Those of you with kids in both AAP and gen ed...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We deferred for our son because we did not want to move to the Center and we don’t have LLIV. There are a good number of parents who choose not to move.

Is your son in 3rd grade this year? If so, I don't blame you because it was a crazy year. I'll tell you, though, that we also deferred our son in 3rd grade for the same reason. It wasn't an epic disaster but it wasn't great either. A lot of this depends on your base school, but ours doesn't offer much differentiation and he was spending most of math class playing math games on the computer and doing independent reading. We ended up moving him to the center for 4th grade and it was definitely a good choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We deferred for our son because we did not want to move to the Center and we don’t have LLIV. There are a good number of parents who choose not to move.

Is your son in 3rd grade this year? If so, I don't blame you because it was a crazy year. I'll tell you, though, that we also deferred our son in 3rd grade for the same reason. It wasn't an epic disaster but it wasn't great either. A lot of this depends on your base school, but ours doesn't offer much differentiation and he was spending most of math class playing math games on the computer and doing independent reading. We ended up moving him to the center for 4th grade and it was definitely a good choice.

He is in third this year and he is at a great base school. He is in Advanced Math and has regular Level III pull outs. And he is in language immersion. We are not moving him next year. It is pretty common at our base for kids to stay, language immersion and gen ed. We actually have kids return to the base from the Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We deferred for our son because we did not want to move to the Center and we don’t have LLIV. There are a good number of parents who choose not to move.

Is your son in 3rd grade this year? If so, I don't blame you because it was a crazy year. I'll tell you, though, that we also deferred our son in 3rd grade for the same reason. It wasn't an epic disaster but it wasn't great either. A lot of this depends on your base school, but ours doesn't offer much differentiation and he was spending most of math class playing math games on the computer and doing independent reading. We ended up moving him to the center for 4th grade and it was definitely a good choice.

He is in third this year and he is at a great base school. He is in Advanced Math and has regular Level III pull outs. And he is in language immersion. We are not moving him next year. It is pretty common at our base for kids to stay, language immersion and gen ed. We actually have kids return to the base from the Center.

PP. That is what Level III should look like across the board, minus the language immersion which is obviously separate. I don’t blame you for staying at the base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We deferred for our son because we did not want to move to the Center and we don’t have LLIV. There are a good number of parents who choose not to move.

Is your son in 3rd grade this year? If so, I don't blame you because it was a crazy year. I'll tell you, though, that we also deferred our son in 3rd grade for the same reason. It wasn't an epic disaster but it wasn't great either. A lot of this depends on your base school, but ours doesn't offer much differentiation and he was spending most of math class playing math games on the computer and doing independent reading. We ended up moving him to the center for 4th grade and it was definitely a good choice.

He is in third this year and he is at a great base school. He is in Advanced Math and has regular Level III pull outs. And he is in language immersion. We are not moving him next year. It is pretty common at our base for kids to stay, language immersion and gen ed. We actually have kids return to the base from the Center.

PP. That is what Level III should look like across the board, minus the language immersion which is obviously separate. I don’t blame you for staying at the base school.

LIII and LLIV at will make more kids stay at good base school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if my kids are in level 3 services plus advanced math and we are supplementing, they will be ok in MS and HS?

Jesus.
Yes, they'll be FINE. More than fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We deferred for our son because we did not want to move to the Center and we don’t have LLIV. There are a good number of parents who choose not to move.

Is your son in 3rd grade this year? If so, I don't blame you because it was a crazy year. I'll tell you, though, that we also deferred our son in 3rd grade for the same reason. It wasn't an epic disaster but it wasn't great either. A lot of this depends on your base school, but ours doesn't offer much differentiation and he was spending most of math class playing math games on the computer and doing independent reading. We ended up moving him to the center for 4th grade and it was definitely a good choice.

He is in third this year and he is at a great base school. He is in Advanced Math and has regular Level III pull outs. And he is in language immersion. We are not moving him next year. It is pretty common at our base for kids to stay, language immersion and gen ed. We actually have kids return to the base from the Center.

PP. That is what Level III should look like across the board, minus the language immersion which is obviously separate. I don’t blame you for staying at the base school.

LIII and LLIV at will make more kids stay at good base school

DP. Only if the base is good. And that’s not the case in poorer zip codes. Which is why I always say getting rid of centers means bringing back segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

It sounds good in theory except for the kids who ARE ahead and AREN'T chosen. And the ones who are chosen but can't keep up. The academics are advanced but the GBRS screens for gifted traits, not achievement. The identification process doesn't match how the program is implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

It sounds good in theory except for the kids who ARE ahead and AREN'T chosen. And the ones who are chosen but can't keep up. The academics are advanced but the GBRS screens for gifted traits, not achievement. The identification process doesn't match how the program is implemented.

Nothing is perfect. But the selection process works more often than not. You see lots of complaints on DCUM but IRL the kids are mostly where anyone would expect them to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

It sounds good in theory except for the kids who ARE ahead and AREN'T chosen. And the ones who are chosen but can't keep up. The academics are advanced but the GBRS screens for gifted traits, not achievement. The identification process doesn't match how the program is implemented.

DP. Sounds like you have a kid that didn’t get in. Is he or she very far ahead? Then appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

It sounds good in theory except for the kids who ARE ahead and AREN'T chosen. And the ones who are chosen but can't keep up. The academics are advanced but the GBRS screens for gifted traits, not achievement. The identification process doesn't match how the program is implemented.

Nothing is perfect. But the selection process works more often than not. You see lots of complaints on DCUM but IRL the kids are mostly where anyone would expect them to be.

^ this. I know very few families who think their kids are so far ahead that they need to be doing AAP and can’t get in. They just want better gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

Have you not read this whole thread? I don’t think people are arguing against a gifted program. They are saying that there’s very little distinction between some bright gen ed kids and many AAP kids. All kids deserve to be challenged not just AAP kids. That is the problem. Many kids who don’t make the cut are left behind to linger in a gen ed classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my fear. That my child will be completely neglected in gen ed. But she doesn’t realistically belong in full time AAP either. Are you supplementing?

Yes she does.
Trust me. In the current model, of your child will be high-performing in gen ed, she will get a muuuuuuuch better education and much more attention from the teacher if she is in AAP instead of remaining in the gen ed class twiddling her thumbs as the teacher focuses all his/her time on assisting students who are 2-3 grades below benchmark.
The spectrum is very, very wide in the typical gen ed classroom, as opposed to when we were kids, OP. If your child can do the work, but it will maybe be a bit of a struggle for her, you won’t regret pushing to get her into it

Sorry, no. Those 2-3 below benchmark kids will be pulled out for enrichment/extra work. The variety in the "gen ed" is actually not quite as wide as you suggest. At least it wasn't in our school. AAP may offer some additional curriculum, mostly in math, but by MS and HS it doesn't really matter. My kid killed MS honors math and is set up for an advance HS track. She was a "gen ed" kid. There many like her, too.

As a teacher I can tell you this varies. Widely. It’s excellent that your child was able to thrive in gen ed. when it sounds like she could have functioned quite nicely alongside the AAP-identified students. In your case, it didn’t seem to be a detriment to her overall advancement through the system. That is not always the way it goes. I usually advocate for kids on the bubble to get pushed into AAP in elementary because I do believe the research that suggests that kids —even the ones performing at the higher levels—benefit from that scenario.

So then you admit it is not a gifted program. It's just a way to segregate any high-performing kid from the miscreants? Got it.

No, it is a program for kids who are ahead of their peers and deserve to be challenged in school. Just like SPED is a program for kids who have some issues that make it harder for them to learn and need to be supported. Different needs for different kids. I understand that many people think that it is a waste to provide services for kids who are ahead of the learning curve but those kids should be provided an opportunity to learn at their pace. AAP removes the pressure for the Gen Ed Teacher to work with another group of kids, which gives the Gen Ed Teacher more time to work with the kids who are struggling and on grade level.

My son would have moved from one school that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class to a Center that serves kids that are middle to upper middle class. No one at our school is worried about "miscreants." His favorite classes at school are his language, Level III, and Advanced Math. Why? They challenge him. He enjoys the other subjects but finishes the work easily and early and does the extra work on his own.

I don't understand the people who think that kids who are ahead should just sit around in the classroom and twiddle their thumbs, or work independently, while the Teacher focuses on the kids who are struggling and the kids on grade level.

Plenty of kids who are in Gen Ed will take AP and IB classes and go on to great colleges. AAP is not the end all and be all. The kids who are ahead benefit from AAP because they stay engaged in school, which is good for the kids.

Have you not read this whole thread? I don’t think people are arguing against a gifted program. They are saying that there’s very little distinction between some bright gen ed kids and many AAP kids. All kids deserve to be challenged not just AAP kids. That is the problem. Many kids who don’t make the cut are left behind to linger in a gen ed classroom.