Should kids that heavily prepped for the CoGat be allowed in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our oldest is in high school, was in general ed in grade school. Was labelled average as the teachers fawned over the AAP kids.

Now my HS kid is besting many of the AAP kids in her classes.

In middle school, one AAP got so upset that my kid and another "gen ed" kid from grade school got a better score on a test that the teacher made this kid go sit in the hallway to calm down. As my daughter says, "They aren't as smart as everybody told them they were. It's all a sham."

Sorry but neither that *one*AAP kid nor your daughter sound well-adjusted, kind, or like model students.

+1

Are they comparing scores on tests? Someone should really be telling them grades are private.

That is the student's information, and they can share it as they see fit. They should not lord a test score or grade over someone else's head or otherwise be an asshole about it, but there is not reason for secrecy, if a kid wants to share and compare. Just because ONE AAP kid has a freakout doesn't mean the majority of them aren't better adjusted. And just because she scored better than them on one test doesn't mean the whole program is "a sham". There is too much variance to generalize all AAP/all gen ed.

If you're going to take the LSAT, make sure to prep first. They have sections on logic and reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our oldest is in high school, was in general ed in grade school. Was labelled average as the teachers fawned over the AAP kids.

Now my HS kid is besting many of the AAP kids in her classes.

In middle school, one AAP got so upset that my kid and another "gen ed" kid from grade school got a better score on a test that the teacher made this kid go sit in the hallway to calm down. As my daughter says, "They aren't as smart as everybody told them they were. It's all a sham."

Sorry but neither that *one*AAP kid nor your daughter sound well-adjusted, kind, or like model students.

+1

Are they comparing scores on tests? Someone should really be telling them grades are private.

That is the student's information, and they can share it as they see fit. They should not lord a test score or grade over someone else's head or otherwise be an asshole about it, but there is not reason for secrecy, if a kid wants to share and compare. Just because ONE AAP kid has a freakout doesn't mean the majority of them aren't better adjusted. And just because she scored better than them on one test doesn't mean the whole program is "a sham". There is too much variance to generalize all AAP/all gen ed.

If you're going to take the LSAT, make sure to prep first. They have sections on logic and reasoning.

There is no reason to share grades unless it’s bragging and that sounds exactty what your daughter was doing. I guess I’m old school like that.

[Anonymous]

Parents are absolutely prepping kids for acceptance into gifted programs. It seems silly because it contradicts itself. Gifted means your are above average in aptitude, nothing more. If you study, then you are trying to fake that natural level and it skews your abilities to interpret new information. Why a 2nd grader needs to be prepped for the CogAt is beyond my understanding. If the programs allow for extended learning, and all teachers are differentiating, then high achieving students who do like to study should be n gen ed getting the props they deserve for working hard and setting themselves above the norm. Gifted kids are problem solvers, but also different personalities that often don’t care about doing schoolwork. Two very different profiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents are absolutely prepping kids for acceptance into gifted programs. It seems silly because it contradicts itself. Gifted means your are above average in aptitude, nothing more. If you study, then you are trying to fake that natural level and it skews your abilities to interpret new information. Why a 2nd grader needs to be prepped for the CogAt is beyond my understanding. If the programs allow for extended learning, and all teachers are differentiating, then high achieving students who do like to study should be n gen ed getting the props they deserve for working hard and setting themselves above the norm. Gifted kids are problem solvers, but also different personalities that often don’t care about doing schoolwork. Two very different profiles.

Buahahahahaha to the bolded. In many years in FCPS with multiple kids, we've had one teacher who could successfully differentiate in an elementary school classroom, across gen ed or AAP. That includes classrooms where the math resource teacher was supposed to be coming and giving the advanced kids extra work, but ended up getting too busy helping the kids who weren't on level.

[Anonymous]

Have you seen some of the questions on the Cogat? Some of them (like the complex paper folding) I don't even know how to solve. How do you prep a kid for that? I gave my kid a practice test for both the NNAT and the CogAt. She did amazing on the practice tests - a few of them she had to explain to me how to solve. Naturally, she scored 99% on the NNAT (Cogat - TBD).

If a child cannot score high on the screeners (whether they were prepped or not) do they really belong in AAP? Isn't AAP supposed to be for the gifted problem solvers?

[Anonymous]

A kid with high nnat and/or cogat but low Iready and reading (used to be dra) has very low chance to be admitted to AAP because aart is aware of the prep thing, so the holistic approach is actually more accurate compare to just based on nnat/cogat. And like people said even with heavy prep still not every kid get high nnat/cogat. Some have high score on everything but still not admitted in probably because at a very competitive school so the bar is very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A kid with high nnat and/or cogat but low Iready and reading (used to be dra) has very low chance to be admitted to AAP because aart is aware of the prep thing, so the holistic approach is actually more accurate compare to just based on nnat/cogat. And like people said even with heavy prep still not every kid get high nnat/cogat. Some have high score on everything but still not admitted in probably because at a very competitive school so the bar is very high.

"the holistic approach is actually more accurate compare to just based on nnat/cogat" -- Ehhh, I'd frankly just have a clear, objective standard than a "holistic approach." Holistic approaches are also susceptible to gaming (albeit you need to have social capital rather than the ability to prepare for a test) and consequently have a tendency to reinforce the status quo. A holistic approach simply allows for FCPS to control the AAP process without any oversight because there is no clear criteria and so then it's not subject to whims of a handful of administrators. If you set clear, objective criteria, then it puts power into the hands of parents and students. If you set confusing and subjective criteria (e.g., a holistic approach), then it puts power into the hands of bureaucrats.

You can think of a test only approach as being akin to capitalism. Sure, it has its flaws (e.g., people prepping kids who have no business being in AAP) but it's better than any alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with high nnat and/or cogat but low Iready and reading (used to be dra) has very low chance to be admitted to AAP because aart is aware of the prep thing, so the holistic approach is actually more accurate compare to just based on nnat/cogat. And like people said even with heavy prep still not every kid get high nnat/cogat. Some have high score on everything but still not admitted in probably because at a very competitive school so the bar is very high.

"the holistic approach is actually more accurate compare to just based on nnat/cogat" -- Ehhh, I'd frankly just have a clear, objective standard than a "holistic approach." Holistic approaches are also susceptible to gaming (albeit you need to have social capital rather than the ability to prepare for a test) and consequently have a tendency to reinforce the status quo. A holistic approach simply allows for FCPS to control the AAP process without any oversight because there is no clear criteria and so then it's not subject to whims of a handful of administrators. If you set clear, objective criteria, then it puts power into the hands of parents and students. If you set confusing and subjective criteria (e.g., a holistic approach), then it puts power into the hands of bureaucrats.

You can think of a test only approach as being akin to capitalism. Sure, it has its flaws (e.g., people prepping kids who have no business being in AAP) but it's better than any alternative.

DP. I disagree with a test only approach, but I also disagree with the way FCPS is implementing their holistic evaluation. Kids can have bad days or have abilities that are not properly reflected in the scores. A real holistic approach means that they're considering everything, but still doing so in light of some objective standard. In many school systems, the holistic approach means that CogAT/NNAT, iready/achievement scores, and teacher rating would all be considered, and any kid exceeding a numerical threshold in 2 or 3 out of the 3 would be in or kids above a certain total point level on the three items combined would be in. Many also have an opportunity for kids who fall a little short of that to submit a portfolio and perhaps be accepted on the strength of that.

FCPS instead uses a system where if a panel of people "feel" like the kid should be in or out of AAP, then that's what happens. It's why some kids have high test scores, above grade level iready, and high teacher ratings, but still get rejected, while some other kids with none of those get admitted.

[Anonymous]

You can only prep so much. A non-gifted kid isn't going to score 140 on a screener test, regardless of how much they were prepped.

[Anonymous]

I am not against abolishing NNAT and COGAT, and purely base AAP selection on iReady and teacher / parent referral. But then there would be a arm race on prepping iReady.

Then you will say abolish iReady prepping. then what is your proposal of AAP selection?

[Anonymous]

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can only prep so much. A non-gifted kid isn't going to score 140 on a screener test, regardless of how much they were prepped.


+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not against abolishing NNAT and COGAT, and purely base AAP selection on iReady and teacher / parent referral. But then there would be a arm race on prepping iReady.

Then you will say abolish iReady prepping. then what is your proposal of AAP selection?

Parent/teacher referral is subjective. Every parent thinks their kid is a genius. Teachers have favorites.

iReady and the screener tests should be the only things used.

[Anonymous]

Except iReady is a garbage test that the teachers hate (the one thing it seems to be good for is discovering hidden learning differences - two friends were tipped off to their child's dyslexia after middling scores). It's not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

You can prep all you want, if you’re not smart you’re not getting in. Prepping too much becomes useless and you’re just wasting your time, because the exam tests for critical thinking skills, and there’s only so much you can do to develop your skills to their max.

Despite what some may claim here, the vast majority prep. They'll try to convince you not to but that's also just a way to try and thin the competition.