On the chopping block: AAP Centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think you are right. First, no one said 99th. Could be 98th. Second, scores are higher than national average in Fairfax. Third, do some looking. Centers have been around for a long, long time. We used to have a smaller total population, a more selective program, and still had viable centers.

So, how do you determine if someone is 97 vs. 96 vs 95 pct? and what is the uncertainty in that estimate? Are you trying to serve all that are 97 and above (i.e., that need it), or just those that are 97 and above on an arbitrary metric?

Yes, back to the identification problem already noted.

Which is why the system we have today maybe optimal.

[Anonymous]

And note, under the current system, you are only likely to appeal in with a WISC a of 130-132+. That is the 98%. I don't think they put kids in poor unless they have a COGAT or NNAT a at 97-98% either. The problems isn't that they are letting in kids who routinely score in the 85th percentile. It's that: (1) Fairfax County has a very high concentration of highly educated (smart) parents and (2) parents prep for The COGAT.

[Anonymous]

^^ pool, not poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think you are right. First, no one said 99th. Could be 98th. Second, scores are higher than national average in Fairfax. Third, do some looking. Centers have been around for a long, long time. We used to have a smaller total population, a more selective program, and still had viable centers.

This is absolutely correct. Centers used to have much smaller numbers of kids and they system worked well. FCPS should have kept this model. AAP is certainly no longer a "gifted" program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

My DS was in a LLIV a Center with one AAP class, and I loved that he stayed with the same group of kids every year. It gave him stability, and took a lot of the hit or miss out of the class assignment process. Then again, I never thought of him as being "stuck" with the same 25 kids for 4 years-- he was in a CLASS of 125 kids (25 AAP & 100 GE) and did band and lunch and recess and extracurriculars and play dates with the other 124 kids in his class. So yes, he had plenty of classmates, even though his core subjects were with the same kids every year. But then again, in our house won't do Us and Them. We realize that everyone has talents and everyone has challenges. So you are gracious about being good in math and music and do the best you can with being terrible at sports and having ADHD. But maybe it's okay in your house to act like AAP kids are not really part of your DC's class. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

Here again to counter this mentality. What do you want from me? To attend supervisor meetings, to bring it up with the principal? What can I do to show it is not OK with me. Tell you that ... because I'm getting the feeling you're just looking for a place to vent and have people commiserate with you and that's why you are a fixture here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

Here again to counter this mentality. What do you want from me? To attend supervisor meetings, to bring it up with the principal? What can I do to show it is not OK with me. Tell you that ... because I'm getting the feeling you're just looking for a place to vent and have people commiserate with you and that's why you are a fixture here.

BTW, my child's school has two AAP classes per grade. Same as the GE classes at your child's school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

Here again to counter this mentality. What do you want from me? To attend supervisor meetings, to bring it up with the principal? What can I do to show it is not OK with me. Tell you that ... because I'm getting the feeling you're just looking for a place to vent and have people commiserate with you and that's why you are a fixture here.

It's also a little strange to not have any kids in AAP and spend so much time stalking an AAP forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

Here again to counter this mentality. What do you want from me? To attend supervisor meetings, to bring it up with the principal? What can I do to show it is not OK with me. Tell you that ... because I'm getting the feeling you're just looking for a place to vent and have people commiserate with you and that's why you are a fixture here.

It's also a little strange to not have any kids in AAP and spend so much time stalking an AAP forum.

More creepy than strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

The very tiny portion of kids "at the top" shouldn't be dictating how the majority of kids are taught.

So which is it?

A tiny minority dictating the program or a large, bloated majority? It can't be both.

I personally think it is neither. What happens in my one kid's AAP class has zero bearing on how my bright gen ed kid and his peers are being taught.

But if you think a miniscule minority of kids segragated into tiny classes away from everyone else and only with the handful of kids who score in the upper 99% is the way to run a gifted program, you are very ill informed. The current system is not ideal but it is a good system. I would rather they err on the side of including a few more kids than ideal than to miss a bunch of kids in the 97-98% range.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

Here again to counter this mentality. What do you want from me? To attend supervisor meetings, to bring it up with the principal? What can I do to show it is not OK with me. Tell you that ... because I'm getting the feeling you're just looking for a place to vent and have people commiserate with you and that's why you are a fixture here.

It's also a little strange to not have any kids in AAP and spend so much time stalking an AAP forum.

Seems like the Gen Ed VA public school kids could not handle sharing a classroom with the AAP kids, so DCUM segregated AAP to their own single classroom with 1/4 of the posts. And still, the Gen Ed kids feel the need to come over to the AAP forum and make snarky comments. In a forum that does not concern their kids. So remind me again, the problem children/ trolls in this dynamic are???? Because I don't see any AAP parents in VA public schools bashing Gen Ed. Food for thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you misunderstood my comment. The point is that a tiny minority of highly gifted kids shouldn't require massive amounts of kids to be placed in AAP and the resulting centers. How is that fair to General Ed. students? If gifted kids are the exception to the rule, the schools should reflect that ratio. I don't think the current system is ideal by any means. At our center school, my child is in one of only TWO General Ed classes for his grade. In the meantime, there are FOUR AAP classes; the other grades have similar ratios. So this means my child is with the same handful of kids throughout elementary school. Why is this somehow ok with you and other AAP parents? As long as your child has plenty of different classmates each year, then I guess the system is working just fine.

My DS was in a LLIV a Center with one AAP class, and I loved that he stayed with the same group of kids every year. It gave him stability, and took a lot of the hit or miss out of the class assignment process. Then again, I never thought of him as being "stuck" with the same 25 kids for 4 years-- he was in a CLASS of 125 kids (25 AAP & 100 GE) and did band and lunch and recess and extracurriculars and play dates with the other 124 kids in his class. So yes, he had plenty of classmates, even though his core subjects were with the same kids every year. But then again, in our house won't do Us and Them. We realize that everyone has talents and everyone has challenges. So you are gracious about being good in math and music and do the best you can with being terrible at sports and having ADHD. But maybe it's okay in your house to act like AAP kids are not really part of your DC's class. Sad.

Regarding the bolded, you've got that backwards. Also, I'm glad your child enjoyed being in the same homeroom class of 25 kids for 4 years. My DC doesn't enjoy that at all. He would much prefer to have some different faces every year, and make new friendships. Having two Gen Ed classes, year after year, isn't his idea of optimal, nor should it have to be.