Anonymous wrote:For those appealing, would you include the print-out of the test scores to show the percentiles? I know this is not "new" information but on the original application they only see the scores but not the percentile.
Anonymous wrote:You can ask for a retest in your school building. Or better yet, go to GMU for testing. And for AAP portfolio, try the Young Scholars Circle's Writing Enrichment Program.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I guess agree to disagree. I don’t think the point of work samples is to show what kids are capable of producing from the same starting point. That is what testing does, more or less since “same starting point” is maybe subjective but would be equally subjective for anything. Work samples are not limited to only work done in school so parents who are not happy with school work are free to provide work samples. I think they are great to show what testing does not show - what is unique about your kid or instances of their individual talents really shining or some really creayive thinking outside the box. Things that should be considered in the process but aren’t shown through standardized testing.
But how can you determine to what degree the work sample is the kid's work and to what degree the teacher or parents helped? Some of the things being submitted have gone through rounds of revision in the classroom and can't fairly be compared with something that is 100% the student's own work. Unless there's some sort of guidelines to how the work samples are produced and chosen by the schools, they're just another meaningless metric.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!
I'm sure it's possible to give kids open ended prompts, and let them take it where they may. That way, there is more of an apples to apples comparison of the work kids are capable of producing, from the same starting point.
I guess agree to disagree. I don’t think the point of work samples is to show what kids are capable of producing from the same starting point. That is what testing does, more or less since “same starting point” is maybe subjective but would be equally subjective for anything. Work samples are not limited to only work done in school so parents who are not happy with school work are free to provide work samples. I think they are great to show what testing does not show - what is unique about your kid or instances of their individual talents really shining or some really creayive thinking outside the box. Things that should be considered in the process but aren’t shown through standardized testing.
But how can you determine to what degree the work sample is the kid's work and to what degree the teacher or parents helped? Some of the things being submitted have gone through rounds of revision in the classroom and can't fairly be compared with something that is 100% the student's own work. Unless there's some sort of guidelines to how the work samples are produced and chosen by the schools, they're just another meaningless metric.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!
I'm sure it's possible to give kids open ended prompts, and let them take it where they may. That way, there is more of an apples to apples comparison of the work kids are capable of producing, from the same starting point.
I guess agree to disagree. I don’t think the point of work samples is to show what kids are capable of producing from the same starting point. That is what testing does, more or less since “same starting point” is maybe subjective but would be equally subjective for anything. Work samples are not limited to only work done in school so parents who are not happy with school work are free to provide work samples. I think they are great to show what testing does not show - what is unique about your kid or instances of their individual talents really shining or some really creayive thinking outside the box. Things that should be considered in the process but aren’t shown through standardized testing.
Anonymous wrote:TJ > Ivy > rejected for AAP. We appealed and won. The schools want some low key obedient kids in the slow classes. They are also prejudiced against siblings and twins.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!
I'm sure it's possible to give kids open ended prompts, and let them take it where they may. That way, there is more of an apples to apples comparison of the work kids are capable of producing, from the same starting point.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!
I'm sure it's possible to give kids open ended prompts, and let them take it where they may. That way, there is more of an apples to apples comparison of the work kids are capable of producing, from the same starting point.
Anonymous wrote:
I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:TJ > Ivy > rejected for AAP. We appealed and won. The schools want some low key obedient kids in the slow classes. They are also prejudiced against siblings and twins.
I think this is the explanation for some of the rejected kids with high scores. They want to keep some of the gifted kids in gen ed and they look for the "best" well-behaved successful ones for this (not my "bored, disruptive" gifted kid). The rest of this post is gobbledygook.
This doesn’t make any sense. Are posters just making this up or is it at least from some source?
Anonymous wrote:
This doesn’t make any sense. Are posters just making this up or is it at least from some source?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:TJ > Ivy > rejected for AAP. We appealed and won. The schools want some low key obedient kids in the slow classes. They are also prejudiced against siblings and twins.
I think this is the explanation for some of the rejected kids with high scores. They want to keep some of the gifted kids in gen ed and they look for the "best" well-behaved successful ones for this (not my "bored, disruptive" gifted kid). The rest of this post is gobbledygook.