Does AAP create unhelpful elitism and separation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. Having AAP be so watered down that gifted kids coast through with minimal work isn't solving the problem. If your child is profoundly gifted, he would be an extreme outlier in AAP.

The typical AAP kid is maybe mid 120s on the cogat and 1 or so year ahead in language arts and math. These kids hardly have extreme academic or social needs that require being separated from the rest of the school in a full time gifted program. And yet, it seems like just about every parent on here is convinced that her Larlo "needs" full time AAP centers and couldn't possibly handle any of the other potential solutions, such as flexible grouping or LLIV at all base schools. I have no grudge against parents for trying to get their children into AAP as the system stands now. I just wish (most) people would just admit that their kids want and benefit from AAP, but don't need it, they enjoy having their kid labeled as "gifted", and they're happy to limit their child's peer group.

With a cutoff of 132, this seems like an overly-broad statement. I assume that you are referring to parent referred children as "typical AAP kids". Other than neighborhood gossip, I don't know that there's much to support this.

The closest I have to data would be the median scores for kids accepted to AAP from 2004-2005, which are Cogat Verbal: 119 NonVerbal: 126 Quant: 121 NNAT: 129

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/83440.page#699828

This is all from when 8% qualified for AAP. Now, we have somewhere between 16.7% and 20% (see page 18 of https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/92UNAX5CE5A8/$file/AAP%20Expansion%20Plan%20Final_2_PPT.pdf as well as http://www.fcag.org/documents/AAP_Class_Size_Analysis.pdf )

If the pool is about 10% of the FCPS kids, and 1/3 of the in-pool kids fail to qualify for AAP, then the majority of AAP kids are there via parent referral.

Anecdotally, at the local elementary school, every solid student with a 120s CogAT is encouraged to parent refer for AAP, and the vast majority of these get in. Nearly every neighborhood kid attends the center, and these kids are bright, decent students, but definitely not in any way gifted or outliers. Many of them are the results of prepping and hothousing, and all of them are from no-screentime households. All except 1 were parent referrals. All of the parents now are convinced that their kids are gifted and "need AAP."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. Having AAP be so watered down that gifted kids coast through with minimal work isn't solving the problem. If your child is profoundly gifted, he would be an extreme outlier in AAP.

The typical AAP kid is maybe mid 120s on the cogat and 1 or so year ahead in language arts and math. These kids hardly have extreme academic or social needs that require being separated from the rest of the school in a full time gifted program. And yet, it seems like just about every parent on here is convinced that her Larlo "needs" full time AAP centers and couldn't possibly handle any of the other potential solutions, such as flexible grouping or LLIV at all base schools. I have no grudge against parents for trying to get their children into AAP as the system stands now. I just wish (most) people would just admit that their kids want and benefit from AAP, but don't need it, they enjoy having their kid labeled as "gifted", and they're happy to limit their child's peer group.

With a cutoff of 132, this seems like an overly-broad statement. I assume that you are referring to parent referred children as "typical AAP kids". Other than neighborhood gossip, I don't know that there's much to support this.

The closest I have to data would be the median scores for kids accepted to AAP from 2004-2005, which are Cogat Verbal: 119 NonVerbal: 126 Quant: 121 NNAT: 129

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/83440.page#699828

This is all from when 8% qualified for AAP. Now, we have somewhere between 16.7% and 20% (see page 18 of https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/92UNAX5CE5A8/$file/AAP%20Expansion%20Plan%20Final_2_PPT.pdf as well as http://www.fcag.org/documents/AAP_Class_Size_Analysis.pdf )

If the pool is about 10% of the FCPS kids, and 1/3 of the in-pool kids fail to qualify for AAP, then the majority of AAP kids are there via parent referral.

Anecdotally, at the local elementary school, every solid student with a 120s CogAT is encouraged to parent refer for AAP, and the vast majority of these get in. Nearly every neighborhood kid attends the center, and these kids are bright, decent students, but definitely not in any way gifted or outliers. Many of them are the results of prepping and hothousing, and all of them are from no-screentime households. All except 1 were parent referrals. All of the parents now are convinced that their kids are gifted and "need AAP."

+100 AAP is a joke End thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. Having AAP be so watered down that gifted kids coast through with minimal work isn't solving the problem. If your child is profoundly gifted, he would be an extreme outlier in AAP.

The typical AAP kid is maybe mid 120s on the cogat and 1 or so year ahead in language arts and math. These kids hardly have extreme academic or social needs that require being separated from the rest of the school in a full time gifted program. And yet, it seems like just about every parent on here is convinced that her Larlo "needs" full time AAP centers and couldn't possibly handle any of the other potential solutions, such as flexible grouping or LLIV at all base schools. I have no grudge against parents for trying to get their children into AAP as the system stands now. I just wish (most) people would just admit that their kids want and benefit from AAP, but don't need it, they enjoy having their kid labeled as "gifted", and they're happy to limit their child's peer group.

With a cutoff of 132, this seems like an overly-broad statement. I assume that you are referring to parent referred children as "typical AAP kids". Other than neighborhood gossip, I don't know that there's much to support this.

The closest I have to data would be the median scores for kids accepted to AAP from 2004-2005, which are Cogat Verbal: 119 NonVerbal: 126 Quant: 121 NNAT: 129

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/83440.page#699828

This is all from when 8% qualified for AAP. Now, we have somewhere between 16.7% and 20% (see page 18 of https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/92UNAX5CE5A8/$file/AAP%20Expansion%20Plan%20Final_2_PPT.pdf as well as http://www.fcag.org/documents/AAP_Class_Size_Analysis.pdf )

If the pool is about 10% of the FCPS kids, and 1/3 of the in-pool kids fail to qualify for AAP, then the majority of AAP kids are there via parent referral.

Anecdotally, at the local elementary school, every solid student with a 120s CogAT is encouraged to parent refer for AAP, and the vast majority of these get in. Nearly every neighborhood kid attends the center, and these kids are bright, decent students, but definitely not in any way gifted or outliers. Many of them are the results of prepping and hothousing, and all of them are from no-screentime households. All except 1 were parent referrals. All of the parents now are convinced that their kids are gifted and "need AAP."

how can you determine from your anecdotal interaction with said kids that they are not gifted or outliers? are you a qualified educator? are you excepting them to do rocket science on the street for you?

also, what's wrong with 'no screen time'? I wish I could say that about my kids. I try very hard to be a no screen time person, but it is so hard. kudos to those parents who can implement such rule.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Forgot to add: Unless the kids in this area have become significantly smarter over the last 13 years, the stats would be comparable or lower now, considering that the program currently takes twice as many kids as it did.

10% of the students score 132+ on the CogAT, but that is highly concentrated around 132-133. Kids in that range are really borderline for even needing any sort of gifted services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Forgot to add: Unless the kids in this area have become significantly smarter over the last 13 years, the stats would be comparable or lower now, considering that the program currently takes twice as many kids as it did.

10% of the students score 132+ on the CogAT, but that is highly concentrated around 132-133. Kids in that range are really borderline for even needing any sort of gifted services.

Why? Because it sounds elitist? A 132 on the CogAT is 98th percentile nationwide and is considered gifted anywhere. Not borderline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
how can you determine from your anecdotal interaction with said kids that they are not gifted or outliers? are you a qualified educator? are you excepting them to do rocket science on the street for you?

also, what's wrong with 'no screen time'? I wish I could say that about my kids. I try very hard to be a no screen time person, but it is so hard. kudos to those parents who can implement such rule.

Well, honestly, pretty much everyone who had 10 minutes of contact with my younger child from the time he was a preschooler knew he was gifted. The kids I'm talking about weren't necessarily in the high reading or math groups, weren't great writers, didn't catch on particularly quickly to board games, had parents who talked about various school struggles, and in all other ways were normal, bright kids. Their test scores corroborated that. None of them were bored or particularly ill served in second grade, when there was no AAP. There's nothing at all with being a bright, hardworking student. These kids just don't need full-time gifted services.

I agree that it's great when parents can stick with a no screen time rule. Performance on ability tests and in the classroom in early elementary can be enhanced by a very enriching home environment, which these kids obviously have. It's tough, then, to separate how much of the score is due to a highly enriched home environment and how much is due to native ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Forgot to add: Unless the kids in this area have become significantly smarter over the last 13 years, the stats would be comparable or lower now, considering that the program currently takes twice as many kids as it did.

10% of the students score 132+ on the CogAT, but that is highly concentrated around 132-133. Kids in that range are really borderline for even needing any sort of gifted services.

Why? Because it sounds elitist? A 132 on the CogAT is 98th percentile nationwide and is considered gifted anywhere. Not borderline.

It is when people are prepping their ways to that score and don't otherwise show any signs of giftedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Forgot to add: Unless the kids in this area have become significantly smarter over the last 13 years, the stats would be comparable or lower now, considering that the program currently takes twice as many kids as it did.

10% of the students score 132+ on the CogAT, but that is highly concentrated around 132-133. Kids in that range are really borderline for even needing any sort of gifted services.

Why? Because it sounds elitist? A 132 on the CogAT is 98th percentile nationwide and is considered gifted anywhere. Not borderline.

It is when people are prepping their ways to that score and don't otherwise show any signs of giftedness.

No, PP's are saying that many/most kids in AAP have average scores in the 120s, not prepped-to-132-or-higher.

[Anonymous]

At what percentile/score level do children need to be labeled as gifted and placed in a full-time, separate classroom?

My kid's local percentile rank for a 140 cogat was 98th percentile. If AAP takes 20% of the kids in FCPS, then only 10% of the kids IN AAP are at a 140+ CogAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
how can you determine from your anecdotal interaction with said kids that they are not gifted or outliers? are you a qualified educator? are you excepting them to do rocket science on the street for you?

also, what's wrong with 'no screen time'? I wish I could say that about my kids. I try very hard to be a no screen time person, but it is so hard. kudos to those parents who can implement such rule.

Well, honestly, pretty much everyone who had 10 minutes of contact with my younger child from the time he was a preschooler knew he was gifted. The kids I'm talking about weren't necessarily in the high reading or math groups, weren't great writers, didn't catch on particularly quickly to board games, had parents who talked about various school struggles, and in all other ways were normal, bright kids. Their test scores corroborated that. None of them were bored or particularly ill served in second grade, when there was no AAP. There's nothing at all with being a bright, hardworking student. These kids just don't need full-time gifted services.

I agree that it's great when parents can stick with a no screen time rule. Performance on ability tests and in the classroom in early elementary can be enhanced by a very enriching home environment, which these kids obviously have. It's tough, then, to separate how much of the score is due to a highly enriched home environment and how much is due to native ability.

well, that's lucky for your younger child, but it is not always the case. I know of profoundly gifted children who struggled with frustration because they were not understood, and did not have enough skills to explain themselves, due to their young age. I know also of other gifted children who were too preoccupied with following the rules and the status quo, so they did nothing advanced in front of others. There are kids who demonstrate their giftedness in so many ways, it's hard to tell just by looking at them. That's why there are so many screening tools combined to determine who needs these services.

there are also certain kinds of kids that like certain games and activities that you will label as 'hot housing', but it is not like that, because the kids love them. my younger one loves brain puzzles so much, everytime DC discovers a new one we have to have it, so now we have soooo many of them. You can interpret that any way you like, but who cares. IF those brain puzzles are what's responsible for DC's advancement vs. natural ability, who cares, DC is still advanced at this point, and needs those services in order to keep engaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
well, that's lucky for your younger child, but it is not always the case. I know of profoundly gifted children who struggled with frustration because they were not understood, and did not have enough skills to explain themselves, due to their young age. I know also of other gifted children who were too preoccupied with following the rules and the status quo, so they did nothing advanced in front of others. There are kids who demonstrate their giftedness in so many ways, it's hard to tell just by looking at them. That's why there are so many screening tools combined to determine who needs these services.

there are also certain kinds of kids that like certain games and activities that you will label as 'hot housing', but it is not like that, because the kids love them. my younger one loves brain puzzles so much, everytime DC discovers a new one we have to have it, so now we have soooo many of them. You can interpret that any way you like, but who cares. IF those brain puzzles are what's responsible for DC's advancement vs. natural ability, who cares, DC is still advanced at this point, and needs those services in order to keep engaged.

1. Just how many profoundly gifted kids do you know? Profoundly gifted kids have an IQ of 180 plus and are at a rarity of 1:1,000,000 http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/underserved.htm Or are you just bastardizing the term "profoundly gifted" and applying it to the 99.9th percentile (which is "highly gifted")?

2. You seem to have the viewpoint that if the AAP panel finds a child eligible, then that child must be gifted. That's a lot of faith to place in people who've never met or interacted with the child and are basing their assessment on 5 minutes of glancing through the file. In FCPS, a lot of kids are found eligible with 120s test scores and good but not amazing levels of achievement. They really have no metric at all showing giftedness. One of my kids (in AAP) fits this profile. She's bright and hardworking, but not gifted. The only reason she "needs AAP" is that all of the other bright, hardworking, non-gifted kids are in it.

3. Insisting that 20% of the student population "needs" to be segregated from the rest to have their social and educational needs met smacks of exactly the type of elitism that this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Are the people who hate AAP ok with the LLIV programs that segregate just for math and language arts? That's how Arlington does their ability groupings as well. I'm not sure what the fuss is. I also don't understand why we wouldn't encourage magnet programs in the part of the county that are suffering from too high a percentage of low income students. Those neighborhoods need something to draw more affluent kids to the area.

[Anonymous]

^ yes if it were flexible groupings, if students could move and have the hope to advance

[Anonymous]

At an AAP school, friends are separated after 2nd grade. Both have low 120s IQs. It is explained that one is special. They are not to be together again - - not in 3rd, 4th, not in 5th, or 6th (oh, maybe music class) It's not just one friend but 1/2 of all the kids they know. They pass in the hall but they're not really attending the same school. And it doesn't matter how many A's the student gets or how hard they try, they can't necessarily join their former friends in the class of special kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At an AAP school, friends are separated after 2nd grade. Both have low 120s IQs. It is explained that one is special. They are not to be together again - - not in 3rd, 4th, not in 5th, or 6th (oh, maybe music class) It's not just one friend but 1/2 of all the kids they know. They pass in the hall but they're not really attending the same school. And it doesn't matter how many A's the student gets or how hard they try, they can't necessarily join their former friends in the class of special kids.

what are you talking about? friends are separated every year. Kids don't have the same classmates from year to year, and with the pullouts they have different friends for different classes. And if a student is performing they can always reapply to AAP in coming years. stop with the nonsense.