Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.

+1. The PP is so wrong. There is no magic formula where the committee knows who was prepped and who was not. They just look at the test scores, HOPE rating and work samples in front of them and make a decision based of off that. Most likely the HOPE and work samples carry the highest weight.

+2, except it's known that HOPE carries the most weight unless something has changed in the past 6 years. Prepped kids get in. Unprepped kids get in. It's a crap shoot, just like college. Get used to it, because this isn't changing for your kids' entire academic careers.

I’m not sure that HOPE carries that much more weight. I used to believe this. It may be the deciding factor for some students but I no longer believe that it counts more for all students. My older kid is in AAP. My 2nd grader just got in. Older kid had glowing teacher ratings. Younger kid’s ratings were mediocre in comparison so I was very worried. Younger kid’s other stats and work samples are strong which I believe outweighed the lower teacher ratings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.

+1. The PP is so wrong. There is no magic formula where the committee knows who was prepped and who was not. They just look at the test scores, HOPE rating and work samples in front of them and make a decision based of off that. Most likely the HOPE and work samples carry the highest weight.

+2, except it's known that HOPE carries the most weight unless something has changed in the past 6 years. Prepped kids get in. Unprepped kids get in. It's a crap shoot, just like college. Get used to it, because this isn't changing for your kids' entire academic careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would parents want a child (esp who didn’t get into AAP) to get in?

My child was in-pool and got in, which doesn’t surprise me, but frankly I’m not 100% convinced the added stress is worth it (and we wouldn’t even be changing schools) although their teacher suggested she thought they would like the challenge. My child has a lot of interests outside of academics and I’m just not sold!

There is no added stress. We are at a center school (Churchill) and the gen Ed curriculum is not very different than AAP with the exception of math acceleration. Language arts / science / social studies feels like 90% or more the same. Maybe our experience is different than others. I don’t think the work done is very different but the peer group feels different (my kid was in gen Ed at first) and my kid seems to get along better with the kids in AAP, and there seem to be fewer classroom disruptions.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much any AAP Teacher laughs at the notion that the shy kid or the hyper kid is not selected for AAP. Plenty of kids with different personalities are accepted into AAP. Plenty of Teachers can see the smart kid who is shy and not volunteering participating and call on them in class to help them break out of their shell. Or see that the hyper kid bouncing all over the place also grasps the material quickly. THose kids end up in AAP.

I know parents are trying to figure out why their kid wasn't accepted and the answer is we don't know and the theories that people toss out are pretty much always debunked with a number of anecdotal data that says the exact opposite.

Appeal if you want but understand that AAP is not that different then the regular classroom in most schools. The only exception I would say are the kids at Title 1 or near title 1 schools.

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would parents want a child (esp who didn’t get into AAP) to get in?

My child was in-pool and got in, which doesn’t surprise me, but frankly I’m not 100% convinced the added stress is worth it (and we wouldn’t even be changing schools) although their teacher suggested she thought they would like the challenge. My child has a lot of interests outside of academics and I’m just not sold!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.

+1. The PP is so wrong. There is no magic formula where the committee knows who was prepped and who was not. They just look at the test scores, HOPE rating and work samples in front of them and make a decision based of off that. Most likely the HOPE and work samples carry the highest weight.

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would parents want a child (esp who didn’t get into AAP) to get in?

My child was in-pool and got in, which doesn’t surprise me, but frankly I’m not 100% convinced the added stress is worth it (and we wouldn’t even be changing schools) although their teacher suggested she thought they would like the challenge. My child has a lot of interests outside of academics and I’m just not sold!

Anonymous wrote:DH and I are having a debate. He thinks EVERY kid is considered for full time AAP. I thought you specifically needed to apply for it (and it's just that all kids are considered for level 3.

Which one of us is correct?

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the hardest appeal would be a mediocre or worse HOPE score. If I were in that boat, I’d seek out other teachers who may be able to counter that narrative to see if they could write something on your student’s behalf.

Step one for non-eligible is get your application package from the AART or principal - ask for it today. Try to figure out where the weakness in the application lies, and counter that weakness in the appeal.

Good luck all. I really dislike this process and how it sorts kids at such an early age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say we got in this year (4th grade) after being ineligible the past two years and our test scores were high. We were in pool in 2nd and didn't get in. I'm now SUPER interested in her HOPE score because I think that is the difference.

Nah, the difference is most of the better kids had already gone to AAP in 2nd and 3rd grades. So, less competition in 4th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

momo1521 wrote:NNAT 153
NGAT 151
Reading : 713 out of 724
Map Math : 98%
Hope : teacher only recommend 2 subjects
Not in

I know another student from the same school but different teacher ,
NNAT : 140
NGAT: 149
Reading : 650/724
Map Math: 99%
Hope : recommend 4 subjects
In

But what were the exact HOPE ratings? How strong were the work samples? My child (strong center, not an URM) had lower NNAT, much lower NGAT and similar MAP and VALLSS and is in. I also feel that my supports for the parent questionnaire were strong and specific, but I don't know how much weight it carried. Child was not in-pool. My child was only recommended in Math and Language Arts. Mix of 3 and 4s on 1st and 2nd grade report cards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little birdie with insider knowledge let it slip that the selection committee is far more sophisticated than most parents give them credit for. It seems they’ve developed a quiet but effective method of identifying students who were coached through the process by cross-referencing standardized test scores against in-school work submissions and academic records.

A significant discrepancy between the two tells its own story. When a child’s classroom performance and their test results simply don’t align, the committee notices. And when they notice, they already know.

So all that expensive test prep, the tutors, the prep books, the weekend drilling sessions? The committee has seen it all before. They’ve learned to read between the lines and apparently, they’ve gotten quite good at it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That's a load of bunk. They don't know any of that, and it's impossible to deduce it from the file. A lot of prepped kids in enrichment classes have wonderful classroom performance and have been taught how to raise their hands a lot, do neat work, and come across as articulate, advanced, and positive members of the community. Meanwhile, a lot of legitimately gifted kids may perform poorly in the classroom for myriad reasons (undiagnosed LD, boredom, overthinking everything, shyness, etc.). It's much, much easier to prep an above average child to be academically advanced and a good classroom citizen than it is to prep that same child into scoring 99th percentile and higher on multiple standardized tests.
The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers. There isn't any magical insight beyond that.

Oh wow, a whole paragraph to tell us that gifted kids can be shy and messy. Groundbreaking stuff. Truly, the academic community has been waiting for this revelation.

You’re not wrong that prepped kids can ace a classroom vibe check. But here’s the thing, you just spent five sentences explaining exactly why the committee also uses standardized testing as a counterbalance… which is literally the point everyone else was making. You argued against yourself so thoroughly I almost thought you were being sarcastic.
“The committee can easily identify above average kids with high executive function who are liked by their teachers.” Cool, so you agree the process works for identifying above-average kids, which is what above-average programs are for. AAP isn’t a support group for undiagnosed geniuses who stare at the ceiling. It’s a program, with criteria, that no system will ever apply perfectly.

Also, “a load of bunk” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for someone who then proceeded to make the exact same argument in 200 more words. Next time just say “I agree but I want credit for nuance” and save us all the scroll.

Oh, don't be obtuse. I didn't agree with anything in your post, which was in fact, a load of bunk.

Anyway, your allegation was that the selection committee is super sophisticated and can suss out the prepped kids. THAT is the load of bunk, since I guess it wasn't somehow clear to you. The committee has no idea, and there is no magical formula to accurately guess at the kids who are prepped. Tons of prepped kids are admitted into AAP. Tons of prepped kids earn lowish scores, despite the prep, and still are admitted into AAP. Non-prepped kids can and do earn high scores on the standardized tests, while still having poor classroom performance. Non-prepped kids who earn high scores on tests can still be disliked and tanked by their teachers. It is impossible from the packet to determine why a kid's profile might be inconsistent.

People are posting on this thread about their kids with high scores who got rejected. It's not very nice of you to imply that their kids were rejected because the committee "knew" that the kids were pretty average and heavily prepped. The system just doesn't work that way.