Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
True. But is there another logical explanation for kids with high test scores and high teacher ratings being rejected?

There are a lot of possible reasons. Maybe the kid had overall high scores, but the scores were very lopsided. If the committee doesn't think the kid can handle both the math and the language arts, they might reject a kid. The school provided work samples are probably much more important than people here realize. Maybe the kid's samples were poor. In some cases, maybe there was just a clerical error. A lot of files are processed quickly and pass through a lot of hands. It's entirely possible that something gets coded wrong for some small handful of those files. Or the file generated by the AART may have a mistake. It's also possible that the parent letter or questionnaire was completely off-putting to the panel members.

The appeals process is there for a reason. If a child was mistakenly rejected, that mistake will be corrected by the appeals panel.

Anonymous wrote:
True. But is there another logical explanation for kids with high test scores and high teacher ratings being rejected?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of interesting that even thought fCPS does not state “no preparing for these tests is allowed”, the committee are still trying to ferret out which kids have genuine scores and which kids have prepped scores. Like a secret cat and mouse game.

That’s all conjecture.

True. But is there another logical explanation for kids with high test scores and high teacher ratings being rejected?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of interesting that even thought fCPS does not state “no preparing for these tests is allowed”, the committee are still trying to ferret out which kids have genuine scores and which kids have prepped scores. Like a secret cat and mouse game.

That’s all conjecture.

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of interesting that even thought fCPS does not state “no preparing for these tests is allowed”, the committee are still trying to ferret out which kids have genuine scores and which kids have prepped scores. Like a secret cat and mouse game.

Anonymous wrote:He was in pool. I did not submit any work samples. This means he got a poor GBRS, right?

My older child got in with lower scores. My younger child is smarter than my older child.

Should I appeal?

I don’t have specific work samples to submit. I didn’t submit anything for older child either.

Anonymous wrote:If they don’t tell people not to study for the tests, the data point isn’t false.

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of interesting that even thought fCPS does not state “no preparing for these tests is allowed”, the committee are still trying to ferret out which kids have genuine scores and which kids have prepped scores. Like a secret cat and mouse game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, PP! Do you think a WISC is even helpful when the student already has a high CogAT score?

I don't know. It shouldn't tell the committee anything about a child that they didn't already know. I would still get and include it if the money is trivial and the scores are high. Otherwise, what I did was talked about the experiential learning style in AAP and why my child needed that environment, examples of how my child would have liked to dive deeper into specific subjects but how AAP would facilitate that, examples of social awkwardness and how my child would fit in better in AAP, and examples of academic extracurriculars that my child would thrive in that were offered at the center and not the base school.

For work samples, I looked for creative logic problems and had my child write up solutions. If you didn't already submit the parent questionnaire form, fill that out and submit it with your appeal as well.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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: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: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.