Seriously, why does you child need AAP?

[Anonymous]

Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

PP above demonstrated the benefit of doubts -- why withheld education opportunities for kids that could thrive? DS teacher told me that DS is always going to be on the borderline. He scored 85% when he was tested for 2nd grade math competency at the beginning of 2nd grade, this shows that he knows 85% of the math content for 2nd grade without going through 2nd grade. That for me is a very good indication that he can do more, but this teacher said, she will only give him enrichment for those areas that she thinks he is good and not for other areas that she thinks he is not ahead. Why don't just give him all the enrichment and see how he runs with them? Likewise, why don't just expose all kids to AAP level math and don't predetermine who "deserves" those enrichment. If the kids want to meet the challenge, why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some kids want to be challenged.

some parents think the only way their kids can be challenged is to be in AAP. i'd like mine to be in classes of 15, but given that this is a public school system we can't always get what we want. nor should we.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

probably fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's only partially about a more challenging curriculum. It's also about being in class with kids who learn at the same pace and don't need as much repetition, so more of the curriculum can be covered in the same amount of time. Also, it's nice to be with kids who don't make fun of you for being smart and liking to read.

I would be more willing to buy this if there weren't so many kids needing tutors to keep up with AAP and so much homework now be given because so many of these "advanced" kids seem to need the repetition to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

PP above demonstrated the benefit of doubts -- why withheld education opportunities for kids that could thrive? DS teacher told me that DS is always going to be on the borderline. He scored 85% when he was tested for 2nd grade math competency at the beginning of 2nd grade, this shows that he knows 85% of the math content for 2nd grade without going through 2nd grade. That for me is a very good indication that he can do more, but this teacher said, she will only give him enrichment for those areas that she thinks he is good and not for other areas that she thinks he is not ahead. Why don't just give him all the enrichment and see how he runs with them? Likewise, why don't just expose all kids to AAP level math and don't predetermine who "deserves" those enrichment. If the kids want to meet the challenge, why not?

Could not agree more, which is why schools in McLean are taking the approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid "needs" AAP because FCPS offers the program and will find my kid eligible for the program. Seriously, no one "needs" AAP, but people always want what they perceive to be the best for their kids. I know I'll get a bunch of "if you don't think some kids 'need' AAP, clearly you don't have a truly gifted child." You know what, I don't think my child is gifted, but the first thing the teacher proactively said in my recent conferences was that AAP was the right place for DC. Does DC "need" it, no, but that doesn't mean it's not the right fit. People will always try to get their child into what they perceive as the best opportunity, regardless of whether someone else thinks they don't "need" it. Basically, people who make the "only those who need it should be in" argument are saying that kids in the 97-99th percentile are disadvantaged by being in a class with the 90-96th percentile, but the 90-96th percentile kids will do just fine with the 1-89th percentile.

It's interesting that you adamantly state up front that you believe no child "needs" AAP, but then continue to say that you know your child doesn't "need" it because your DC is not gifted. I think you do know that truly gifted kids "need" a special ed program, but because AAP is so diluted you are super defensive of your belief that since the program is not for truly gifted kids, why should't YOUR kid get in.

And as you predicted, I'll tell you that some kids do NEED something different in a classroom. My oldest NEEDS something other than a gen ed classroom. It doesn't work for her or the teacher/students in the gen ed class. I can go into details if you would like, but you sound so bitter and defensive that I doubt you REALLY want to discuss the reality of highly gifted kids.

I have another DC that is smart and the teacher is fawning all over him because he's the model student. He's so smart, he's so sweet, he's so empathetic, etc. etc. He's a happy-go-lucky kid, follows the rules, and is a charmer so the teachers and kids all love him. He's right on track/a little ahead, but he's NOT GIFTED. If he is accepted into AAP will he like it? Maybe, but he doesn't like a lot of pressure or to move too fast while learning. For his older sibling, it was never a question of whether a faster, more in-depth curriculum was needed.

What I don't get is why you are so bitter about this subject? You're kid is in the program. Just make sure he doesn't slow it down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only partially about a more challenging curriculum. It's also about being in class with kids who learn at the same pace and don't need as much repetition, so more of the curriculum can be covered in the same amount of time. Also, it's nice to be with kids who don't make fun of you for being smart and liking to read.

I would be more willing to buy this if there weren't so many kids needing tutors to keep up with AAP and so much homework now be given because so many of these "advanced" kids seem to need the repetition to get it.

This is why they need to narrow the program down to only the highest of gifted kids. We keep being told each year that our DC will finally "meet a challenge" each year in AAP. She' still only in 4th grade, but we have yet to see that "challenge." Now, I'm happy that she never has to spend time on homework or studying because it certainly makes our time management a little easier in the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only partially about a more challenging curriculum. It's also about being in class with kids who learn at the same pace and don't need as much repetition, so more of the curriculum can be covered in the same amount of time. Also, it's nice to be with kids who don't make fun of you for being smart and liking to read.

Kids make fun of other kids for all kinds of things. Yes, even in AAP.

Sure, but being made fun of for being smart can have a chilling effect on kids. Being with a peer group makes a big difference, and being able to learn at a faster pace with less repetition makes a huge difference to the kids that need it.

Second, first and kindergarteners made fun of your kid?

Yes. I would say that my DD was on the cusp of being bullied and certainly felt like an outcast. She was reading chapter books and Harry Potter on her own when she started K. In SACC, the older kids didn't want to play with a Kinder and the other Kindergarteners didn't want to play the same games she was interested in playing. So, when she did play when them, she either always won (in strategic games) and they so they started to excluded her or they would make up games to play (everyone draw a picture and one kid is the "judge" - they always told my DD that she had the worst drawing and was horrible at drawing). In class they didn't have anyone to pair her with for math games or LA games, so the asst teacher had to do them with her which made her feel like an outcast.

By 1st grade, the teacher was so frustrated with her that she spent most of the day in the "reading corner."

By 2nd, we were basically just biding time until she went to AAP and were hoping that it would be a better fit for her.

AAP has been a much better fit. She came home telling us that there are kids that don't make fun of her for talking about the things she likes and they like some of the same things. It was a relief for all of us.

So, yes, k, 1st, and 2nd graders can be mean and made fun of my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only partially about a more challenging curriculum. It's also about being in class with kids who learn at the same pace and don't need as much repetition, so more of the curriculum can be covered in the same amount of time. Also, it's nice to be with kids who don't make fun of you for being smart and liking to read.

Kids make fun of other kids for all kinds of things. Yes, even in AAP.

Sure, but being made fun of for being smart can have a chilling effect on kids. Being with a peer group makes a big difference, and being able to learn at a faster pace with less repetition makes a huge difference to the kids that need it.

Second, first and kindergarteners made fun of your kid?

Yes. I would say that my DD was on the cusp of being bullied and certainly felt like an outcast. She was reading chapter books and Harry Potter on her own when she started K. In SACC, the older kids didn't want to play with a Kinder and the other Kindergarteners didn't want to play the same games she was interested in playing. So, when she did play when them, she either always won (in strategic games) and they so they started to excluded her or they would make up games to play (everyone draw a picture and one kid is the "judge" - they always told my DD that she had the worst drawing and was horrible at drawing). In class they didn't have anyone to pair her with for math games or LA games, so the asst teacher had to do them with her which made her feel like an outcast.

By 1st grade, the teacher was so frustrated with her that she spent most of the day in the "reading corner."

By 2nd, we were basically just biding time until she went to AAP and were hoping that it would be a better fit for her.

AAP has been a much better fit. She came home telling us that there are kids that don't make fun of her for talking about the things she likes and they like some of the same things. It was a relief for all of us.

So, yes, k, 1st, and 2nd graders can be mean and made fun of my kids.

Sorry, but I think that is a result of your child's personality and/or her behavior. You admit your child didn't want to play the types of games other kids played. She happened to find kids who like what she likes, but she could have found that anywhere, depending on the KIDS themselves - including herself. I have a feeling you helped perpetuate the belief that she probably had (and has) that she didn't have a friendship peer group because she was head and shoulders above the rest.

WHY was her 1st grade teacher frustrated with her? You say nothing about second other than you were biding your time until AAP started. FWIW, my AAP kid is "profoundly gifted" according to her FWIQ, and she always fit in socially. I don't think she "needs" AAP but I think it is great to have a program available to her in which she does well in easily.

[Anonymous]

Pity the kids who "need" AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid "needs" AAP because FCPS offers the program and will find my kid eligible for the program. Seriously, no one "needs" AAP, but people always want what they perceive to be the best for their kids. I know I'll get a bunch of "if you don't think some kids 'need' AAP, clearly you don't have a truly gifted child." You know what, I don't think my child is gifted, but the first thing the teacher proactively said in my recent conferences was that AAP was the right place for DC. Does DC "need" it, no, but that doesn't mean it's not the right fit. People will always try to get their child into what they perceive as the best opportunity, regardless of whether someone else thinks they don't "need" it. Basically, people who make the "only those who need it should be in" argument are saying that kids in the 97-99th percentile are disadvantaged by being in a class with the 90-96th percentile, but the 90-96th percentile kids will do just fine with the 1-89th percentile.

Exactly. The hypocrisy just kills me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

Using your argument, one would conclude that those not in AAP have no "potential giftedness" - which is flat out wrong. No one can predict the directions any of these kids will take in middle and high school, and to make a stark division of very similar kids starting in 3rd grade is crazy.

Every child has the potential to excel and segregating them from 3-8 based on some sort of perceived potential is insane. A tiny percentage of those in AAP are actually gifted. The rest? Just mainstream kids, no different from their counterparts in Gen Ed. Why FCPS sees it necessary to separate them is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

PP above demonstrated the benefit of doubts -- why withheld education opportunities for kids that could thrive? DS teacher told me that DS is always going to be on the borderline. He scored 85% when he was tested for 2nd grade math competency at the beginning of 2nd grade, this shows that he knows 85% of the math content for 2nd grade without going through 2nd grade. That for me is a very good indication that he can do more, but this teacher said, she will only give him enrichment for those areas that she thinks he is good and not for other areas that she thinks he is not ahead. Why don't just give him all the enrichment and see how he runs with them? Likewise, why don't just expose all kids to AAP level math and don't predetermine who "deserves" those enrichment. If the kids want to meet the challenge, why not?

PRECISELY. And I would add, why not expose all kids to ALL advanced level subjects and see who can do it? What's the point of keeping enrichment away from any child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok...if you are not a troll, you would know about measurement errors. My DD scored below 135 on the cogAT. But, it was one measurement. You would understand how difficult it is to measure giftedness at a young age. So, FCPS standards for AAP are "potentially" gifted.

So, my DD, with her 122 CogAT in grade 2, showed potential as a gifted student, according to her teachers (1 & 2 grade). We referred...she was admitted.

She is in the upper quarter (at worst) in AAP in the 8th grade, with straight A's. (Last year she her only B was band). Had she been in GenEd, she would easily be the smartest kid in the classroom.

I have not bothered to have her tested recently (like ever), there is no point. She will achieve what she achieves. He goal in schools in Va Tech (where I went). Though, I think UVA or W & M would be a better fit for her. The point, though, is she is doing fine. I can not say how she would be doing in GenED.

PP above demonstrated the benefit of doubts -- why withheld education opportunities for kids that could thrive? DS teacher told me that DS is always going to be on the borderline. He scored 85% when he was tested for 2nd grade math competency at the beginning of 2nd grade, this shows that he knows 85% of the math content for 2nd grade without going through 2nd grade. That for me is a very good indication that he can do more, but this teacher said, she will only give him enrichment for those areas that she thinks he is good and not for other areas that she thinks he is not ahead. Why don't just give him all the enrichment and see how he runs with them? Likewise, why don't just expose all kids to AAP level math and don't predetermine who "deserves" those enrichment. If the kids want to meet the challenge, why not?

PRECISELY. And I would add, why not expose all kids to ALL advanced level subjects and see who can do it? What's the point of keeping enrichment away from any child?

I absolutely agree! We should get rid of all grades across the board and not have age-based instruction for any child. Why cannot all instruction be along the lines of what is done with learning another language? If you are ready to be challenged with German 2 and you are 8 years old, why not have you in the Germen 2 classes with students who are age 13, etc.)?