Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

The problem is that the bottom 2/3 of AAP are given challenging and fulfilling education while the ones left behind are left with the "math and homework is racist" curriculum.

Absolutely. That's why people with knowledge of the system or the means for outside support go to such lengths to get their somewhat above average kids into AAP. Advanced kids left behind in gen ed are the ones who only get 15 minutes every second week with the teacher out of a 2 hr daily language arts block (1.25% of the teacher's instructional time)! They're also the ones who may not even get access to advanced math until 5th or 6th grade.

I don’t doubt this. How does eliminating AAP fix that though?

I doubt it does because while that is a real concern in gen ed, it is not one created by the existence of AAP. I do think the gen ed issue deserves attention though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

The problem is that the bottom 2/3 of AAP are given challenging and fulfilling education while the ones left behind are left with the "math and homework is racist" curriculum.

Absolutely. That's why people with knowledge of the system or the means for outside support go to such lengths to get their somewhat above average kids into AAP. Advanced kids left behind in gen ed are the ones who only get 15 minutes every second week with the teacher out of a 2 hr daily language arts block (1.25% of the teacher's instructional time)! They're also the ones who may not even get access to advanced math until 5th or 6th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

The problem is that the bottom 2/3 of AAP are given challenging and fulfilling education while the ones left behind are left with the "math and homework is racist" curriculum.

Absolutely. That's why people with knowledge of the system or the means for outside support go to such lengths to get their somewhat above average kids into AAP. Advanced kids left behind in gen ed are the ones who only get 15 minutes every second week with the teacher out of a 2 hr daily language arts block (1.25% of the teacher's instructional time)! They're also the ones who may not even get access to advanced math until 5th or 6th grade.

The bolded part describes the practice of “pull outs.”

The current, elected school board (and their handpicked superintendent, Dr. Reid) plan to eliminate AAP, and replace it with “pull outs” for accelerated / advanced learners.

They are already piloting this plan with “E3” or “equity cubed” math in many elementary schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

The problem is that the bottom 2/3 of AAP are given challenging and fulfilling education while the ones left behind are left with the "math and homework is racist" curriculum.

Absolutely. That's why people with knowledge of the system or the means for outside support go to such lengths to get their somewhat above average kids into AAP. Advanced kids left behind in gen ed are the ones who only get 15 minutes every second week with the teacher out of a 2 hr daily language arts block (1.25% of the teacher's instructional time)! They're also the ones who may not even get access to advanced math until 5th or 6th grade.

The bolded part describes the practice of “pull outs.”

The current, elected school board (and their handpicked superintendent, Dr. Reid) plan to eliminate AAP, and replace it with “pull outs” for accelerated / advanced learners.

They are already piloting this plan with “E3” or “equity cubed” math in many elementary schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

The problem is that the bottom 2/3 of AAP are given challenging and fulfilling education while the ones left behind are left with the "math and homework is racist" curriculum.

Absolutely. That's why people with knowledge of the system or the means for outside support go to such lengths to get their somewhat above average kids into AAP. Advanced kids left behind in gen ed are the ones who only get 15 minutes every second week with the teacher out of a 2 hr daily language arts block (1.25% of the teacher's instructional time)! They're also the ones who may not even get access to advanced math until 5th or 6th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you restrict AAP, or anything else, only to poor people, then rich people will have more of it because that's what "rich" means.

If you want to hurt rich people, just raise taxes. Don't dumb down all of society.

They’re trying to help the rich.

Dumb down society and the rich will flourish without competition. They will still get their services elsewhere and society will fall behind.

It’s a win win for the rich and the private school establishment.

Do you seriously believe this or are you just posting nonsense?

Whether it achieves the goal or not (and many in this the think it does not), they are trying to help the poor and underrepresented.

The school board and administration are not trying to help the rich and private schools by purposefully harming the non-rich. Not even Machiavelli was that Machiavellian.

How are they helping the poor?

Please do tell!

Just because that’s what they hope to achieve doesn’t absolve them from being held responsible for the damage they are causing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

The problem is that the bottom 2/3 of AAP are given challenging and fulfilling education while the ones left behind are left with the "math and homework is racist" curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

DP. I don't view it as a program for the UMC so much as it is a program for the parents who understand the best way to present their child in the application. The people who assume that since their kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, the kid will obviously get in, but then don't present their kid in the "right" way on the parent questionnaire (or the GBRS/work samples don't present the kid in the "right" way) are the ones who end up with kids who get unexpectedly rejected. People who understand the system are the ones who get their somewhat above average kids in.

If a parent is a teacher, lawyer, or bureaucrat, they're more likely to understand the right buzzwords to get their child into the program. If the school refers the child, the school knows what the committee is looking for and can get the child accepted. Prep centers know what the committee wants to see. The solidly middle class PP with kids who got rejected from AAP most likely was at a huge disadvantage, since the kids aren't poor enough for the school to help, the family isn't wealthy enough to outsource, and the parents most likely didn't understand how to frame the application in the right way to get their kids accepted.

I'll admit it. My kid got rejected with just below in-pool test scores, high GBRS, and above grade level in all subjects. I foolishly thought the application could stand on its own, since my kid was high enough in all of the main areas. When I wrote the appeal letter, I very cynically filled it with edu-gobbledygook pulled from the GBRS form bullet points and Portrait of a Graduate traits, explaining how my kid was demonstrating these traits and why my kid couldn't have their needs met in a regular classroom. All of the appeals work samples were parent encouraged crap that we knew the committee would lap up. My kid was admitted on appeal with just these work samples and the letter. They're not looking for gifted or advanced kids. They're looking for kids who check the correct edu-bureaucracy boxes. People who don't get that are at a huge disadvantage in the process, which is why there's such a huge overlap between the bottom 2/3 of AAP kids and an equal number of kids left behind at the top of gen ed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

There are several posts immediately before yours showing how it's not a program for wealthy people. You don't believe it - that doesn't mean your belief is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

When did I say I’m not bitter? I’m extremely bitter. My family is solidly middle class (actual middle class not DCUM middle class), we pay our taxes, and my children who are bright and motivated are not being educated.

YOUR point may be that AAP is not a program for the upper middle class/wealthy, but just stating “it’s not” doesn’t mean that it’s not. Because it clearly is. (In other words, you are wrong.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you on here patting yourselves on the back. Sure, only irresponsible parents don’t game the system (if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, right?). Only irresponsible parents expect the schools to actually educate their children. And any students who for whatever reason didn’t make the cut for AAP when they’re 7-8 years old are definitely going to get a fabulous education in those schools that the AAP kids are too good to even have to set foot in again. Right.

No one would have a problem with AAP if it was truly a program for the gifted. Lots of people have a problem with it because it’s a program for the upper middle class/wealthy.

That's the point. It's not.

But carry on with your "I'm not bitter."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you get rid of AAP, then what is a teacher to do with a class of 30 kids with widely ranging skill levels and aptitudes? I'd like to hear from teachers about this not overly-opinionated parents who despise AAP because they actually don't care that much about their kids education and resent that others do and get something for it.

They already have to deal with that range. My kid's 6th grade gen ed class ranged from kids reading at a 3nd grade level to a couple reading at an 8th grade level. The way they teachers handle it is to meet with the kids who are above grade level for maybe 15 minutes every second week.

AAP acceptance doesn't heavily rely on the kid's level of advancement. There are kids who are advanced in all subjects, have decent test scores, and have a high GBRS who don't get in. There are also kids who are below or on grade level in one or several subjects who do get in. Gen ed classes range from 3 or so years below grade level to 2 or so years above. AAP classes range from a year below grade level to maybe 3 years above. If the goal is to reduce the need for teachers to differentiate across too wide of a range of learners, the selection process does a poor job of achieving that goal.

At our school 4th graders reading at the 8th grade level get ignored because they know they'll be all right in the long run and mom and dad will cover the costs of educating these kids. Kids that are below grade level get daily reading groups and 95% of the teacher's time. This is all in the name of equity.

And they still don't improve.

Ultimately, Ive accepted that the schools will not educate my above average non-AAP kid. As we've supplemented with basic foundational stuff at home like reading novels and the occasional kahn academy, the gaps have grown dramatically, so we are definitely stuck with supplementing otherwise our kid does nothing. I enjoy knowing that this kid has a great education.

It's also amusing to watch FCPS make these gaps larger as they ruin the education of on-level students or other above average students who don't have the time and resources that my kid has while claiming to try and close the gaps of kids who don't have the time and resources my kid has.