Anonymous wrote:AAP isn't a gifted program and that is part of the problem. With a gifted program you can set specific test scores and look for specific performance indicators. AAP is all over the place.

Maybe there should be one AAP class for every 4 classes in an ES. The top 25% of the kids are in that class. If your school has 6 classes, maybe there are 2 classes and the top 33% are in those classes. Use the CoGAT, iReady, grades and Teacher evaluations. Kids can be moved each year based on their performance. Remove the special application process and the special designation. Make it less about being identified as advanced andmore about performance n school. Make it more fluid so that kids who struggle can be moved out and kids who start to excel can be moved in.

I don't think that the once in, always in model is useful.

I think the entire application process turns it into some type of desirable prize for parents.

Honestly yeah, I think this makes more sense. Either make it an actual gifted program again, admit only those with top 1-2% IQ’s, or make a class at each school that is made up of the highest performing students each year. The current process is missing high performing and advanced learners… and if you’ve spent any time volunteering in your kids aap class, clearly letting in some who are struggling and slowing the class pace down.

And you all wonder why the US ranks so poorly in academics on a global scale? Like, seriously, not even close to dozens of nations that have way less resources than we do! You all still argue your preferences and not students benefits! All students should have access to the same advanced curriculum, if such thing exists, where some will do great from the start, some will eventually catch up, and some will struggle and get lower GPA, and it becomes their caregivers’ problem to have them repeat a grade, do a better parenting job, or succumb to the fact that their kids will graduate with low grades, for whatever underlying and maybe justified reasons there might exist, but in all cases, not have that possibility of some failing to catch up hinder the potential of others who might! It is the same thing we face in everything everyday where smart and eloquent people are being told to shut up just so they do not offend people with less comprehension abilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:158 Nnat 152 Cogat iready 99% 97%. I spent a lot of time prep the appeal package. Still not in. So sad, not sure what to tell my kid. Hope is really bad, most sometimes.

This is unreasonable.

I agree. DC goes to a lower SES school from which he was admitted to AAP LIV; we are MC and not URM or FARM. He scored well on both tests (but not quite in the 150's) and had similar iReady scores to your kid's. Very good HOPE scores, perhaps excellent based on what I've seen in DCUM. DC is sociable, well behaved, and pretty eloquent for an 8-year-old. I still feel it's a crap shoot for his younger sibs who might not be evaluated similarly by teachers (equally smart but perhaps more reticent to speak out in class). I'd rather be dependent on an average of test scores than the way a second grader is perceived by a teacher or AART.

Anonymous wrote:The question here is if any other FCPS second grader has only attempted 35 questions on the verbal section or not! The company that owns and administers the test says the verbal section is a norm 52 questions. My DC Cogat score card says only 35 attempted. School says they administer custom exam with shorter verbal section! The problem here is that the percentile measures the correct answers against a national sample of scores, so 31 of 35 correct is still in the 60th percentile on the report as others had 52 attempts to easily get over 31 correct answers.

I see 36 verbal questions (and 36 attempted) on DC's CogAT. FCPS does modify the test to their own ends.

For kids scoring 99% iready in math and science, is it ever case that they just consider moving them up a grade still in gen-ed v moving to AAP?