Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your kid is not obviously gifted to the teacher and your opinion matters little In the matter.

This is the problem with GBRS. A child who has an IQ above 130 is by definition gifted. The teacher's opinion doesn't change that, and if teachers are failing to identify giftedness in kids who are technically gifted, then the teacher's opinions mean next to nothing.

Not really, since that child was in. I'm not even sure why that PP is complaining, since the process worked for her DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your kid is not obviously gifted to the teacher and your opinion matters little In the matter.

This is the problem with GBRS. A child who has an IQ above 130 is by definition gifted. The teacher's opinion doesn't change that, and if teachers are failing to identify giftedness in kids who are technically gifted, then the teacher's opinions mean next to nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

How was gbrs?

It shouldn't matter. WISC of 136 is well above the gifted threshold. If the teacher isn't "seeing giftedness" in a child who is objectively gifted, then it probably speaks more to the teacher's biases or lack of understanding of giftedness than it does to the child's ability.

Anonymous wrote:
Your kid is not obviously gifted to the teacher and your opinion matters little In the matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

How was gbrs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The poster sounds awful. Your kid is winning all the contests and to some extent makes other aap kids feel dumb? You admit your kid did not do the work given. So he actually should be dinged for motivation to succeed. Do YOU think a kid who shirks his work requirements because he isn't a people pleaser should get a high mark on motivation to succeed?

My kid did an excellent job with all of the projects, reports, exams, homework, and anything else with any substance. He had no problems with finishing them on time and hitting all of the marks on the rubric. He also fully participated in class. The only things he didn't do were the coloring sheets, word searches, and other busywork. To me, that's not a kid who should be given a 1 in motivation. This teacher was extremely artsy and was really invested in coloring pages, neatness, and artistry on all work products. She also seemed to have a very strong preference for girls over boys.

At my kid's center, the same few kids are winning geography bee, then WordMasters, then CML, then the spelling bee, and so on. I don't like having my kid be one of those who wins everything, because I want him to learn to work hard and put in more effort. It unfortunately is what it is. The point was more that GBRS is pretty meaningless when kids who are obviously gifted and at the top of their AAP classes were given a GBRS that suggests they don't even belong in the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

Anonymous wrote:
The poster sounds awful. Your kid is winning all the contests and to some extent makes other aap kids feel dumb? You admit your kid did not do the work given. So he actually should be dinged for motivation to succeed. Do YOU think a kid who shirks his work requirements because he isn't a people pleaser should get a high mark on motivation to succeed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I meant that we don't know what the committee is doing, what their criteria is, what their goals are.

On this forum, there's a lot of energy spent examining who got in and who didn't to determine the rule. I think that's a foolish endeavor.

PP here, and I agree with you. The process is holistic, and trying to analyze just the scores is foolish. We have no real way to compare work samples, teacher comments, and everything else that goes into the packet, nor are we privy to the criteria and goals of the program. Most of the kids who belong in AAP but got rejected this time will either get in on appeals or get in next year.

That being said, I think failing to submit any work samples, the questionnaire, or other optional forms was a huge mistake that led to some of those 99th percentile rejections.

Maybe, but that isn’t fair for kids whose parents are uninvolved or uninformed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a gifted program anymore.

Teacher remarks should have the most weight. Is the child advanced? Hard working? Curious? Bright? That is the child for AAP.

This. We are in and my child’s scores were not off the chart.

The committee seems to prefer an un-prepped child with scores around 125 over a child who looks prepped but has scores around 135. If the only indication of giftedness is test scores, the committee will assume the child was prepped and will reject the child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a gifted program anymore.

Teacher remarks should have the most weight. Is the child advanced? Hard working? Curious? Bright? That is the child for AAP.

That's ridiculous, though. My child's 2nd grade teacher didn't like him because he's not a people pleaser and wasn't compliant with the mounds of busy work they were given, like coloring sheets, word searches, and the like. DS was in the outlier math, reading, and word study groups (like, top 2-3 kids in the grade), with his teachers in those glowing about how advanced and brilliant he is. DS was reading long chapter books in 1st grade. DS also had all test scores above 140. The 2nd grade teacher gave a GBRS of 11, with only a 1 in Motivation to Succeed. Most of the comments were pretty lame, and he was dinged for preferring to engage with adults rather than other kids and for being disorganized. Yes, the teacher put negative comments in the GBRS, even though all comments are supposed to be positive. He still was admitted to AAP.

In AAP, he's the kid winning all of the contests, acing all of the tests, and to some extent making the other AAP kids in his class feel dumb. My other AAP child, who is a bright, hardworking, non-gifted people-pleaser, got a 16 GBRS. The GBRS is much more reflective of the teacher's biases than the kid's actual ability.

If I'm honest, after reading this post, PP you sound like an a-hole and your kids sounds like an a-hole. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here. Doesn’t that seem crazy though? How can a 99th percentile kid not get into an advanced program? Sorry, not trying to stir the pot at all. I have my kids in catholic elementary. Part of our decision process was that I didn’t really care for how early the AAP program starts in FCPS. It just seems like a very young age to parse these things out.

Why? It is because 99% kids in this area are a dime a dozen. It's the same reason the top colleges reject plenty of students with perfect test scores and stellar grades. They want to give everyone a chance and so they reject some perfect students to make room for more diversity.

They're really not, though. 99th percentile kids are still at least the 96th percentile locally for a program that takes over 20%. There's no need to reject 99th percentile kids to make more room for diversity. The most plausible explanation is that the selection committee is highly aware of the test prepping and are rejecting kids with 99th percentile scores that they don't think are valid.