At my school in western Fairfax, a lot of teachers have their own kids with them. Most - a large majority - of those kids are not in AAP. It's actually kind of surprising.

Anonymous wrote:Chesterbrook AART said Haycock (center) is over prescribed and it’s very competitive.

Are any of the kids with the really high Wisc scores who were rejected zones to haycock center?

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is so racist.

You want to worry about unfair AAP placement? Check into how many PTA ladies and teachers have their kids in AAP because they pressured the principal or were friendly with the AAP coordinator. See how many parents paid for private test prep for their first and second graders. THAT is unfair.

At my child’s small AAP center, easily half the class each year have at least one FCPS-employee/parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chesterbrook AART said Haycock (center) is over prescribed and it’s very competitive.

I’m not sure what this means. Explain?

Over prescribed=Number of applicants::Number of seats. Hence The warning on being very competitive.

So I guess what confuses me in this situation is that Chesterbrook, for example, has local level IV option so students accepted into AAP could go to haycock or stay at Chesterbrook. How doES the committee know what their cap is when reviewing applications if they don’t know whether accepted students will choose to go to the center or stay local?

LLIV is heavily dependent on principal placement. Once the entrants into the program choose whether they want to stay local or go to center, the principal has the ability to *grow* the LLIV classroom(s). If they can, for that year, I imagine the center school will have more space to accept people on appeals. I suppose for feeder schools that offer a robust LLIV, there could be a handful of spaces left vacant at the center school once the appeals process is complete.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chesterbrook AART said Haycock (center) is over prescribed and it’s very competitive.

I’m not sure what this means. Explain?

Over prescribed=Number of applicants::Number of seats. Hence The warning on being very competitive.

So I guess what confuses me in this situation is that Chesterbrook, for example, has local level IV option so students accepted into AAP could go to haycock or stay at Chesterbrook. How doES the committee know what their cap is when reviewing applications if they don’t know whether accepted students will choose to go to the center or stay local?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chesterbrook AART said Haycock (center) is over prescribed and it’s very competitive.

I’m not sure what this means. Explain?

Over prescribed=Number of applicants::Number of seats. Hence The warning on being very competitive.

Anonymous wrote:Chesterbrook AART said Haycock (center) is over prescribed and it’s very competitive.

I’m not sure what this means. Explain?

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is so racist.

You want to worry about unfair AAP placement? Check into how many PTA ladies and teachers have their kids in AAP because they pressured the principal or were friendly with the AAP coordinator. See how many parents paid for private test prep for their first and second graders. THAT is unfair.

I don't think anyone is saying AAP acceptance is all above the board. Anyone who has been through this knows that's not the case, even parents who have had their kids accepted into AAP. Like with all other admissions to any competitive program, there are kids who may be qualified but don't get in because of limits, diversity, subjective read of a recommendation or essay. The list is long in all the ways the road is paved with subjectivity which inherently brings up a sense of unfairness. The program is still great and serves a lot of deserving kids, though not all deserving kids. Let's end the debate there. There are many parents who are upset because their kids didn't get in this year. This year is likely a bit of an anomaly because of COVID. None of us know what happened at Gatehouse during the review or appeals period. We can only assume it wasn't the normal year.

Chesterbrook AART said Haycock (center) is over prescribed and it’s very competitive.

This whole thread is so racist.

You want to worry about unfair AAP placement? Check into how many PTA ladies and teachers have their kids in AAP because they pressured the principal or were friendly with the AAP coordinator. See how many parents paid for private test prep for their first and second graders. THAT is unfair.

Anonymous wrote:" We asked our Principal for placement for level 4 after the rejection."

Thanks for confirming that your kid didnt get in and this is all about being salty that your kid didnt make the cut so you want to blow up the whole program. The principal probably just told you that because... your kid isnt cut out for AAP... evidenced by them not making the cut. Its okay. It really is. Please stop this. You can almost smell the desperation...

Asking for Principal placement means the child didn’t make the cut. That’s why one goes through PP. If the kid made the cut, the parent wouldn’t have gone to the principal.

The only desperation we smell is that of the Lone Ranger who wants us to believe emphatically that none of us should even consider there could be a capacity issue that FCPS thinks about when accepting students into the program. Why is that so hard for you to believe? What do you lose from considering the possibility? Why do you think this belief will “blow up the program”? Especially that last part! How could it possibly blow up the program? I’m very interested in knowing how you tied limited capacity to blowing up the program? Most of us wouldn’t make that leap but wondering what you know to make you think this.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wants to know about whether there are limits should start attending some fcag meetings and talk one on one with long-standing members who are there.

+1

Anonymous wrote:" We asked our Principal for placement for level 4 after the rejection."

Thanks for confirming that your kid didnt get in and this is all about being salty that your kid didnt make the cut so you want to blow up the whole program. The principal probably just told you that because... your kid isnt cut out for AAP... evidenced by them not making the cut. Its okay. It really is. Please stop this. You can almost smell the desperation...

You’re just a NASTY individual who is trolling the site. None of us have any intention of blowing up the program. I have multiple children, two of whom are in the program and another kid who will apply to the program when it’s time. I don’t want the program going anywhere. I just happen to share my own assessment of the situation given what I know, which maybe doesn’t align with your view. I didn’t get nasty with you so if you want to troll, go ahead, and the rest of us will just ignore your comments. You don’t need to be nasty and assume you know anything about me or my children. You look like an a$$ when you do that. Some of us are providing our input based on what we have experienced or heard from our school representatives. It may not fit your mold, but that’s not our problem.

Anyone who wants to know about whether there are limits should start attending some fcag meetings and talk one on one with long-standing members who are there.

" We asked our Principal for placement for level 4 after the rejection."

Thanks for confirming that your kid didnt get in and this is all about being salty that your kid didnt make the cut so you want to blow up the whole program. The principal probably just told you that because... your kid isnt cut out for AAP... evidenced by them not making the cut. Its okay. It really is. Please stop this. You can almost smell the desperation...