Anonymous wrote:I didn't prep my son. He is taking it today. It doesn't make sense to prep, because the workload is a lot more then GE (I know because my older son is in AAP, didn't prep). If your kid can't handle it, then it's much worse for their self esteem, and could make them hate school. My younger son I think is borderline, but maturity wise, he just isn't into homework and working hard yet -- he is only 7! I hope that in a few years he matures and is then ready for advanced classes in MS and HS.

Very sensible way to look at it!

I didn't prep my son. He is taking it today. It doesn't make sense to prep, because the workload is a lot more then GE (I know because my older son is in AAP, didn't prep). If your kid can't handle it, then it's much worse for their self esteem, and could make them hate school. My younger son I think is borderline, but maturity wise, he just isn't into homework and working hard yet -- he is only 7! I hope that in a few years he matures and is then ready for advanced classes in MS and HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when a child has seen the types of questions before, the test results don't give as much information as to how the child deals with problems he has never seen before. I'm not sure that two years before makes a huge difference though, since a test like the WISC can be taken once per year without the previous administration being considered to be an interference.

I am wondering about the importance of doing unusual types of problems that most kids have never seen before. Is it the most meaningful measure of potential success in AAP? What if, once shown how to do a certain type of problem, a child then excels beyond peers given the exact same introduction to the problem type? A child could excel at learning when actually taught, which most closely resembles the situation at school, but balk at solving problems of a completely new and unusual type. Or what if the child isn't an enthusiastic problem solver in general but is extremely creative in generating his/her own work, for example in writing, or is very astute at observing and analyzing social situations? Perhaps testing needs to encompass more than answering certain types of questions. At least the GBRS does address the ability to learn, creativity, and leadership.

Precisely why so many kids who would do great in AAP are still in GE. Perhaps they didn't quite meet the benchmark score needed, but their intelligence and abilities are identical (and sometimes greater) to those who did. A good argument for making AAP the standard GE curriculum, and creating a new curriculum for those kids who far exceed the benchmark and who honestly need further differentiation. Higher intelligence cannot be measured by one or two tests alone, especially taken at very young ages. There are many more indicators of above-average abilities, such as those you listed above.

If a child doesn't quite meet the benchmark, it is always possible to parent refer and have factors other than the test scores considered by the screening committee.

Not sure that all of GE, from fastest to slowest learners, could handle the AAP curriculum.

It seems that many bright, borderline kids who might have missed being included in AAP in the past have already been bumped up to AAP, judging from the large numbers admitted that people are always complaining about. A grey area 10 percent has already been added to the top 5 percent, to give the approximately 15 percent included.

I would support more levels: AAP, honors, and GE, more like in middle school. Choice of honors versus GE could be up to the parents and students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't sound like the teacher was implying anything. It sounds like the assistant principal was tracking which children admitted to seeing similar questions. Obviously the information will be included in the files-otherwise why ask in the first place?

It didn't sound like they were actually taking names, but it would be interesting information to have to put the scores in context.

What makes you say that? Why have the AP in the room and ask the kids to raise their hands? Then the AP leaves (I assume to go to the other 2nd grade classes and get more names.) It is not like a 2nd grader is going to give every detail an adult would notice (i.e., actually writing down the names).

*Waits patiently for post recommending Diana Whatsherface*

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when a child has seen the types of questions before, the test results don't give as much information as to how the child deals with problems he has never seen before. I'm not sure that two years before makes a huge difference though, since a test like the WISC can be taken once per year without the previous administration being considered to be an interference.

It's October already? Time for the WISC touts to start coming out of the woodwoork. Like clockwork.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when a child has seen the types of questions before, the test results don't give as much information as to how the child deals with problems he has never seen before. I'm not sure that two years before makes a huge difference though, since a test like the WISC can be taken once per year without the previous administration being considered to be an interference.

I am wondering about the importance of doing unusual types of problems that most kids have never seen before. Is it the most meaningful measure of potential success in AAP? What if, once shown how to do a certain type of problem, a child then excels beyond peers given the exact same introduction to the problem type? A child could excel at learning when actually taught, which most closely resembles the situation at school, but balk at solving problems of a completely new and unusual type. Or what if the child isn't an enthusiastic problem solver in general but is extremely creative in generating his/her own work, for example in writing, or is very astute at observing and analyzing social situations? Perhaps testing needs to encompass more than answering certain types of questions. At least the GBRS does address the ability to learn, creativity, and leadership.

Precisely why so many kids who would do great in AAP are still in GE. Perhaps they didn't quite meet the benchmark score needed, but their intelligence and abilities are identical (and sometimes greater) to those who did. A good argument for making AAP the standard GE curriculum, and creating a new curriculum for those kids who far exceed the benchmark and who honestly need further differentiation. Higher intelligence cannot be measured by one or two tests alone, especially taken at very young ages. There are many more indicators of above-average abilities, such as those you listed above.

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when a child has seen the types of questions before, the test results don't give as much information as to how the child deals with problems he has never seen before. I'm not sure that two years before makes a huge difference though, since a test like the WISC can be taken once per year without the previous administration being considered to be an interference.

I am wondering about the importance of doing unusual types of problems that most kids have never seen before. Is it the most meaningful measure of potential success in AAP? What if, once shown how to do a certain type of problem, a child then excels beyond peers given the exact same introduction to the problem type? A child could excel at learning when actually taught, which most closely resembles the situation at school, but balk at solving problems of a completely new and unusual type. Or what if the child isn't an enthusiastic problem solver in general but is extremely creative in generating his/her own work, for example in writing, or is very astute at observing and analyzing social situations? Perhaps testing needs to encompass more than answering certain types of questions. At least the GBRS does address the ability to learn, creativity, and leadership.

I have two kids, one did not prep (early 2000, moved to VA a few months before the test, did not know what cogat was and had never heard of GT) and was in GT by her testing score and teacher recommendation. My second child did one practice test I purchased from Amazon one week before the test and also got in. Not sure if the prep had made a difference or not. The thing is, once you know what it is and where to get the info, it is hard not to buy a test, due to curiosity.

To be fair, when a child has seen the types of questions before, the test results don't give as much information as to how the child deals with problems he has never seen before. I'm not sure that two years before makes a huge difference though, since a test like the WISC can be taken once per year without the previous administration being considered to be an interference.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't sound like the teacher was implying anything. It sounds like the assistant principal was tracking which children admitted to seeing similar questions. Obviously the information will be included in the files-otherwise why ask in the first place?

The question is implying that if a child has seen any questions about finding patterns or moving shapes (outside of school) that the child has been officially "prepped" or has an unfair advantage, when in fact, a child might have seen such questions on any number of websites or puzzle materials for 10 min. OR the child might have been coached for 2 mos. The teacher has no idea which one it is.

My kid wasn't "prepped" for this test but he did see questions like these 2 years ago. And he would remember b/c he liked doing them.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't sound like the teacher was implying anything. It sounds like the assistant principal was tracking which children admitted to seeing similar questions. Obviously the information will be included in the files-otherwise why ask in the first place?

It didn't sound like they were actually taking names, but it would be interesting information to have to put the scores in context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Mostly, I think parents would be dishonest, because they want to portray their child as naturally gifted.

Actually, most parents do not prep their kids, so there would be no need to be dishonest. It might seem from reading this board that a lot of parents prep their kids, but out in real life, a much smaller percentage engage in this practice.

you are naïve. For certain groups it's pretty much a way of life.

[b]That might be true, but it is also true that most people do not do this.[/b]

since only 18% get into AAP, you are probably right.

Only 18%?? Please tell me you were being facetious! I would wager that most parents prep, which is why so many average kids are in AAP.

As to "only 18%", it is a program meant for a small percentage. If a higher percentage were eligible, it wouldn't make sense to even have the program.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my AAP kids did not prep, and that was back when only 10% were in the program (mid-2000's). I really think people on this board overestimate the percentage of parents who prep their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Mostly, I think parents would be dishonest, because they want to portray their child as naturally gifted.

Actually, most parents do not prep their kids, so there would be no need to be dishonest. It might seem from reading this board that a lot of parents prep their kids, but out in real life, a much smaller percentage engage in this practice.

you are naïve. For certain groups it's pretty much a way of life.

[b]That might be true, but it is also true that most people do not do this.[/b]

since only 18% get into AAP, you are probably right.

Only 18%?? Please tell me you were being facetious! I would wager that most parents prep, which is why so many average kids are in AAP.

I don't know what the percent was for this year's 3rd grade, but for last year's 3rd grade was it not over 20%?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Mostly, I think parents would be dishonest, because they want to portray their child as naturally gifted.

Actually, most parents do not prep their kids, so there would be no need to be dishonest. It might seem from reading this board that a lot of parents prep their kids, but out in real life, a much smaller percentage engage in this practice.

you are naïve. For certain groups it's pretty much a way of life.

[b]That might be true, but it is also true that most people do not do this.[/b]

since only 18% get into AAP, you are probably right.

Only 18%?? Please tell me you were being facetious! I would wager that most parents prep, which is why so many average kids are in AAP.