FCPS and AAP

[Anonymous]

Why does FCPS undervalue AAP and not was to provide sufficient resources to the most gifted and talented kids, vs the watered down experience that is the current AAP program (where everyone gets a trophy)?

[Anonymous]

To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does FCPS undervalue AAP and not was to provide sufficient resources to the most gifted and talented kids, vs the watered down experience that is the current AAP program (where everyone gets a trophy)?

Because they are not the most gifted and talented kids. Some are in the classes, but this is far from the old GT program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:

1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:

1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.

This sounds about right. As one of the obsessed parents, I am concerned that my child is idling and the educational environment is weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:

1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.

25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.

[Anonymous]

No this is not about TJ 🙄. That is just one school and not that many kids attend.

It is these things:
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No this is not about TJ 🙄. That is just one school and not that many kids attend.

It is these things:
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.

No it isn’t about TJ but TJ is the first “brass ring” in the division and parents see it as a stepping stone to MIT or whatever and push kids who don’t belong in AAP into the program as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:

1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.

25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.

TJ as a magnet science/technology school started in 1985, and the other students were soon merged into the student body at Annandale HS. It was competitive from the beginning, though not to the degree it is now.

Another factor that "may" have contributed is the influx of Asian immigrants to the area, whose parents put a high value on education, especially math/science/technology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:

1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.

25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.

TJ as a magnet science/technology school started in 1985, and the other students were soon merged into the student body at Annandale HS. It was competitive from the beginning, though not to the degree it is now.

Another factor that "may" have contributed is the influx of Asian immigrants to the area, whose parents put a high value on education, especially math/science/technology.

I’m well aware but the first class through didn’t graduate until 1990 and it was still very much a school kids opted in to. A smart kid who felt unsupported in their base school could get in without much effort. I grew up here in those years and I’m very well acquainted with what it was like. There are plenty of current and former TJ teachers who would say the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To meet equity and diversity objectives. If AAP standard is high, especially math and English, then it favors only one or at most two races.

And by equity and diversity objectives, PP means "to satisfy wealthy white parents who were upset that their children didn't get into the gifted and talented program".

25-30 years ago, when it was just 5% or so in the "GT" program, most parents didn't obsess like they do today about it. Some factors that might explain this:

1) Parents of non-GT kids didn't have to accept their kids being grouped with the "bottom 80%" as is perceived now. They were in the 95%, which seemed less negative.
2) Gen ed standards were much higher without so many resources spent on other programs.
3) The general SES of FCPS was higher, so there wasn't as much tension about the distribution of resources.
4) ESOL is a huge resource suck today, and average native English speakers lose out in that zero sum game.
5) FCPS' DEI push alienated many MC and UMC parents, and not all of them can afford private schools. AAP is a compromise until honors, AP are available.

25-30 years ago, TJ didn’t exist or was brand new. That’s what changed it.

Another factor that "may" have contributed is the influx of Asian immigrants to the area, whose parents put a high value on education, especially math/science/technology.

Unlikely. Asian immigration into the area started around the fall of Saigon.

[Anonymous]

Because there are so many kids that aren't technically gifted in AAP. There are lots that get so much extra tutoring that there isn't really a need to teach them at school, per se. AAP in FCPS is just a way for some parents to avoid having their kids in with the autistic/badly behaved students that FCPS is mainstreaming and the kids that don't speak English. The kids not in AAP spend a lot of time supporting the kids who shouldn't be there. Half of my daughter's class spoke Farsi all day, and it got worse when 2 new Farsi speakers got added - everything had to be translated.

[Anonymous]

Just think the gifted ones are in the upper class and the AAP kids are middle class.

Cannot just use money and resource for the top 1-5% only.

Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does FCPS undervalue AAP and not was to provide sufficient resources to the most gifted and talented kids, vs the watered down experience that is the current AAP program (where everyone gets a trophy)?

Older Remedial = Today's Gen Ed
Older Gen Ed = Today's AAP
Older G&T = Today's outside Enrichment