Kid Not Eligible for AAP though scores seem great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people reading through the files do seem biased against math ability and towards creative/artsy/literary stuff. Maybe it’s just a reflection of the kinds of people who go into education and subconscious biases.

I am wondering if the kids with high scores that were rejected are mostly boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people reading through the files do seem biased against math ability and towards creative/artsy/literary stuff. Maybe it’s just a reflection of the kinds of people who go into education and subconscious biases.

I am wondering if the kids with high scores that were rejected are mostly boys.

My high score, high GBRS reject was a math oriented girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people reading through the files do seem biased against math ability and towards creative/artsy/literary stuff. Maybe it’s just a reflection of the kinds of people who go into education and subconscious biases.

I am wondering if the kids with high scores that were rejected are mostly boys.

My rejected math oriented high test score high gbrs child is an Asian boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you view as the higher level creative thinking needed for AAP? Kids seem to need superior reasoning ability, but I have yet to see anything requiring any real degree of creativity.

It’s too hard to explain it on a message board, and quite frankly there’s no point.

You can't explain it on a message board, yet 20% of FCPS kids have it, 2nd grade teachers know how to identify it in 7 year olds, and selection committee members can detect it through a quick glance at work samples? GMAB.

I never claimed second grade teachers or the commitee know how to detect it. All I said was that the units suggested for use by the central office require higher level thinking and creativity. I speak from experience.

What experience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people reading through the files do seem biased against math ability and towards creative/artsy/literary stuff. Maybe it’s just a reflection of the kinds of people who go into education and subconscious biases.

I am wondering if the kids with high scores that were rejected are mostly boys.

My rejected math oriented high test score high gbrs child is an Asian boy.

Is your DC coming from a private school? Either way, you should appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I never claimed second grade teachers or the commitee know how to detect it. All I said was that the units suggested for use by the central office require higher level thinking and creativity. I speak from experience.

What experience?

I want to know this too. I've witnessed several activities "requiring" creativity and higher level thinking for my 3rd grade AAP kid, and all of those activities were also completed by gen ed kids. One activity was an invention that had groups of mixed AAP and gen ed kids. The AAP kids had higher quality ideas than the gen ed kids, but it was more that the AAP kids' ideas better solved the problem and used better analytical reasoning. The gen ed kids were every bit as creative as the AAP kids. Another involved looking at creative work products in the hallway. The biggest difference between the AAP kids and the gen ed kids was that the AAP kids' sentences were much stronger, more grammatically correct, and with better spelling than the gen ed kids. The AAP kids' work also looked more artistically pleasing than the gen ed kids' stuff. I didn't see any more evidence of creativity or outside-the-box thinking in AAP vs. gen ed.

True outside-the-box thinking is quite rare, and very few of those kids who are marked as "Consistently" for creativity in the GBRS form are any more creative or outside-the-box than any other kid. Also, if the higher level thinking activities can be completed by gen ed kids, then they should be offered to the gen ed kids. There's also no reason to pull people into AAP or exclude them from AAP based on creativity when those activities can still be performed by everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I never claimed second grade teachers or the commitee know how to detect it. All I said was that the units suggested for use by the central office require higher level thinking and creativity. I speak from experience.

What experience?

I want to know this too. I've witnessed several activities "requiring" creativity and higher level thinking for my 3rd grade AAP kid, and all of those activities were also completed by gen ed kids. One activity was an invention that had groups of mixed AAP and gen ed kids. The AAP kids had higher quality ideas than the gen ed kids, but it was more that the AAP kids' ideas better solved the problem and used better analytical reasoning. The gen ed kids were every bit as creative as the AAP kids. Another involved looking at creative work products in the hallway. The biggest difference between the AAP kids and the gen ed kids was that the AAP kids' sentences were much stronger, more grammatically correct, and with better spelling than the gen ed kids. The AAP kids' work also looked more artistically pleasing than the gen ed kids' stuff. I didn't see any more evidence of creativity or outside-the-box thinking in AAP vs. gen ed.

True outside-the-box thinking is quite rare, and very few of those kids who are marked as "Consistently" for creativity in the GBRS form are any more creative or outside-the-box than any other kid. Also, if the higher level thinking activities can be completed by gen ed kids, then they should be offered to the gen ed kids. There's also no reason to pull people into AAP or exclude them from AAP based on creativity when those activities can still be performed by everyone.

Just one note - having kids in both AAP and gen ed, a lot of the differences you mention are not differences between the kids themselves, but is what the teacher makes the kids believe is acceptable or not.

[Anonymous]

At our center school the gen-ed and AAP curriculum seems identical except for math.

Even group projects are often presented together.

Our AAP teacher this year has not been great at teaching math, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our center school the gen-ed and AAP curriculum seems identical except for math.

Even group projects are often presented together.

Our AAP teacher this year has not been great at teaching math, either.

This is what everyone says they want. They want the AAP curriculum in gen ed. They want to make AAP invisible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people reading through the files do seem biased against math ability and towards creative/artsy/literary stuff. Maybe it’s just a reflection of the kinds of people who go into education and subconscious biases.

I am wondering if the kids with high scores that were rejected are mostly boys.

I am wondering if you are prone to making unfounded musings on a daily basis or if it’s weekly.

[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.

I think it's the other way around. The "holistic approach" is needed because so many people prep for a test that was never a highly respected or reliable test in the first place. The committee simply cannot trust the numbers.

[Anonymous]

Holistic approach == partly for "diversity" and to capture the "young scholars" too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think it's the other way around. The "holistic approach" is needed because so many people prep for a test that was never a highly respected or reliable test in the first place. The committee simply cannot trust the numbers.

The bar is so low for the "holistic approach," though. I would expect any above average UMC kid with motivated parents to seem very advanced to their 2nd grade teachers, get a high GBRS, and get test scores in the 120s, especially with a little bit of prep. Those kids are getting into AAP. Work samples and teacher reviews would be fine if they were looking for kids who are extraordinary and not generically bright UMC kids. The entire system is broken now, considering that there are other threads with parents moaning about their kids having sub-120 WISC scores and getting tips on how to shoehorn those kids into AAP anyway.

[Anonymous]

I am posting this after I received the appeal results.
Appealed with referrals from others (which we did not do first time - Dec 2018) along with new work done by my kid. Also got the WISC test. The score was 130.
Submitted all these and yesterday got the letter that my KID IS ELIGIBLE FOR AAP.
Thanks everyone for their input, thoughts, reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am posting this after I received the appeal results.
Appealed with referrals from others (which we did not do first time - Dec 2018) along with new work done by my kid. Also got the WISC test. The score was 130.
Submitted all these and yesterday got the letter that my KID IS ELIGIBLE FOR AAP.
Thanks everyone for their input, thoughts, reasoning.

Congrats! You might want to post to the appeal results thread so other parents have the details for their future references.