AAP official percentage of 20.8%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would keep AAP as it is and just add a program for the top 0.1% as measured by the WISC full scale. Then those parents would stop complaining.

I think that would be ideal but it will never happen. Too expensive. And are you giving everyone a WISC or just those who meet certain thresholds on, say, CogAT?

I think a fair way to operate would be to give a free WISC to all composite scores above 145 on the CoGAT.

The CogAT is not precise enough to use in such a manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would keep AAP as it is and just add a program for the top 0.1% as measured by the WISC full scale. Then those parents would stop complaining.

I think that would be ideal but it will never happen. Too expensive. And are you giving everyone a WISC or just those who meet certain thresholds on, say, CogAT?

I think a fair way to operate would be to give a free WISC to all composite scores above 145 on the CoGAT.

The CogAT is not precise enough to use in such a manner.

I agree with you, but it’s a good start to capturing those “truly gifted” kids. If I child can score above 145 on the school administered cogat and 145 on the WISC she is for sure one of those. I would hesitate to automatically include a WISC administered by anyone off the street for fear of inflated scores. Perhaps, if I were in charge, I would allow an in-house screening of those students on the WISC after 12 months.

Those who scored poorly on cogat but above 145 would presumably be accepted to AAP.

[Anonymous]

a score in the 120's is still top 5 percent! anywhere else in the country, those kids would still be in a gifted program. since our area has a higher percentage of educated families, it makes sense the AAP program will be larger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of the program if all the smart kids end up taking honors/AP in high school regardless of if they were in AAP or not

The point of a gifted program is to get the kids to high school, to keep them engaged and not dropping out.

Gifted kids are bored and being taught well beneath their capabilities in AAP. The point of a true gifted program should be to nurture potential and allow exceptionally capable children the chance to learn at their level rather than wasting their time at school. The point of AAP is to placate a bunch of overbearing parents who are convinced that their normal, bright kids are gifted.

Truly gifted children are not and cannot be properly served by a mass production program, at least not until their gifts are properly articulated. A true gift requires an individual, highly tailored approach. No Olympic champions came out of group lessons.

AAP is just fine for advanced academic performing children, just as the name suggests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of the program if all the smart kids end up taking honors/AP in high school regardless of if they were in AAP or not

The point of a gifted program is to get the kids to high school, to keep them engaged and not dropping out.

Gifted kids are bored and being taught well beneath their capabilities in AAP. The point of a true gifted program should be to nurture potential and allow exceptionally capable children the chance to learn at their level rather than wasting their time at school. The point of AAP is to placate a bunch of overbearing parents who are convinced that their normal, bright kids are gifted.

Truly gifted children are not and cannot be properly served by a mass production program, at least not until their gifts are properly articulated. A true gift requires an individual, highly tailored approach. No Olympic champions came out of group lessons.

AAP is just fine for advanced academic performing children, just as the name suggests.

That's not what gifted means. It doesn't mean prodigy or profoundly gifted only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Truly gifted children are not and cannot be properly served by a mass production program, at least not until their gifts are properly articulated. A true gift requires an individual, highly tailored approach. No Olympic champions came out of group lessons.

AAP is just fine for advanced academic performing children, just as the name suggests.

Great! So make AAP be more advanced, so it serves advanced academic performing children, and not just slightly advanced to serve above-average children. No one would care how many kids were included in AAP if it were still a rigorous, advanced program. The main reason that some of us are questioning the numbers is that it appears that as more kids have been admitted to AAP, the AAP curriculum has been watered down so that these extra kids can keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would keep AAP as it is and just add a program for the top 0.1% as measured by the WISC full scale. Then those parents would stop complaining.

Perhaps a better solution would be to have kids qualify separately for AAP math/science and AAP language arts/social studies. That way, kids who are gifted or quite advanced in language arts but not in math could receive AAP language arts without slowing down the AAP math for everyone else. Likewise, kids who are gifted or advanced in math but not at AAP levels in language arts could receive AAP math and science without slowing down the AAP language arts classes. Kids who are at very advanced or gifted levels in both would qualify for both.

It seems like one of the major problems is that kids are being admitted to AAP when they are gifted in one area and not up to AAP standards in the other. It also seems like one of the biggest sources of sour grapes for parents of gen ed kids is having a kid receive no services when that kid realistically ought to be receiving AAP services in his or her area of strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would keep AAP as it is and just add a program for the top 0.1% as measured by the WISC full scale. Then those parents would stop complaining.

Perhaps a better solution would be to have kids qualify separately for AAP math/science and AAP language arts/social studies. That way, kids who are gifted or quite advanced in language arts but not in math could receive AAP language arts without slowing down the AAP math for everyone else. Likewise, kids who are gifted or advanced in math but not at AAP levels in language arts could receive AAP math and science without slowing down the AAP language arts classes. Kids who are at very advanced or gifted levels in both would qualify for both.

It seems like one of the major problems is that kids are being admitted to AAP when they are gifted in one area and not up to AAP standards in the other. It also seems like one of the biggest sources of sour grapes for parents of gen ed kids is having a kid receive no services when that kid realistically ought to be receiving AAP services in his or her area of strength.

This is what Level III is for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of the program if all the smart kids end up taking honors/AP in high school regardless of if they were in AAP or not

The point of a gifted program is to get the kids to high school, to keep them engaged and not dropping out.

Gifted kids are bored and being taught well beneath their capabilities in AAP. The point of a true gifted program should be to nurture potential and allow exceptionally capable children the chance to learn at their level rather than wasting their time at school. The point of AAP is to placate a bunch of overbearing parents who are convinced that their normal, bright kids are gifted.

Truly gifted children are not and cannot be properly served by a mass production program, at least not until their gifts are properly articulated. A true gift requires an individual, highly tailored approach. No Olympic champions came out of group lessons.

AAP is just fine for advanced academic performing children, just as the name suggests.

Exactly, one poster on here seems to want to fit her round peg into a square hole. AAP is fine for the group it is intended to serve -- the academically advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of the program if all the smart kids end up taking honors/AP in high school regardless of if they were in AAP or not

The point of a gifted program is to get the kids to high school, to keep them engaged and not dropping out.

Gifted kids are bored and being taught well beneath their capabilities in AAP. The point of a true gifted program should be to nurture potential and allow exceptionally capable children the chance to learn at their level rather than wasting their time at school. The point of AAP is to placate a bunch of overbearing parents who are convinced that their normal, bright kids are gifted.

Truly gifted children are not and cannot be properly served by a mass production program, at least not until their gifts are properly articulated. A true gift requires an individual, highly tailored approach. No Olympic champions came out of group lessons.

AAP is just fine for advanced academic performing children, just as the name suggests.

Exactly, one poster on here seems to want to fit her round peg into a square hole. AAP is fine for the group it is intended to serve -- the academically advanced.

I should add "the academically advanced" third grader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would keep AAP as it is and just add a program for the top 0.1% as measured by the WISC full scale. Then those parents would stop complaining.

Perhaps a better solution would be to have kids qualify separately for AAP math/science and AAP language arts/social studies. That way, kids who are gifted or quite advanced in language arts but not in math could receive AAP language arts without slowing down the AAP math for everyone else. Likewise, kids who are gifted or advanced in math but not at AAP levels in language arts could receive AAP math and science without slowing down the AAP language arts classes. Kids who are at very advanced or gifted levels in both would qualify for both.

It seems like one of the major problems is that kids are being admitted to AAP when they are gifted in one area and not up to AAP standards in the other. It also seems like one of the biggest sources of sour grapes for parents of gen ed kids is having a kid receive no services when that kid realistically ought to be receiving AAP services in his or her area of strength.

This is what Level III is for.

That's not the way Level III works. Level III is not AAP Level IV in subjects of strength. It's a 1 hour pull out per week that doesn't necessarily even relate to the subject of strength. There are many kids in Level IV AAP who are either not academically advanced in math or not academically advanced in language arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Truly gifted children are not and cannot be properly served by a mass production program, at least not until their gifts are properly articulated. A true gift requires an individual, highly tailored approach. No Olympic champions came out of group lessons.

AAP is just fine for advanced academic performing children, just as the name suggests.

Great! So make AAP be more advanced, so it serves advanced academic performing children, and not just slightly advanced to serve above-average children. No one would care how many kids were included in AAP if it were still a rigorous, advanced program. The main reason that some of us are questioning the numbers is that it appears that as more kids have been admitted to AAP, the AAP curriculum has been watered down so that these extra kids can keep up.

Anyone care to comment on this? Is AAP actually challenging at your school, or is it only slightly advanced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone care to comment on this? Is AAP actually challenging at your school, or is it only slightly advanced?

The material is not exactly advanced. However, the way the kids are expected to think about the material, is. According to DD's teachers, the biggest issue the kids in class have is that they are asked to think in meaningful ways about what they're doing, and they're so used to 'This is the way it is', that they have trouble with it. For example, the question could be 'What is 4+4?' (not that hard, right?) 'Explain your answer' (to which, the kids are going, 'What do you mean? What's to explain, because 4+4 is 8'). That's the hard part, not going through the mechanics of something, but why are things the way they are. There is a lot of explaining how they got to the answer, why, what is the relationship between this or that, which quite honestly, I was never taught back in the stone age, and wish had been taught that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone care to comment on this? Is AAP actually challenging at your school, or is it only slightly advanced?

The material is not exactly advanced. However, the way the kids are expected to think about the material, is. According to DD's teachers, the biggest issue the kids in class have is that they are asked to think in meaningful ways about what they're doing, and they're so used to 'This is the way it is', that they have trouble with it. For example, the question could be 'What is 4+4?' (not that hard, right?) 'Explain your answer' (to which, the kids are going, 'What do you mean? What's to explain, because 4+4 is 8'). That's the hard part, not going through the mechanics of something, but why are things the way they are. There is a lot of explaining how they got to the answer, why, what is the relationship between this or that, which quite honestly, I was never taught back in the stone age, and wish had been taught that way.

DP. I'm not sure that's any different than gen ed.

My gifted-by-Cogat-but-has-never-taken-the-WISC 3rd grader is engaged. He wasn't in 2nd grade so I'm happy. We're only 1.5 quarters into AAP so I can't really judge the program but so far I have no complaints about it being "watered down".

[Anonymous]

We came from private to public, so I don't know how things work in Gen Ed, but this isn't how DD's friends (non-AAP, but in other schools) are taught. There seems to be a base assumption here that everyone already knows process oriented things (addition, subtraction, etc.), so there is greater emphasis on thinking about relationships and explaining why things are, the way they are. I don't think she had ever been asked in her life, what the relationship between the two 7s in the number 739,745 is; it's that sort of tangential thinking that I feel is more emphasized here. I quite like it (she does not, because she's used to cruising).