

As far as the bolded that's only sort of true. Yes it's a committee of 6 people from a school or schools that are not your kid's school. But they all look at the kids from the same school. Hayfield ES kids are compared to Hayfield ES and Springbrook ES to Springbrook ES and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster above me has hit the nail squarely on the head. Your child's teacher has no idea why they were not selected for AAP, and it's honestly a little surprising they were willing to discuss it with you at all. It's possible that the teacher misunderstands the AAP program, and put in a lack-luster effort on your child's behalf. You would not be the first parent to hit that issue, and you won't be the last.

AAP Level IV decisions are made at the county level, your child's teacher put in the packet but has no other insight into what the central committee did or did not think about your child's application. And the process that central committee uses to determine eligibility for Level IV is intentionally kept opaque to parents. People on this board extrapolate a lot about what aspects are weighted more than others, but the reality is we have no real way of knowing what that committee thought when they looked at your kid's application. And neither does your child's teacher.

If it helps, we hit a similar barrier last year. Our girl had all 99th percentile test scores and what we thought were strong student samples from us, but the teacher packet was a complete dud. We were rejected, appealed, and were denied again last year.

This year, same kid, totally different story. Looking at her teacher packet from this year, you would be hard pressed to believe this is the same kid as the packet describing her last year. My daughter did not magically become a different person, though. She just had a teacher who saw the best in her and encouraged her. She got in this year, no issues. (We did also submit a 138 WISC score this year, which might have helped? But again, there's no way to know what did and didn't move the needle once the packet went to the central committee.)

In short, no one knows why your kid wasn't found eligible except the handful of people on the central committee who reviewed the packet. But teachers really do matter, and your situation is deeply frustrating.

As far as the bolded that's only sort of true. Yes it's a committee of 6 people from a school or schools that are not your kid's school. But they all look at the kids from the same school. Hayfield ES kids are compared to Hayfield ES and Springbrook ES to Springbrook ES and so on.

Yes but that was not the point of the post. The child's teacher has no clue why the child was not selected for AAP because the child's teacher was not involved in the discussion and did not see anything that would tell her why she wasn't selected. The teacher's assessment that OPs daughter wasn't selected because she is bright but not gifted was bad information because the teacher has no way of knowing that.

None of us really know how the selection goes. Do the committee members read through all of the packets from one school and then read through thema second time and make decisions? Do they read them and make a decision and then maybe revise a decision? We know they review all kids from one school at the same time but not if it is a "rank order the packets and then there is a numerical cut off" for each school.

It does seem like the teacher gave a good but not great HOPE score. Maybe the teacher evaluated the kids on the HOPE score against one another and OPs child was in the middle of the pack of kids the Teacher had to evaluate? Who knows.

The teacher was probably looking for a kind way to explain why the child wasn't selected but probably should have said that she did not play a role in the process after the packet was completed and she is not suposed to discuss how she evaluated kids for the packet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster above me has hit the nail squarely on the head. Your child's teacher has no idea why they were not selected for AAP, and it's honestly a little surprising they were willing to discuss it with you at all. It's possible that the teacher misunderstands the AAP program, and put in a lack-luster effort on your child's behalf. You would not be the first parent to hit that issue, and you won't be the last.

AAP Level IV decisions are made at the county level, your child's teacher put in the packet but has no other insight into what the central committee did or did not think about your child's application. And the process that central committee uses to determine eligibility for Level IV is intentionally kept opaque to parents. People on this board extrapolate a lot about what aspects are weighted more than others, but the reality is we have no real way of knowing what that committee thought when they looked at your kid's application. And neither does your child's teacher.

If it helps, we hit a similar barrier last year. Our girl had all 99th percentile test scores and what we thought were strong student samples from us, but the teacher packet was a complete dud. We were rejected, appealed, and were denied again last year.

This year, same kid, totally different story. Looking at her teacher packet from this year, you would be hard pressed to believe this is the same kid as the packet describing her last year. My daughter did not magically become a different person, though. She just had a teacher who saw the best in her and encouraged her. She got in this year, no issues. (We did also submit a 138 WISC score this year, which might have helped? But again, there's no way to know what did and didn't move the needle once the packet went to the central committee.)

In short, no one knows why your kid wasn't found eligible except the handful of people on the central committee who reviewed the packet. But teachers really do matter, and your situation is deeply frustrating.

As far as the bolded that's only sort of true. Yes it's a committee of 6 people from a school or schools that are not your kid's school. But they all look at the kids from the same school. Hayfield ES kids are compared to Hayfield ES and Springbrook ES to Springbrook ES and so on.

Are you sure about that? The AART at my kids' school suggested that you can't play any comparison games about why did kid A get in and kid B get rejected from the school, since the kids were likely reviewed by different panels. They also said that in pool packets were reviewed on a completely different day than the parent referrals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster above me has hit the nail squarely on the head. Your child's teacher has no idea why they were not selected for AAP, and it's honestly a little surprising they were willing to discuss it with you at all. It's possible that the teacher misunderstands the AAP program, and put in a lack-luster effort on your child's behalf. You would not be the first parent to hit that issue, and you won't be the last.

AAP Level IV decisions are made at the county level, your child's teacher put in the packet but has no other insight into what the central committee did or did not think about your child's application. And the process that central committee uses to determine eligibility for Level IV is intentionally kept opaque to parents. People on this board extrapolate a lot about what aspects are weighted more than others, but the reality is we have no real way of knowing what that committee thought when they looked at your kid's application. And neither does your child's teacher.

If it helps, we hit a similar barrier last year. Our girl had all 99th percentile test scores and what we thought were strong student samples from us, but the teacher packet was a complete dud. We were rejected, appealed, and were denied again last year.

This year, same kid, totally different story. Looking at her teacher packet from this year, you would be hard pressed to believe this is the same kid as the packet describing her last year. My daughter did not magically become a different person, though. She just had a teacher who saw the best in her and encouraged her. She got in this year, no issues. (We did also submit a 138 WISC score this year, which might have helped? But again, there's no way to know what did and didn't move the needle once the packet went to the central committee.)

In short, no one knows why your kid wasn't found eligible except the handful of people on the central committee who reviewed the packet. But teachers really do matter, and your situation is deeply frustrating.

As far as the bolded that's only sort of true. Yes it's a committee of 6 people from a school or schools that are not your kid's school. But they all look at the kids from the same school. Hayfield ES kids are compared to Hayfield ES and Springbrook ES to Springbrook ES and so on.

Are you sure about that? The AART at my kids' school suggested that you can't play any comparison games about why did kid A get in and kid B get rejected from the school, since the kids were likely reviewed by different panels. They also said that in pool packets were reviewed on a completely different day than the parent referrals.

Our AART said one panel reviews all kids from a single school. Her words were basically "School A's teachers might review School B in our pyramid, while School B's teachers review the packets for School A." And our AART was one of the very hands-on ones, so I trust her.

One of the external committee recommendations they did implement was more of a within school thing.

Sure they will say they don't compare (I didn't say they do, you'll notice), and that it's not seat limited. People on this board will argue.

[Anonymous]

All of these comments are just reinforcing the point that none of us really knows how the central committee makes their decision for each application. Lots of competing information. Some of it is likely true, but none of it actually sheds useful light on a process that is intentionally kept opaque from parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of these comments are just reinforcing the point that none of us really knows how the central committee makes their decision for each application. Lots of competing information. Some of it is likely true, but none of it actually sheds useful light on a process that is intentionally kept opaque from parents.

More secretive than the conclave!