Should AAP demographics represent FCPS as a whole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "Stuck" in GE refers to being unable to cycle into and out of advanced courses in a child's stronger subjects, as needed.

This is a great issue to bring up with your school's principal, as your child should have access to Level II AAP at the base school between grades K-6 and Level III AAP between grades 3 - 6

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/level2.shtml

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/level3.shtml

Is It possible that your kid's "stronger subjects" are still weaker than many of the kids in her grade or fairly average compared to classmates, and that is part of why she is not given harder work than classmates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittance into any advanced program whether aap or TJ, should be double blind. No name, no sex, no race. Just the numbers. I would be incredibly offended if I were given special treatment based on my race or cultural heritage. It's extremely insulting. Double blind truly is the only way to go.

It's more insulting to be gifted and not identified due to racial and cultural biases.

It's even more insulting to be gifted, qualified and deserving and not accepted to top colleges due to racial and cultural biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarify something for me. I hear the comments that intelligence tests are biased against certain groups. I hear that teachers don't notice intelligence among certain groups. And I found the "Whistling Vivaldi" book that says certain demographics underperform tests even when they are intelligent because of cultural expectations.

At what point is it fair to say maybe someone just isn't intelligent, as opposed to everything and everyone is unfair to them?

At the point when an instrument is created that can fairly measure intelligence regardless of culture. We aren't there yet.

And yet Asians are doing fine and not complaining the tests are not in Chinese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it. A thread about whether more minorities should be in AAP turns into a thread of mostly non-minorities, I'm guessing, saying how the program should be restructured so that their kids will still benefit.

I agree with earlier posters who believe FCPS is bad at identifying giftedness and low SES and minority kids, while many more white and Asian families than probably should be are able to game their kids into the program.

I love this mentality - scoring high means prepping and gaming the system or the school being bad at identifying talent. My non-white, non-Asian, not prepped first generation immigrant child from a 3rd world country scored into the 140s. He didn't game the system, he might be smarter than your child. And a child prodigy is smarter than mine and that's OK. Stop the excuses, get a WISC (sometimes free) and stop using race, ethnicity, and income as an excuse - it brings negativity and bias for all of us. Your special snowflake needs to work as hard as everyone and/or get the required scores to qualify. So you want to lump Asians and whites together. What's next? Eliminating Nigerians too because they're very good at math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it. A thread about whether more minorities should be in AAP turns into a thread of mostly non-minorities, I'm guessing, saying how the program should be restructured so that their kids will still benefit.

I agree with earlier posters who believe FCPS is bad at identifying giftedness and low SES and minority kids, while many more white and Asian families than probably should be are able to game their kids into the program.

I love this mentality - scoring high means prepping and gaming the system or the school being bad at identifying talent. My non-white, non-Asian, not prepped first generation immigrant child from a 3rd world country scored into the 140s. He didn't game the system, he might be smarter than your child. And a child prodigy is smarter than mine and that's OK. Stop the excuses, get a WISC (sometimes free) and stop using race, ethnicity, and income as an excuse - it brings negativity and bias for all of us. Your special snowflake needs to work as hard as everyone and/or get the required scores to qualify. So you want to lump Asians and whites together. What's next? Eliminating Nigerians too because they're very good at math?

No one said high scores means prepped. But if you do your research you're see which groups are most likely to prep kids. Most schools in the country are bad at identifying gifted kids who don't come in the traditional package.

[Anonymous]

*you'll*^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've missed the entire point, which is that AAP is not a gifted program. The curriculum is simply advanced by one year - something most kids could certainly do if given the opportunity. PP even suggested starting this in the 1st grade, so that ALL kids are ahead.

Certainly, not all kids are going to reach the same heights. But that goes for kids within AAP as well. Some kids are going to excel above and beyond any others - and that has nothing to do with being in AAP.

I can tell your mind is made up. But for anyone else listening, the AAP curriculum is not simply the same curriculum advanced by one year. At least not from our experience. If that's all there was to it, there would not be so many people howling about not being part of it. This is just the kind of misinformed belief one would expect to follow the constant hater drumbeat that AAP is "not a gifted program."

Well, from our experience, this is exactly what AAP is. The curriculum was no more challenging than that of the next grade up. I know that AAP parents love to tell themselves, their kids, and anyone who will listen that AAP is a gifted program, but it ceased being that over a decade ago when FCPS decided to include far more kids than they used to. Nothing wrong with an advanced curriculum, but it's very misleading to call it a "gifted" curriculum. Because it's simply advanced, many of us are arguing that it should be open to any child capable of doing the work. No need for a faux-gifted label in the first place.

+1

Why can't the AAP curriculum just become the standard curriculum? GE is a joke and too easy for the average kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've missed the entire point, which is that AAP is not a gifted program. The curriculum is simply advanced by one year - something most kids could certainly do if given the opportunity. PP even suggested starting this in the 1st grade, so that ALL kids are ahead.

Certainly, not all kids are going to reach the same heights. But that goes for kids within AAP as well. Some kids are going to excel above and beyond any others - and that has nothing to do with being in AAP.

I can tell your mind is made up. But for anyone else listening, the AAP curriculum is not simply the same curriculum advanced by one year. At least not from our experience. If that's all there was to it, there would not be so many people howling about not being part of it. This is just the kind of misinformed belief one would expect to follow the constant hater drumbeat that AAP is "not a gifted program."

Well, from our experience, this is exactly what AAP is. The curriculum was no more challenging than that of the next grade up. I know that AAP parents love to tell themselves, their kids, and anyone who will listen that AAP is a gifted program, but it ceased being that over a decade ago when FCPS decided to include far more kids than they used to. Nothing wrong with an advanced curriculum, but it's very misleading to call it a "gifted" curriculum. Because it's simply advanced, many of us are arguing that it should be open to any child capable of doing the work. No need for a faux-gifted label in the first place.

+1

Why can't the AAP curriculum just become the standard curriculum? GE is a joke and too easy for the average kid.

In some parts of the county, it is already in place.

[Anonymous]

Nope. It isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've missed the entire point, which is that AAP is not a gifted program. The curriculum is simply advanced by one year - something most kids could certainly do if given the opportunity. PP even suggested starting this in the 1st grade, so that ALL kids are ahead.

Certainly, not all kids are going to reach the same heights. But that goes for kids within AAP as well. Some kids are going to excel above and beyond any others - and that has nothing to do with being in AAP.

I can tell your mind is made up. But for anyone else listening, the AAP curriculum is not simply the same curriculum advanced by one year. At least not from our experience. If that's all there was to it, there would not be so many people howling about not being part of it. This is just the kind of misinformed belief one would expect to follow the constant hater drumbeat that AAP is "not a gifted program."

Well, from our experience, this is exactly what AAP is. The curriculum was no more challenging than that of the next grade up. I know that AAP parents love to tell themselves, their kids, and anyone who will listen that AAP is a gifted program, but it ceased being that over a decade ago when FCPS decided to include far more kids than they used to. Nothing wrong with an advanced curriculum, but it's very misleading to call it a "gifted" curriculum. Because it's simply advanced, many of us are arguing that it should be open to any child capable of doing the work. No need for a faux-gifted label in the first place.

+1

Why can't the AAP curriculum just become the standard curriculum? GE is a joke and too easy for the average kid.

It easily could. But then they'd have to actually come up with a REAL gifted curriculum and AAP would then be a much smaller program. Seems to be common sense, something of which FCPS is in short supply.

[Anonymous]

How about looking a culture reasons instead of discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. It isn't.

Yes, it is.

When there were clusters (instead of regions), Marty Smith in Region 1 had all teachers trained to use the AAP curriculum for all classes (including GE) so students in those schools all access the AAP curriculum.

Link with more info:
http://patch.com/virginia/reston/curriculum-plan-raises-equity-policy-issues

[Anonymous]

^^should say: Marty Smith in Cluster 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. It isn't.

Yes, it is.

When there were clusters (instead of regions), Marty Smith in Region 1 had all teachers trained to use the AAP curriculum for all classes (including GE) so students in those schools all access the AAP curriculum.

Link with more info:
http://patch.com/virginia/reston/curriculum-plan-raises-equity-policy-issues

From the article:

"At Timberlane, where Level IV classes are often small, Smith said teachers invited some general education students into the classroom, and those students "were performing very well, were engaged in the curriculum and were outperforming the students [intentionally placed there]," Smith said. "We started to say, 'Well, what would it look like if we could provide that access to level IV with more students? If we teach up, and teach to the highest level with higher expectations for students — while still recognizing there may be some students who have difficulty reaching those expectations and we meet those students where they are — we start to pull all students up."

I realize this article is three years old, but it's truly a shame they didn't implement this in all schools across the county. This is what so many of us have been saying needs to be done - make LLIV AAP the standard curriculum for every student. Seems like a complete no-brainer and I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

The way AAP is currently being implemented (through grade level extensions) probably underserving many gifted kids...and many kids that can do the work but don't get in are being underserved by GE...I would like to know the reasons why some AAP parents are against AAP for all.