Anonymous wrote:But the teacher writes the commentary and provides the work samples?

8:45 here. If you're responding to me, then no. At our ES, the AART writes the commentary and provides the work samples. The 2nd grade teacher did add one sentence to the comments but all the rest of the comments were from the AART.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a gifted program anymore.

Teacher remarks should have the most weight. Is the child advanced? Hard working? Curious? Bright? That is the child for AAP.

But test scores are objective. Teachers can be great or terrible; burnt out, disinterested, brand new, like or dislike a certain kind of kid, etc etc.

If a parent disagrees with the teacher’s assessment of their child they may appeal with more evidence.

But the teacher writes the commentary and provides the work samples?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a gifted program anymore.

Teacher remarks should have the most weight. Is the child advanced? Hard working? Curious? Bright? That is the child for AAP.

But test scores are objective. Teachers can be great or terrible; burnt out, disinterested, brand new, like or dislike a certain kind of kid, etc etc.

At our ES, the AART does the GBRS. The 2nd grade teacher has very little input, basically none.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a gifted program anymore.

Teacher remarks should have the most weight. Is the child advanced? Hard working? Curious? Bright? That is the child for AAP.

But test scores are objective. Teachers can be great or terrible; burnt out, disinterested, brand new, like or dislike a certain kind of kid, etc etc.

It’s not a gifted program anymore.

Teacher remarks should have the most weight. Is the child advanced? Hard working? Curious? Bright? That is the child for AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"based on the sloppy handwriting and spelling mistakes"

ridiculous if true. Neither has anything at all to do with whether they would thrive in AAP>

The child did get in on appeal and is thriving in AAP with mostly 4s on report cards and pass advanced on all SOLs. Now that most projects are done on google slides and not with pencil and paper, my child also has great looking work products.

The whole process was frustrating, though, because kids with lower scores than my child got in first round, and then those kids struggled a bit in AAP while my in-on-appeals child has been thriving. The system is bizarre.

How did you appeal? with WISC scores and samples? If samples also, how many did you provide? Also what was your child's WISC score? Thanks

I beginning to think the CoGAT has become an incredibly weak instrument when testing UMC students.

Even if you don’t prep at a Saturday class like many do, you may buy a workbook for your child, you may look up and show a bunch of sample items online to your child, if not that you may have purposefully chosen logic games that are known to increase scores.

If none of that UMC kids are being enriched today more than they ever have. Especially in competitive metropolitan areas.

I think the COGAT worked okay 30 years ago as an IQ proxy. Not anymore. It’s a business though, and while I’m sure FCPS are aware of the test’s shortcomings, you won’t find anything online about how weak the Cogat has become.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got in with bad handwriting fwiw

Same. There was some other unknown reason, PP. Not poor handwriting.

PP here. I think the bad spelling was a much bigger factor.

Anonymous wrote:"based on the sloppy handwriting and spelling mistakes"

ridiculous if true. Neither has anything at all to do with whether they would thrive in AAP>

The child did get in on appeal and is thriving in AAP with mostly 4s on report cards and pass advanced on all SOLs. Now that most projects are done on google slides and not with pencil and paper, my child also has great looking work products.

The whole process was frustrating, though, because kids with lower scores than my child got in first round, and then those kids struggled a bit in AAP while my in-on-appeals child has been thriving. The system is bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:
Candidates need solid evidence that they are qualified beyond prepping and parental polishing. Reviewers are getting better at seeing through the bs. Prepping has poisoned the pond.

Well, that's a crock of BS. Parents who understand the system well enough to prep and polish their kids also understand how to construct a good AAP application packet. The kids getting excluded are more likely the non-preppers with parents who don't understand the process as well and just assumed that their smart kids would get in. Submitting work samples from home, detailed parent letters, letters of recommendation, etc. all look much more like an over-invested parent who groomed a child to be picked for AAP.

I've worked with a lot of AAP kids, and most of them are neither very smart nor very advanced. Most of them seem like typical above-average UMC children.

Anonymous wrote:My kid got in with bad handwriting fwiw

Same. There was some other unknown reason, PP. Not poor handwriting.

My kid got in with bad handwriting fwiw

"based on the sloppy handwriting and spelling mistakes"

ridiculous if true. Neither has anything at all to do with whether they would thrive in AAP>

Anonymous wrote:
The school supplies more than 2 work samples, they supply all of them for in pool packets. Neatness or good handwriting is immaterial.

The school is *required* to supply 2. They certainly can and often will supply more. Neatness and handwriting are likely to change the impression the panel member has of that work because to some extent everyone is influenced by whether something looks good or looks poor at a glance. I had one of those surprise rejections a few years ago. When I sat down with the AART to discuss the packet, the only thing we came up with as a reason for rejection is that the committee really disliked my child's work samples based on the sloppy handwriting and spelling mistakes. I appealed with a letter and new work samples, and my child was admitted on appeal.