S/O - Potential defector from ACPS to APS, how does the gifted program work?

[Anonymous]

My kid was identified early in APS. She's hit her limit with intensified classes. We're not sold that most of the privates will be better for her in high school, so instead, we supplement in the summer with Hopkins' CTY camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something like 80% of kids in Arlington are identified as gifted by middle school so the reality is the "programming" doesn't amount to much. If the label is what you're after, you'll probably get it. But if you're looking for genuine services, you may need to go private.

Is this true? Genuine curiosity, not snark.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the posters who shared their experiences. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread devolved into "don't move to APS because the high school situation is such a debacle," but all the same, I was looking for specific input about gifted programs, not for people telling me why I would be stupid to move into the system in the first place. Trust me, I've read all of the threads on the HS/capacity issue - you can't miss them on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something like 80% of kids in Arlington are identified as gifted by middle school so the reality is the "programming" doesn't amount to much. If the label is what you're after, you'll probably get it. But if you're looking for genuine services, you may need to go private.

Is this true? Genuine curiosity, not snark.

No. The average county-wide is 8%. The range county-wide is between 1 and 17% of a given elementary school's population.

Interesting reading here for those like OP who are interested in how the GT program is supposed to work, and the facts and figures behind it.
https://www.apsva.us/planning-and-evaluation/evaluation/evaluation-reports/
This appendix breaks down the numbers. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/APPENDIX-C-GIFTED.pdf

The 80% figure relates more to the fact that once a kid is referred, the vast majority tend to be then identified as gifted. Overall, the number of kids identified is not that high. It's not completely Lake Wobegon.

To me the real takeaway is two-fold. First, that they know they are lagging in referring and identifying kids who are lower-socioeconomic status, ethnicities other than white and asian, and kids who are disabled. Second, long-term that by middle school there are little or no gifted services targeted at kids who have been identified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the posters who shared their experiences. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread devolved into "don't move to APS because the high school situation is such a debacle," but all the same, I was looking for specific input about gifted programs, not for people telling me why I would be stupid to move into the system in the first place. Trust me, I've read all of the threads on the HS/capacity issue - you can't miss them on here.

OP- as you can tell, the high school situation weighs heavily on the minds of a lot of parents (including many of us with kids tagged as gifted). But only you can make the decision as to whether APS is an improvement over ACPS and worth the move. One other factor to consider (beyond what has already been mentioned here)-- APS only allocates 1 gifted teacher per school, regardless of student body size or the number of gifted kids in the school. So if you move to a smaller ES, or one with fewer gifted kids in the school, then your kid might get more time with the gifted teacher. Right now, APS elementary schools range in size from fewer than 500 students to 850+ students-- but they all only get one gifted teacher. This has created differences in the way that gifted services are delivered across schools. Just keep that in mind as you focus in on neighborhoods (and also that redistricting is happening across the ES and MS level next year). Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something like 80% of kids in Arlington are identified as gifted by middle school so the reality is the "programming" doesn't amount to much. If the label is what you're after, you'll probably get it. But if you're looking for genuine services, you may need to go private.

Is this true? Genuine curiosity, not snark.

No. The average county-wide is 8%. The range county-wide is between 1 and 17% of a given elementary school's population.

Interesting reading here for those like OP who are interested in how the GT program is supposed to work, and the facts and figures behind it.
https://www.apsva.us/planning-and-evaluation/evaluation/evaluation-reports/
This appendix breaks down the numbers. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/APPENDIX-C-GIFTED.pdf

The 80% figure relates more to the fact that once a kid is referred, the vast majority tend to be then identified as gifted. Overall, the number of kids identified is not that high. It's not completely Lake Wobegon.

To me the real takeaway is two-fold. First, that they know they are lagging in referring and identifying kids who are lower-socioeconomic status, ethnicities other than white and asian, and kids who are disabled. Second, long-term that by middle school there are little or no gifted services targeted at kids who have been identified.

Thanks! I'll check this out.

My kid was referred in K and I was asked to fill out the referral form from my POV as a parent. There's so much eye rolling about "gifted" stuff that I asked if I could just let the teacher referral stand on it's own without my input, lest it appear that I was pushing for it or exaggerating. I ended up filling it out, but I felt incredibly awkward doing it.

Even before identification, I was impressed by our teacher's ability to work with students at their respective levels. There was a very wide range in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something like 80% of kids in Arlington are identified as gifted by middle school so the reality is the "programming" doesn't amount to much. If the label is what you're after, you'll probably get it. But if you're looking for genuine services, you may need to go private.

Is this true? Genuine curiosity, not snark.

No. The average county-wide is 8%. The range county-wide is between 1 and 17% of a given elementary school's population.

Interesting reading here for those like OP who are interested in how the GT program is supposed to work, and the facts and figures behind it.
https://www.apsva.us/planning-and-evaluation/evaluation/evaluation-reports/
This appendix breaks down the numbers. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/APPENDIX-C-GIFTED.pdf

The 80% figure relates more to the fact that once a kid is referred, the vast majority tend to be then identified as gifted. Overall, the number of kids identified is not that high. It's not completely Lake Wobegon.

To me the real takeaway is two-fold. First, that they know they are lagging in referring and identifying kids who are lower-socioeconomic status, ethnicities other than white and asian, and kids who are disabled. Second, long-term that by middle school there are little or no gifted services targeted at kids who have been identified.

This poster is correct on the statistics, both on the % referred and the % referred identified as gifted. It makes sense to see a high % of referred children identified, since the vast majority of referrals come either from standardized testing designed to identify giftedness or from teachers who have experience identifying and working with gifted students.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, though, with the claim that by middle school there are little to no gifted services targeted at identified students. I only skimmed the data for middle school, I will admit, but for math, it shows 91% of students identified as gifted in math being in an advanced math class. 83% of students identified as advanced English are in a class with a gifted cluster or an advanced class (which is intended to give the teacher the ability to introduce more advanced material). The stats are lower for science and social studies (22% and 21%, respectively), but then by high school those numbers jump substantially (78% and 87%, respectively). That they aren't in classes with a gifted cluster in those subjects does not mean, though, that those kids aren't being given supplementation or extra challenges in those subjects. It also may reflect certain realities of those groups, such as that substantially fewer children are identified as gifted in those areas as compared to English and math going into middle school, so it may be harder to create advanced and cluster classes for those subjects. By high school, which has a much larger student population, you're more likely to have the critical mass you need to create those advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This poster is correct on the statistics, both on the % referred and the % referred identified as gifted. It makes sense to see a high % of referred children identified, since the vast majority of referrals come either from standardized testing designed to identify giftedness or from teachers who have experience identifying and working with gifted students.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, though, with the claim that by middle school there are little to no gifted services targeted at identified students. I only skimmed the data for middle school, I will admit, but for math, it shows 91% of students identified as gifted in math being in an advanced math class. 83% of students identified as advanced English are in a class with a gifted cluster or an advanced class (which is intended to give the teacher the ability to introduce more advanced material). The stats are lower for science and social studies (22% and 21%, respectively), but then by high school those numbers jump substantially (78% and 87%, respectively). That they aren't in classes with a gifted cluster in those subjects does not mean, though, that those kids aren't being given supplementation or extra challenges in those subjects. It also may reflect certain realities of those groups, such as that substantially fewer children are identified as gifted in those areas as compared to English and math going into middle school, so it may be harder to create advanced and cluster classes for those subjects. By high school, which has a much larger student population, you're more likely to have the critical mass you need to create those advanced classes.

PP here. I pulled that from the report in which teachers and parents report that little to no gifted-specific services are being provided. Children may be in advanced classes, which may alleviate the issues, but the report indicates that there doesn't seem to be specific push of services to GT identified kids. My child is in elementary, so I have no personal or anecdotal experiences to offer on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you desire gifted programs/options/standards, move to FFX not Arlington. They have a well established gifted program that runs very different to ApS. All programs have their issues (and ffx is certainly not perfect) but consensus would suggest that the FFX gifted options iate more robust and can better cater to highly gifted vs APS.

We considered moving to Fairfax from APS for AAP for our highly gifted child. Based on our research, including talking to local education specialists, it didn't seem like Fairfax does meaningfully better for truly highly gifted. Eventually we will probably end up in private school, but not as long as our child is happy at school (albeit bored at times).

Truly gifted children don't get bored in school because they can always find something to do.

They can if they're given the ability and resources to do it. Said gifted child did very well in small classes where he could get more individual attention and supplementation (on his own initiative or from the teacher). Last year's class was huge, which affected both the amount of individualized time he could have, and the extent to which his teacher could allow him to go "off-task" (which was on-task for where he was, but off-task compared to what the rest of the class was doing at the moment). If we go back to small classes, APS will probably work just fine for him. If the big classes continue, we may have to look for a different environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This poster is correct on the statistics, both on the % referred and the % referred identified as gifted. It makes sense to see a high % of referred children identified, since the vast majority of referrals come either from standardized testing designed to identify giftedness or from teachers who have experience identifying and working with gifted students.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, though, with the claim that by middle school there are little to no gifted services targeted at identified students. I only skimmed the data for middle school, I will admit, but for math, it shows 91% of students identified as gifted in math being in an advanced math class. 83% of students identified as advanced English are in a class with a gifted cluster or an advanced class (which is intended to give the teacher the ability to introduce more advanced material). The stats are lower for science and social studies (22% and 21%, respectively), but then by high school those numbers jump substantially (78% and 87%, respectively). That they aren't in classes with a gifted cluster in those subjects does not mean, though, that those kids aren't being given supplementation or extra challenges in those subjects. It also may reflect certain realities of those groups, such as that substantially fewer children are identified as gifted in those areas as compared to English and math going into middle school, so it may be harder to create advanced and cluster classes for those subjects. By high school, which has a much larger student population, you're more likely to have the critical mass you need to create those advanced classes.

PP here. I pulled that from the report in which teachers and parents report that little to no gifted-specific services are being provided. Children may be in advanced classes, which may alleviate the issues, but the report indicates that there doesn't seem to be specific push of services to GT identified kids. My child is in elementary, so I have no personal or anecdotal experiences to offer on this.

I think that you need to take the parent feedback with a huge grain of salt. I mean, 85% of parents of high school students identified as gifted believe that their children are getting no services as a result of being identified as gifted, despite all of the available AP/IB classes? 60% of parents of middle school students identified as gifted believe their children are getting no services, despite that fact that almost all of them are in at least one advanced class? I think a lot of parents look at the elementary model, where their children were getting a lot more pull-out and individualized attention (which is necessary because there's less clustering), and expect that continue in later years despite the fact that their children are being more tightly grouped with other gifted children for their core classes, and thus teachers can teach the whole group at a more advanced level rather than needing to supplement one-on-one. That the services look different doesn't mean they're not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Truly gifted children don't get bored in school because they can always find something to do.

They can if they're given the ability and resources to do it. Said gifted child did very well in small classes where he could get more individual attention and supplementation (on his own initiative or from the teacher). Last year's class was huge, which affected both the amount of individualized time he could have, and the extent to which his teacher could allow him to go "off-task" (which was on-task for where he was, but off-task compared to what the rest of the class was doing at the moment). If we go back to small classes, APS will probably work just fine for him. If the big classes continue, we may have to look for a different environment.

The more APS teachers are pushed (by our know-nothing superintendent and his device-loving assistant supt. of instruction) to teach to the test, the worse things get for gifted students. The experience of my high schooler and elementary schooler differed significantly, and I'd have thought the ES-er would have been better, because by the time he was in school, APS had moved to a push-in model rather than a pull-out one. But you can't push much in when the focus is on SOL prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Truly gifted children don't get bored in school because they can always find something to do.

They can if they're given the ability and resources to do it. Said gifted child did very well in small classes where he could get more individual attention and supplementation (on his own initiative or from the teacher). Last year's class was huge, which affected both the amount of individualized time he could have, and the extent to which his teacher could allow him to go "off-task" (which was on-task for where he was, but off-task compared to what the rest of the class was doing at the moment). If we go back to small classes, APS will probably work just fine for him. If the big classes continue, we may have to look for a different environment.

The more APS teachers are pushed (by our know-nothing superintendent and his device-loving assistant supt. of instruction) to teach to the test, the worse things get for gifted students. The experience of my high schooler and elementary schooler differed significantly, and I'd have thought the ES-er would have been better, because by the time he was in school, APS had moved to a push-in model rather than a pull-out one. But you can't push much in when the focus is on SOL prep.

Teach to the test isn't an APS-specific phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

My experience in APS is that all the designation does is get your kid access to some nice internships in HS. Maybe she has her favorite kids, but my kid hasn't even gotten the time of day.

I don't know much about elementary resources, since they designated my kid later than that. What I do know is that the resource teacher at his elementary school wasn't so muckinfuch anyway (and she was disinclined to recognize giftedness among the quiet and the careless).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the "all schools have capacity challenges" poster. Here's how one APS household sees the situation in Arlington.

1) the last two substantial parcels of land are under discussion for acquisition. In the current proposals a Carlin Springs lot will very likely be used for bus depot (schools and public transit) and Buck site almost certainly for first responders. As someone concerned that there is NO site identified for a fourth comprehensive high school, I see this as another nail in that coffin.
2) the county is claiming in the absence of land (and there are no other readily available lots left in the county), they will pursue options like shift schedulling and distance learning to meet capacity challenges. That's right, your tax dollars could go to pay for your child to essentially have NO seat in a school.
3) the county is making their problems worse by approving high rise construction with high density population. They don't have seats for the students ALREADY in the county, but everyone loves their developer fees and no one has ownership over how the schools will competently educate its students in 7+ years.

No other school system has this toxic mix of shortsightedness and land constraints. People who are happy today appear not to have awareness of how the APS system will look in 10 years.

They've identified three potential sites for a fourth high school, and the current plan is to create a new high school. Whether it will be a comprehensive high school or a choice program is still up in the air, but it's simply untrue that there are no options for locations for the fourth high school.

I'm the first poster listed here, replying that I was at the June meeting when the APS board selected the "hybrid" option. This is an option that builds out WL high school, and expands Tech ed (which based on what I see is not likely to address overcrowding because so few Arlington parents would send their children). It still remains unresolved where the 500 further seats come from. The APS has a working list of sites, but these have been systematically eliminated for the purposes of a fourth comprehensive high school. All of this points to an increased inevitablity that the school board announces it has no options but the seat sharing/time shift scheme and/or distance education.

To OP who disdains to hear about these overcapacity problems because she is "only" interested in gifted program: are you planning to move again in 5 years or send your child to private? If not, then these problems will be *your* problems. They will certainly affect the gifted education program in APS. The capacity crisis WILL matter to the kind of middle school and high school your kids attend.