Why obsess over getting into gifted program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the teacher above, though, that there are many students who probably didn't score as well on the stupid tests who would also benefit front eh learning style at the center. Isn't that the point of rolling out the "AAP curriculum" to all of the students like they are doing in McLean?

Precisely. So other teachers can use the materials/methods with general ed students.

[Anonymous]

12:52 What is it that you think they do better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended 6-7 non-GT classes in Fairfax county over many years in the GT program. Put bluntly, the non-GT classes were terrible. Kids not paying attention, teachers dealing with discipline issues rather than academics, or helping along student who didn't bother to do their homework. Very little writing and analysis expected, and no public speaking opportunities even attempted. I felt like I was at a different school from by regular GT classes.

[list]See FCPS DISCRIMINATION!!! Why do the kids who can perform at A level in their ASSIGNED schools get these opportunities?? This is absolutely discrimination for one child who is smart to be brought down the the above described level while others are given unprecedented opportunities.

I really agree with this. I saw the same as a teacher. I thought it was unfair that some students go wonderful opportunities for learning and enrichment while others languished in disruptive classrooms. The GT program will insist that all these gt identified kids actually have a completely different learning style and that other, "normal" kids cannot benefit from that type of instruction. However, there is really no scientific evidence for this idea, especially the way the programs are actually implemented. It's more of a political justification adhered to for budgetary reasons.

would you explain what you mean byt this?

What I meant was that in the actual implementation of gifted services inside a school, it often becomes less about what kids can benefit from and what the school can afford in time and resources to give them. I know that services vary widely between schools, and I only have detailed knowledge of a handful of school gt programs, however what often happened was this: a very few students were identified as highly gifted (based on test scores and teacher recommendation - but mostly scores) and sent away to a gifted center at a different school. Another bunch of students had parents who went through the parent referral process and got their children sent there as well (in some cases literally harassing the teacher into filling out a positive recommendation for it).

That left a whole bunch of kids with test scores high enough to qualify them for in school gifted services. However, those services could be just about anything. One year, for example, it was a weekly 45 minute lesson with the GT teacher in a trailer. There were only about 4 or 5 students that would go, and they would do all kinds of cool things, from experiments to writing activities, but not a single thing they did was not something that any good student would have enjoyed if they could have had a small class with 4-5 students for an hour a week. Remember, the test scores are on a sliding scale, and the cutoff is kind of arbitrary. So who's to say that the kid sitting in the classroom who missed the service by one point could not benefit? I mean, honestly, what normal kid does not benefit from a very small class with open-ended and challenging activities? But not all kids can have that. Small classes are reserved for the very low and the very high, because that's all that the school system can really afford.

So, while there may be evidence that some kids are truly gifted and need a different learning environment, many gt kids are just good students with pushy parents, and many non-gt students are just kids who missed the score by a few points. At least, that's how it is in some schools. Does that explain it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That left a whole bunch of kids with test scores high enough to qualify them for in school gifted services. However, those services could be just about anything. One year, for example, it was a weekly 45 minute lesson with the GT teacher in a trailer. There were only about 4 or 5 students that would go, and they would do all kinds of cool things, from experiments to writing activities, but not a single thing they did was not something that any good student would have enjoyed if they could have had a small class with 4-5 students for an hour a week. Remember, the test scores are on a sliding scale, and the cutoff is kind of arbitrary. So who's to say that the kid sitting in the classroom who missed the service by one point could not benefit? I mean, honestly, what normal kid does not benefit from a very small class with open-ended and challenging activities? But not all kids can have that. Small classes are reserved for the very low and the very high, because that's all that the school system can really afford.

So, while there may be evidence that some kids are truly gifted and need a different learning environment, many gt kids are just good students with pushy parents, and many non-gt students are just kids who missed the score by a few points. At least, that's how it is in some schools. Does that explain it?

I meant to say...not single thing any good student would NOT have enjoyed

[Anonymous]

Small classes reserved for the low and high performing? Show me. An aap center that has small class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended 6-7 non-GT classes in Fairfax county over many years in the GT program. Put bluntly, the non-GT classes were terrible. Kids not paying attention, teachers dealing with discipline issues rather than academics, or helping along student who didn't bother to do their homework. Very little writing and analysis expected, and no public speaking opportunities even attempted. I felt like I was at a different school from by regular GT classes.

[list]See FCPS DISCRIMINATION!!! Why do the kids who can perform at A level in their ASSIGNED schools get these opportunities?? This is absolutely discrimination for one child who is smart to be brought down the the above described level while others are given unprecedented opportunities.

I really agree with this. I saw the same as a teacher. I thought it was unfair that some students go wonderful opportunities for learning and enrichment while others languished in disruptive classrooms. The GT program will insist that all these gt identified kids actually have a completely different learning style and that other, "normal" kids cannot benefit from that type of instruction. However, there is really no scientific evidence for this idea, especially the way the programs are actually implemented. It's more of a political justification adhered to for budgetary reasons.

would you explain what you mean byt this?

What I meant was that in the actual implementation of gifted services inside a school, it often becomes less about what kids can benefit from and what the school can afford in time and resources to give them. I know that services vary widely between schools, and I only have detailed knowledge of a handful of school gt programs, however what often happened was this: a very few students were identified as highly gifted (based on test scores and teacher recommendation - but mostly scores) and sent away to a gifted center at a different school. Another bunch of students had parents who went through the parent referral process and got their children sent there as well (in some cases literally harassing the teacher into filling out a positive recommendation for it).

That left a whole bunch of kids with test scores high enough to qualify them for in school gifted services. However, those services could be just about anything. One year, for example, it was a weekly 45 minute lesson with the GT teacher in a trailer. There were only about 4 or 5 students that would go, and they would do all kinds of cool things, from experiments to writing activities, but not a single thing they did was not something that any good student would have enjoyed if they could have had a small class with 4-5 students for an hour a week. Remember, the test scores are on a sliding scale, and the cutoff is kind of arbitrary. So who's to say that the kid sitting in the classroom who missed the service by one point could not benefit? I mean, honestly, what normal kid does not benefit from a very small class with open-ended and challenging activities? But not all kids can have that. Small classes are reserved for the very low and the very high, because that's all that the school system can really afford.

So, while there may be evidence that some kids are truly gifted and need a different learning environment, many gt kids are just good students with pushy parents, and many non-gt students are just kids who missed the score by a few points. At least, that's how it is in some schools. Does that explain it?

so the "political justification" comment refers to placating the pushy parents. What about the "adhered to for budgetary reasons?" Didn't really get that part.

[Anonymous]

Aap does not cost more,mor at least not a significant amount more.

[Anonymous]

Too many average kids in AAP. If you dont score in the 98th or 99th percentile, you dont belong in AAP. If you need a tutor to stay on target in AAP, you dont belong. Too many parents are making up for their own shortcomings via their kids. I know kids who scored 100, or average in AAP. GT is gone. TJSST is also becoming watered down. Too many unqualified getting in.Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many average kids in AAP. If you dont score in the 98th or 99th percentile, you dont belong in AAP. If you need a tutor to stay on target in AAP, you dont belong. Too many parents are making up for their own shortcomings via their kids. I know kids who scored 100, or average in AAP. GT is gone. TJSST is also becoming watered down. Too many unqualified getting in.Why?

It's interesting to contrast the comment above -- which is similar to many others I've seen on DCUM -- with comments from other parents on DCUM who say all students in AAP and MoCo G&T programs are at least two years ahead of grade level, and far ahead of any private school programs. They seem inconsistent to me. Am I missing some way to reconcile these?

[Anonymous]

I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Could you define "truly gifted." Could you name a few truly gifted individuals? I have been around students (at all levels, from k through graduate students) all my life. Each student has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to creativity, communication, comprehension, reasoning ... This differentiation between "gifted" and "ordinary" is puzzling to me and inconsistent with my experience. I consider most of our students intelligent and capable, although some are more motivated than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Thanks for your response. That makes some sense. Seems to me the easy solution for schools would be to have a more complete set of differentiation. Right now, it seems to be just AAP vs. non-AAP. Why not create three levels: G&T (top 2%), AAP (80-97%), and general education (non-AAP)?

One other question, since you seem to be in an answering mood: I've definitely seen many people claim unambiguously that *ALL* students in AAP and in MoCo's HGC program are at least 2 years ahead of grade level, and many are even further ahead. Does this strike you as exaggeration too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aap does not cost more,mor at least not a significant amount more.

But it does cost more. First they have to administer all of these tests to 1st and 2nd graders. Second, they have to take teachers and staff's time to gather up materials, Third, they have to have a committee who reveiws everyone's files. Fourth, they need to mail out scores and letters. Fifth, they have to bus students to their AAP Center. All of that adds up to quite a bit of money. And I'm sure there are other cost involved that I'm not thinking of.

[Anonymous]

The testing would happen with or without AAP. It does take time to gather the materials, but it does not seem that the county has to add extra personnel at a per school level. Mailing expenses are real; mailing out the scores would happen without AAP: the tests would happen anyway.

Bussing to the AAP center is the only measurable cost: it is about $225,000 for the county, which is not high.

Then there are savings. Having kids that are not as bored means there will be less trouble. Troubled kids require larger staffs, which cost money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Could you define "truly gifted." Could you name a few truly gifted individuals? I have been around students (at all levels, from k through graduate students) all my life. Each student has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to creativity, communication, comprehension, reasoning ... This differentiation between "gifted" and "ordinary" is puzzling to me and inconsistent with my experience. I consider most of our students intelligent and capable, although some are more motivated than others.

Different levels of giftedness goes by IQ in general.