Now this is what 2nd grade AAP should look like

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

+1 - by saying "Now this is what...AAP should look like" clearly the poster was indicating the current kids aren't up to this par. Being able to simply memorize isn't the standard. I'm sure this kid is extremely bright, brighter than many others. FWIW, I also think the AAP program is bloated, but the wording of this email was irksome.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

+1 - by saying "Now this is what...AAP should look like" clearly the poster was indicating the current kids aren't up to this par. Being able to simply memorize isn't the standard. I'm sure this kid is extremely bright, brighter than many others. FWIW, I also think the AAP program is bloated, but the wording of this email was irksome.

Do you seriously believe that this student's only skill is an ability to memorize? Challenge the premise of the poster if you must, but why put down the kid?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

+1 - by saying "Now this is what...AAP should look like" clearly the poster was indicating the current kids aren't up to this par. Being able to simply memorize isn't the standard. I'm sure this kid is extremely bright, brighter than many others. FWIW, I also think the AAP program is bloated, but the wording of this email was irksome.

Do you seriously believe that this student's only skill is an ability to memorize? Challenge the premise of the poster if you must, but why put down the kid?

Of course not. This child clearly has more than that as evidenced by his spelling prowess + his math abilities. That said, just a year ago he didn't make it out of the preliminaries for the same spelling competition. I am the one who said that this child is brighter than many others. But I also don't think "this" is only what AAP should look like. I would 100% say he belongs in AAP, and yet this child also didn't do well in the spelling bee in 2013 (just a year ago).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

+1 - by saying "Now this is what...AAP should look like" clearly the poster was indicating the current kids aren't up to this par. Being able to simply memorize isn't the standard. I'm sure this kid is extremely bright, brighter than many others. FWIW, I also think the AAP program is bloated, but the wording of this email was irksome.

Do you seriously believe that this student's only skill is an ability to memorize? Challenge the premise of the poster if you must, but why put down the kid?

Of course not. This child clearly has more than that as evidenced by his spelling prowess + his math abilities. That said, just a year ago he didn't make it out of the preliminaries for the same spelling competition. I am the one who said that this child is brighter than many others. But I also don't think "this" is only what AAP should look like. I would 100% say he belongs in AAP, and yet this child also didn't do well in the spelling bee in 2013 (just a year ago).

Wow, you absolutely can't help yourself, can you? You cannot give without taking away. If he had been the world's champion in spelling, you would write him off as "just being able to memorize". But, since he is good at both spelling and math, you ding him for last year's performance not being that great (though you ignore his making the semi-finals the year before that). I am troubled that you feel the need to criticize this boy, but I am even more bothered that you can't seem to make up your mind about which criticism to make.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

+1 - by saying "Now this is what...AAP should look like" clearly the poster was indicating the current kids aren't up to this par. Being able to simply memorize isn't the standard. I'm sure this kid is extremely bright, brighter than many others. FWIW, I also think the AAP program is bloated, but the wording of this email was irksome.

Do you seriously believe that this student's only skill is an ability to memorize? Challenge the premise of the poster if you must, but why put down the kid?

Of course not. This child clearly has more than that as evidenced by his spelling prowess + his math abilities. That said, just a year ago he didn't make it out of the preliminaries for the same spelling competition. I am the one who said that this child is brighter than many others. But I also don't think "this" is only what AAP should look like. I would 100% say he belongs in AAP, and yet this child also didn't do well in the spelling bee in 2013 (just a year ago).

Wow, you absolutely can't help yourself, can you? You cannot give without taking away. If he had been the world's champion in spelling, you would write him off as "just being able to memorize". But, since he is good at both spelling and math, you ding him for last year's performance not being that great (though you ignore his making the semi-finals the year before that). I am troubled that you feel the need to criticize this boy, but I am even more bothered that you can't seem to make up your mind about which criticism to make.

I haven't criticized this boy. You've misunderstood what I've intended to convey. FWIW, I was criticizing saying this boy [b]is what AAP should look like, indicating that below this standard is not what AAP should be.

I said this boy was brighter than most. By pointing out he didn't do well last year, I was indicating that a child may be brilliant but may not perform well in a spelling preliminary round, or a CogAT test one day, or the NNAT one day, etc. and that is not indicative of his/her general overall capabilities. I am one who believes that many children would do great in AAP, not just those who are accepted. I am one who believes that just because a child isn't in the pool, doesn't mean he is any less deserving than another to be in AAP. I very much dislike it when parents seem to indicate that Gen Ed. is just fine for this or that kid because he/she didn't do amazing on this or that test. And no, it isn't sour grapes as my child was in the pool and accepted.

I was simply stating that I would assume that most would think this kid is extremely bright and yet even he can have a less than spectacular performance and it doesn't take away from his abilities, capabilities, knowledge, etc.

[jsteele]

Thank you for clarifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was just asked to remove a post naming the student's school. I'm not sure why that information is considered sensitive. But since it wasn't included in the article, maybe his parents don't want it publicized and I prefer to error on the side of caution.

But, since this caused me to read through this thread, can I just say that I don't believe I've ever encountered a less supportive group of people in my entire life than in this thread? Give the kid some credit. He seems like a well-rounded individual. His achievements are to be admired, not compared being Rain Man. What use is there posting a message warning that he might not have a "blissful existence"? I thought AAP discussions were to help people navigate the programs, not trash children's accomplishments. If this is what the forum has become, I'm not sure we need it. Please give a bit more thought to your posts.

I'm the blissful existence poster. OP made it sound like, "Now HERE is a fine specimen of giftedness and what it SHOULD be." My point was that this young man's profound giftedness does not mean he has some golden ticket and that he probably has struggles stemming from his brilliance. Definitely not a knock on the student, he's amazing.

+1 - by saying "Now this is what...AAP should look like" clearly the poster was indicating the current kids aren't up to this par. Being able to simply memorize isn't the standard. I'm sure this kid is extremely bright, brighter than many others. FWIW, I also think the AAP program is bloated, but the wording of this email was irksome.

Do you seriously believe that this student's only skill is an ability to memorize? Challenge the premise of the poster if you must, but why put down the kid?

Of course not. This child clearly has more than that as evidenced by his spelling prowess + his math abilities. That said, just a year ago he didn't make it out of the preliminaries for the same spelling competition. I am the one who said that this child is brighter than many others. But I also don't think "this" is only what AAP should look like. I would 100% say he belongs in AAP, and yet this child also didn't do well in the spelling bee in 2013 (just a year ago).

Wow, you absolutely can't help yourself, can you? You cannot give without taking away. If he had been the world's champion in spelling, you would write him off as "just being able to memorize". But, since he is good at both spelling and math, you ding him for last year's performance not being that great (though you ignore his making the semi-finals the year before that). I am troubled that you feel the need to criticize this boy, but I am even more bothered that you can't seem to make up your mind about which criticism to make.

I haven't criticized this boy. You've misunderstood what I've intended to convey. FWIW, I was criticizing saying this boy is what AAP should look like, indicating that below this standard is not what AAP should be.

I said this boy was brighter than most. By pointing out he didn't do well last year, [b]I was indicating that a child may be brilliant but may not perform well in a spelling preliminary round, or a CogAT test one day, or the NNAT one day, etc. and that is not indicative of his/her general overall capabilities. I am one who believes that many children would do great in AAP, not just those who are accepted. I am one who believes that just because a child isn't in the pool, doesn't mean he is any less deserving than another to be in AAP. I very much dislike it when parents seem to indicate that Gen Ed. is just fine for this or that kid because he/she didn't do amazing on this or that test. And no, it isn't sour grapes as my child was in the pool and accepted.

I was simply stating that I would assume that most would think this kid is extremely bright and yet even he can have a less than spectacular performance and it doesn't take away from his abilities, capabilities, knowledge, etc.

Beautifully stated. You are a breath of fresh air on the AAP forum.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why people assume that most of the kids in AAP aren't gifted. The selection criteria that is used is stricter than for many other gifted programs in the nation. The definition of gifted is not vague, it is typically understood to be greater than or equal to two standard deviation above the mean, which equates to the top 2% (above 130) of the general population. I know that the district accepts more students than that into AAP, but it is not a typical school district in terms of demographics. Of course it would be best to get a WISC on every student, but they are expensive tests and the COGAT and NNAT are well respected tests to identify intellectual giftedness.

[Anonymous]

Also note that there are different levels of giftedness. A moderately gifted student is going to look much different that a highly gifted or profoundly gifted student. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be classified as gifted. Intelligence is a continuum, both at the lower, middle and upper ranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also note that there are different levels of giftedness. A moderately gifted student is going to look much different that a highly gifted or profoundly gifted student. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be classified as gifted. Intelligence is a continuum, both at the lower, middle and upper ranges.

In that case I think an argument here would be for reducing the AAP program to ptofoundly or highly and profoundly gifted students and work to beef up GE for everyone else. This area has a very high representation of gifted students so why not put more resources into serving everyone with accelerated or creative curricula. Why expand AAP to capture these kids rather than recognize the tremendous number of students who are bright (AAP & non) in a more efficient and effective way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also note that there are different levels of giftedness. A moderately gifted student is going to look much different that a highly gifted or profoundly gifted student. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be classified as gifted. Intelligence is a continuum, both at the lower, middle and upper ranges.

In that case I think an argument here would be for reducing the AAP program to ptofoundly or highly and profoundly gifted students and work to beef up GE for everyone else. This area has a very high representation of gifted students so why not put more resources into serving everyone with accelerated or creative curricula. Why expand AAP to capture these kids rather than recognize the tremendous number of students who are bright (AAP & non) in a more efficient and effective way?

Absolutely agree and this is what many of us have been advocating for some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also note that there are different levels of giftedness. A moderately gifted student is going to look much different that a highly gifted or profoundly gifted student. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be classified as gifted. Intelligence is a continuum, both at the lower, middle and upper ranges.

In that case I think an argument here would be for reducing the AAP program to ptofoundly or highly and profoundly gifted students and work to beef up GE for everyone else. This area has a very high representation of gifted students so why not put more resources into serving everyone with accelerated or creative curricula. Why expand AAP to capture these kids rather than recognize the tremendous number of students who are bright (AAP & non) in a more efficient and effective way?

Absolutely agree and this is what many of us have been advocating for some time.

AAP kids meet same standards for qualification for gifted education as other kids throughout the state snd the nation. Why should they have less enrichment than they would if they lived elsewhere?

With Montgomery County program limited to highly gifted children, there is all the same griping from parents of kids who just miss the cutoff. People seem no happier with that system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also note that there are different levels of giftedness. A moderately gifted student is going to look much different that a highly gifted or profoundly gifted student. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be classified as gifted. Intelligence is a continuum, both at the lower, middle and upper ranges.

In that case I think an argument here would be for reducing the AAP program to ptofoundly or highly and profoundly gifted students and work to beef up GE for everyone else. This area has a very high representation of gifted students so why not put more resources into serving everyone with accelerated or creative curricula. Why expand AAP to capture these kids rather than recognize the tremendous number of students who are bright (AAP & non) in a more efficient and effective way?

Absolutely agree and this is what many of us have been advocating for some time.

AAP kids meet same standards for qualification for gifted education as other kids throughout the state snd the nation. Why should they have less enrichment than they would if they lived elsewhere?

With Montgomery County program limited to highly gifted children, there is all the same griping from parents of kids who just miss the cutoff. People seem no happier with that system.

Actually, the standards in Fairfax County are higher than many places across the nation.

One of my kids would have gotten into any gifted program outside of fcps based of the scores. In fcps the child was outside of the evaluation pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also note that there are different levels of giftedness. A moderately gifted student is going to look much different that a highly gifted or profoundly gifted student. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be classified as gifted. Intelligence is a continuum, both at the lower, middle and upper ranges.

In that case I think an argument here would be for reducing the AAP program to ptofoundly or highly and profoundly gifted students and work to beef up GE for everyone else. This area has a very high representation of gifted students so why not put more resources into serving everyone with accelerated or creative curricula. Why expand AAP to capture these kids rather than recognize the tremendous number of students who are bright (AAP & non) in a more efficient and effective way?

Absolutely agree and this is what many of us have been advocating for some time.

One problem with this is that the cogat and NNAT are not really the best tests to distinguish between highly gifted (140+) and gifted (130+). These are brief tests and the difference between these scores is a matter or one or two questions. The standard error rate is much higher for the high end of intelligence.