Anonymous wrote:Pp, you would be better off spending time prepping your younger child to do well on the 3rd grade cogat so you don’t need to spend money on a wisc. Especially if your child will probably get an unhelpful sub-130 wisc.

You may be right, and I will probably request a CogAt retake. I'm not sure I'll prep--my kid was diagnosed with ADHD late in 2nd grade and is now doing a lot better with medication. I suspect that alone will make a big difference.

Pp, you would be better off spending time prepping your younger child to do well on the 3rd grade cogat so you don’t need to spend money on a wisc. Especially if your child will probably get an unhelpful sub-130 wisc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not gifted but wants to learn” describes over half of the kids in AAP as well as a decent chunk of gen ed kids who didn’t get in, but are indistinguishable from those who did. There’s a huge overlap between the bottom half of AAP and the top gen ed kids, and the selection process is imperfect, especially for kids who are borderline.

My gen ed kid qualified for AAP, stayed at the base for Level III & advanced math, and is still learning every day. I don’t see that big of a difference between what my gen ed kid has learned and what my AAP center kid has learned.

Agree 100% about the huge overlap.

Unfortunately in FCPS the base schools vary greatly in what is offered kids who are bright and who want to learn. My oldest barely got in to our center on
appeal and had a low WISC but has had no problems academically in the center class.
My younger child did not get in and stayed in 3rd at our neighborhood school (which is around 40% FARMs). Only a handful of kids make it into the center each year-maybe 5 or so. Well 3rd grade was a wasted year. In his class so few kids were reading on grade level that the top reading group was DRA 22-40 readers and they read the lowest level books, and there was no advanced math at all. There didn’t appear to be any extensions or enrichment beyond the basics. So for 4th I did everything possible to get him into the center school, and I have zero regrets.

This is precisely why a lot of parents push to get their borderline kids into AAP. I mean no offense, but I think a lot of people who are either at base schools where most students are at least on grade level and/or have a LLIV do not understand the situation. I also don't think the SB gets it. We are at a base school exactly like you describe. My oldest kid is at the AAP center and doing great, although it sucks to be away from most friends in our neighborhood. My youngest didn't make it in (scores in the mid/high 120s but nothing above the 132 in subsections, excellent grades, strong work packet). We will see how third grade goes; if it's mostly spent trying to get a group of very behind classmates to hopefully pass the SOLs, I will happily take my chances and pay $400 for a WISC if it means my kid can get some math differentiation and be challenged in reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not gifted but wants to learn” describes over half of the kids in AAP as well as a decent chunk of gen ed kids who didn’t get in, but are indistinguishable from those who did. There’s a huge overlap between the bottom half of AAP and the top gen ed kids, and the selection process is imperfect, especially for kids who are borderline.

My gen ed kid qualified for AAP, stayed at the base for Level III & advanced math, and is still learning every day. I don’t see that big of a difference between what my gen ed kid has learned and what my AAP center kid has learned.

Agree 100% about the huge overlap.

Unfortunately in FCPS the base schools vary greatly in what is offered kids who are bright and who want to learn. My oldest barely got in to our center on
appeal and had a low WISC but has had no problems academically in the center class.
My younger child did not get in and stayed in 3rd at our neighborhood school (which is around 40% FARMs). Only a handful of kids make it into the center each year-maybe 5 or so. Well 3rd grade was a wasted year. In his class so few kids were reading on grade level that the top reading group was DRA 22-40 readers and they read the lowest level books, and there was no advanced math at all. There didn’t appear to be any extensions or enrichment beyond the basics. So for 4th I did everything possible to get him into the center school, and I have zero regrets.

If FCPS wants to solve their bloated AAP issue, they have to solve this problem first.

Anonymous wrote:“Not gifted but wants to learn” describes over half of the kids in AAP as well as a decent chunk of gen ed kids who didn’t get in, but are indistinguishable from those who did. There’s a huge overlap between the bottom half of AAP and the top gen ed kids, and the selection process is imperfect, especially for kids who are borderline.

My gen ed kid qualified for AAP, stayed at the base for Level III & advanced math, and is still learning every day. I don’t see that big of a difference between what my gen ed kid has learned and what my AAP center kid has learned.

Agree 100% about the huge overlap.

Unfortunately in FCPS the base schools vary greatly in what is offered kids who are bright and who want to learn. My oldest barely got in to our center on
appeal and had a low WISC but has had no problems academically in the center class.
My younger child did not get in and stayed in 3rd at our neighborhood school (which is around 40% FARMs). Only a handful of kids make it into the center each year-maybe 5 or so. Well 3rd grade was a wasted year. In his class so few kids were reading on grade level that the top reading group was DRA 22-40 readers and they read the lowest level books, and there was no advanced math at all. There didn’t appear to be any extensions or enrichment beyond the basics. So for 4th I did everything possible to get him into the center school, and I have zero regrets.

“Not gifted but wants to learn” describes over half of the kids in AAP as well as a decent chunk of gen ed kids who didn’t get in, but are indistinguishable from those who did. There’s a huge overlap between the bottom half of AAP and the top gen ed kids, and the selection process is imperfect, especially for kids who are borderline.

My gen ed kid qualified for AAP, stayed at the base for Level III & advanced math, and is still learning every day. I don’t see that big of a difference between what my gen ed kid has learned and what my AAP center kid has learned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so sad that "not gifted, but wants to learn" apparently doesn't describe all of the students at school who aren't "gifted, and wants to learn".

It’s sad that it seems to be understood that gen ed is for the kids who don’t want to learn.

DP. I don't really know what all of these posters are talking about. I don't think they know either. I've got one in AAP and one in gen ed. They both learn. Wanting to learn, though, does vary day-to-day.

Anonymous wrote:It's so sad that "not gifted, but wants to learn" apparently doesn't describe all of the students at school who aren't "gifted, and wants to learn".

It’s sad that it seems to be understood that gen ed is for the kids who don’t want to learn.

It's so sad that "not gifted, but wants to learn" apparently doesn't describe all of the students at school who aren't "gifted, and wants to learn".

I haven't read the replies , OP, but just want to chime in that your child sounds like most kids in AAP (including mine). Bright, motivated, and not really gifted. FWIW, my kids all got higher scores in the CoGAT so you may find that he's in pool after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point, Dear Posters, is that you are making extremely classist assumptions about professions/earning power and intelligence. In this case, you are assuming teachers in our area aren't "smart", or that even a subsection of teachers aren't smart. You are then extrapolating that these teachers are "gaming the system" and saying that their children aren't smart enough to be in the top 20% of learners in Fairfax. Your classist views are hurting your children by perpetuating the stereotype that intelligent people are "above" teaching. You should be able to dig deeper and realize that you harbor some damaging world views.

I have seen studies showing education majors have the lowest GPAs...

In Virginia, you don't do an "education major" for your undergraduate. You major in whatever subject you intend to teach and then you get licensure afterwards with or without a master's degree. Only last year they opened up new processes for undergraduate licensing because of the teacher shortage, but you still major in another subject. High school teachers major in math, science, English, history, Spanish, art etc. and then teach in those areas. Elementary school teachers do the same or major in developmental psychology or similar. States that have undergraduate "education" majors do tend to attract weaker students on average (not always--and it's roughly similar in quality to business majors) and many of those programs are not as strong.

Anonymous wrote:My point, Dear Posters, is that you are making extremely classist assumptions about professions/earning power and intelligence. In this case, you are assuming teachers in our area aren't "smart", or that even a subsection of teachers aren't smart. You are then extrapolating that these teachers are "gaming the system" and saying that their children aren't smart enough to be in the top 20% of learners in Fairfax. Your classist views are hurting your children by perpetuating the stereotype that intelligent people are "above" teaching. You should be able to dig deeper and realize that you harbor some damaging world views.

I have seen studies showing education majors have the lowest GPAs...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like every elementary school teacher has kids in AAP. Since elementary school teachers are likely not gifted themselves and not a profession that typically attracts high IQ people, it just shows how easily prepped the process is.

Easily 1/3rd of my child's AAP classroom last year had at least one parent who worked for FCPS. I assumed that the file reviewers gave extra points to teachers' kids as professional courtesy.

Same teacher as above. I have reviewed files over the past several years and no where do the files indicate that the parents work for the school system. So the idea of professional courtesy is untrue. Screeners really do look at the scores holistically.

Oops - should have said "nowhere" and "screeners look at the FILES holistically."

The files don’t have the parents email addresses on them anywhere? The parents can’t write on the questionnaire that they are a teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but what is considered prepping? Is it classes, buying a booking off Amazon, outside tutoring? If you don't prep does that mean sending your child in blind?

Yes. Yes to all of your questions

Except that the teachers will do practice tests with the kids so they are not going in blind. Are all of those kids prepped?

Those kids are all in the same place. They've seen a couple practice questions. That's it.

And those kids will get scores above the in pool cutoff and below the in pool cutoff. Your kid will get a score above or below the in pool cutoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but what is considered prepping? Is it classes, buying a booking off Amazon, outside tutoring? If you don't prep does that mean sending your child in blind?

Yes. Yes to all of your questions

Except that the teachers will do practice tests with the kids so they are not going in blind. Are all of those kids prepped?