Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[Anonymous]

I've only been here for a few years, & I think I've decided that this area is a little nuts. Outside of math, there is no reason why a good teacher can't teach a heterogeneous class all the while challenging the kids who need it while supporting the kids who need support. It's being done all over the country. This district has the resources to ensure it would be done well here. Dedicate good professional development to differentiation - support it - create teachers who are really good at it. I'm a former administrator (different state) - I've seen it done really well. What this district has created is not a gifted program anymore anyway... It has created the "prep" culture & has added to the pressure that is put on kids. They've encouraged everyone to read "How to Raise an Adult," but have created a culture that feeds exactly the opposite of what the book suggests!! Crazy. Figure out how to accelerate math for the kids who need it & create excellent teachers who can teach everything else to ANY child. Before I'm accused of being anti-AAP - I am the parent of an AAP student at a center & a GE student at a base school. I've been through a different style GT program myself, & I have an older child out of school (was not in this district) & out in the real world. I don't at all wish she had gone through school here...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if those that are bashing the system would still bash it if their children were admitted by the seat of their pants.

I have never seen it happen. Not once. I have seen parents complain that their kid is "too gifted" for the current "watered down program," and the barely there kids should go. But I have never seen a barely there parent say the system should be overhauled so that their kid is kicked out. I have a barely there kid, and I'm certainly glad she's there, and would not want her sent back to GE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you have 25 - 50% in AAP, the term "gifted" has lost all meaning.

There are NOT 25-50% of fcps kids in AAP centers/level IV.

You need to try to brush up on facts.

No, you need to brush up on your facts. Of the three schools closest to my house: One has 35%, one has 33% and the other has 25%. There are schools with up to 50% kids in AAP. That is a fact.

If you you know that the three schools closest to your home have these specific numbers, several things are true: (1) you live in a very specific area in the Western part of the county that's a TJ feeder zone, (2) you have way too much time on your hands, (3) which you spend on some weird obsession you have with a program that your child doesn't even attend, and (4) you would be a lot happier if you just moved somewhere like Lake Braddock. Or heck-- try a Stuart zoned school. Your kid will look like a rocket scientist by virtue of the fact they speak English. If your kids can't keep up, you should definately teach them that the solution is just to surround themselves with lower performing people.

^^ beyond any issues related to the children, here is another reason why people dislike AAP: the parents.

Same reason people with gifted kids want to run to centers and out of Gen. Ed. - the parents.

Really? Are you that socially awkward that you need a special school? Sorry if normal folks intimidate you.

Very few of the handful of butthurt Gen Ed parents who latch on to threads like this would seem to fit any commonly accepted definition of "normal."

"Butthurt"? Yes, definitely awkward. My kid just started 2nd and these threads really just make me want to avoid AAP altogether.

NP here: I haven't been in on these ridiculous posts, but I have to say that you don't seem like you have any intention of avoiding AAP if you have a brand new 2nd grader and are already on this forum. I'm really not trying to be mean at all...just seems like you are actually wanting your child in (as opposed to perhaps someone who starts posting and reviewing this section after the pool letters are mailed.)

Huh? It popped up on Recent Topics. We are probably moving in the next year or so and we are keeping schools in mind. After hearing about AAP from our neighbors we are definitely questioning FCPS overall. OP's post caught my eye since we've been thinking that the whole way G&T is handled here is BS.

Let me get this straight. You could care less about AAP. The thread just popped up on Recent Topics. And so read all 12 pages. Then hopped onto the thread to insult AAP parents. Then checked back later and defend yourself? Seems like you care quite a bit actually. And already have a firm view about the evils of gifted education. Which means you are probably not at all happy about Larlo's NNAT score. Please. Just do everyone a favor and move to Arlington. You'll be happier, we'll be happier. It's win-win.

I haven't read all of the posts on the earlier pages, but I did get sucked in when the AAP parents started chiming in with insults. I'm anti-bully like that.

"Evils of gifted education." My DH and I were both in GT programs as children so definitely not opposed to GT in general. Just questioning how it's been implemented here (not really a gifted program).

Anyway, we are leaning towards Arlington to cut down on commute so you might get your wish.

don't let the door hit ya!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous
Two things:

Wow, just wow, that your response to inequity in a public system is that it's not going to change (and you thank God for that).

Secondly, you're wrong. This program will change. You'll start to see the level IV option offered in more schools and the busing option go away in these cases. Within these schools you'll start to see the AAP curriculum offered to all kids (as it already is in some McLean schools).

Then you will have to find another way to feel superior and special. May I suggest a private school where you can rightly pay for this privilege.

My youngest just started MS, so we are getting our kids out before any changes hit, but I don't think you understand how the LLIV rollout is working. They are not expanding LLIV, as much as they are creating Centers in schools that can field a full class of AAP. That's a great thing for AAP kids. They don't have to bus or change schools. And unlike with LLIV, the schools cannot pupil place GE kids to fill out the AAP classes in the new centers. Let Level III kids in in qualified subjects, yes. But they can't principal place-- at least not in the Cooper and now Thoreau new Centers. So, the classes aren't being diluted with GE kids that haven't been screened. The nice things is that the AAP Centers affected-- are often overcrowded, and this relieves that. AAP kids in the larger Centers are often in large classes (30+ kids). This will help with that too. Carson is up next-- which would be great because they are incredibly overcrowded, and can easily send 200 AAP kids to Franklin. And I agree. If an ES, like Lees Corner, is sending 20 kids to a Center (plus they retain some kids in AAP kids in LLIV and fill that out with principal placement), or 100 kids at the MS level, there is no reason that those kids just can't make one class at the base school.

By virtue of a move, I have had kids in an LLIV Center that had a class that was 100% AAP, and a larger Center. And I actually think the LLIV is worse on the GE kids. Rather than moving to another school, their 2nd grade friends who qualify are right there in a "special class." They stay with the same kids for 4 years, while the other kids get random class assignments. The AAP kids end up being a tight knit group, very cliquey, and in a small school everyone knows who they are. The GE parents at our LLIV were very unhappy about the one special classroom phenomenon. And many had their kids retested privately and referred every year to get their kids in. In the Center school that was half GE, half AAP, the kids classroom assignments changed each year so the kids were less likely to make cliques. The kids mixed together a lot more and did not self segregate as much. BTW-- this was true of the parents too. In the Center, AAP was more normal, and the APP kids did not stand out the way they did in the LLIV, so the atmosphere was not as toxic. If I were GE. I would much rather have 25 kids leave my school for a Center than be right their in a special, often smaller, class that my kid still couldn't access. And generally with the "best" teacher in the grade each year, because the strong teachers are the ones the administration encourages to get AAP certified.

Maybe you will be happy when you local ES becomes a Center GE kids have no access to. I loved that for my AAP kid. The smaller classes, shorter bus ride, always getting the best teacher, always having your best friend in your class. It was great. I would have been unhappy as a GE parent in that situation, and thought that they had legitimate grievances. And they had a lot of grievances. But YMMV.

Thanks for this perspective. It makes a lot of sense to me based on my experience in the FCPS GT program, back before it was AAP when it was a much smaller group. At that time, centers were more like what it sounds like LLIV is now, where there was one class per grade of GT and the GT classes were pretty segregated from the rest of the school. The clique thing especially rings true to me, because we did basically have exactly the same kids in the class each year through 6th grade. The difference between then and LLIV is that those were centers so each class had kids from multiple schools, vs. LLIV centers now where the kids are all from the base school. I can see how the special class all from kids in the base school could make the segregation and competition even worse. I hadn't really thought of the parallels before.

DD is just starting 3rd grade in the same center school that I went to. I'm definitely curious to see how similar/different the experience is for her. I believe there are 3 AAP classes in each grade at her center.

I'll admit that I was surprised when I found out how expanded the program is now, but I certainly don't have enough experience yet to judge whether it is better or worse. I did feel like the screening process now felt a lot more competitive/awkward, and I felt really bad for the parents of DD's friends who were pushing so hard to get in unsuccessfully. It would be great if FFX could expand the curriculum more broadly. But the fact of the matter is, whether the program is small like it was before or more inclusive like it is now, there are always going to be kids who are selected and kids who aren't. And it is always going to create segmentation and some tension and conflict. IMO, better for the conflict to be among the parents than the kids, though.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if those that are bashing the system would still bash it if their children were admitted by the seat of their pants.

I have never seen it happen. Not once. I have seen parents complain that their kid is "too gifted" for the current "watered down program," and the barely there kids should go. But I have never seen a barely there parent say the system should be overhauled so that their kid is kicked out. I have a barely there kid, and I'm certainly glad she's there, and would not want her sent back to GE.

This. I have a kid would would remain regardless what happened (160 IQ) and a kid who may be iffier (IQ unknown, was in the pool, had a 16 GBRS but without the IQ, I have no idea....)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone would say that being in an AAP center program is a bad thing for a student who is identified as gifted, via the usual tests and observation.

I don't think anyone would say that special programs are a bad thing for kids with learning disabilities, autism, or who don't speak much English.

So leave those programs alone, as they are doing the job in helping meet those students' needs.

Change your focus to the kids in gen ed who desperately need the attention and more differentiation and more challenging work. Stop trying to blame the one program you can blame and still feel PC. It's misguided.

Lots of people have said that on this thread.

+1
And they've also pointed out that AAP isn't a real gifted program - so it's not even servicing the kids who most need it. Instead, it's just taking half of the mainstream student population, and slapping a gifted label on them. It's utterly obnoxious.

It does not take half of the mainstream population.

It takes approximately 14% of the mainstream population.

That's still too much. They should accept far fewer kids. 2-5% would be more like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone would say that being in an AAP center program is a bad thing for a student who is identified as gifted, via the usual tests and observation.

I don't think anyone would say that special programs are a bad thing for kids with learning disabilities, autism, or who don't speak much English.

So leave those programs alone, as they are doing the job in helping meet those students' needs.

Change your focus to the kids in gen ed who desperately need the attention and more differentiation and more challenging work. Stop trying to blame the one program you can blame and still feel PC. It's misguided.

This is a great point. ELL has to have as many kids as AAP, and certainly makes huge demands on the resources. Special Ed is smaller, but again, is very resource intensive. AAP cost nothing extra except busing. And certainly there is an argument to be made that it brings in tax dollars that more than offset it's cost if parents and business move here, instead of MD, Alington, DC, Loudon, PW County, etc because of AAP. As the Arlington vs FCPS NMSF debate on the other thread (why is FCPS so much more successful than Arlington at having kids get NMSFs?). AAP also creates a successful pipeline to TJ and produces students who make the whole school system look good. Nevertheless, it's the program GE parents want to target-- because it looks bad to gripe about Special Ed and ELL. And because they aren't jealous of the kids in Special Ed and ELL.

Uh, no. The reason AAP is such a target is because ALL taxpayers are funding this program, but unlike Special Ed, most kids admitted to AAP are not gifted and don't need special services. No one is arguing that we need to do away with programs like Special Ed - obviously, there's a tremendous need for those kids to receive services. Taxpayers are happy to help. What we're not happy to do, however, is spend money on frivolous programs for enormous groups of mostly average kids who don't need special intervention at all. In fact, that "enrichment" we're paying for could easily benefit ALL kids, but isn't. If calling inequity "jealousy" makes you feel better, then so be it. But as long as we're all footing the bill for your kid's extra (and unnecessary) enrichment, expect some push back by those of us who realize this is a PUBLIC school system, not an exclusive private school within a school for some but not all.

oh well! Get over it, it's not going anywhere. Thank God!

Glad you're appreciative of my tax dollars benefitting your child.

[Anonymous]

+1
And they've also pointed out that AAP isn't a real gifted program - so it's not even servicing the kids who most need it. Instead, it's just taking half of the mainstream student population, and slapping a gifted label on them. It's utterly obnoxious.

It does not take half of the mainstream population.

It takes approximately 14% of the mainstream population.

That's still too much. They should accept far fewer kids. 2-5% would be more like it.

But don't you see how "utterly obnoxious" the arguments against AAP are when they often use inaccurate statements (like OP noting that time and time again gifted athletes became leaders or that schools have populations with 1/2 in AAP (rather than noting that is very, very unusual) and now you saying "half the mainstream" and after being called on the inaccurate statement just gloss over it)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone would say that being in an AAP center program is a bad thing for a student who is identified as gifted, via the usual tests and observation.

I don't think anyone would say that special programs are a bad thing for kids with learning disabilities, autism, or who don't speak much English.

So leave those programs alone, as they are doing the job in helping meet those students' needs.

Change your focus to the kids in gen ed who desperately need the attention and more differentiation and more challenging work. Stop trying to blame the one program you can blame and still feel PC. It's misguided.

This is a great point. ELL has to have as many kids as AAP, and certainly makes huge demands on the resources. Special Ed is smaller, but again, is very resource intensive. AAP cost nothing extra except busing. And certainly there is an argument to be made that it brings in tax dollars that more than offset it's cost if parents and business move here, instead of MD, Alington, DC, Loudon, PW County, etc because of AAP. As the Arlington vs FCPS NMSF debate on the other thread (why is FCPS so much more successful than Arlington at having kids get NMSFs?). AAP also creates a successful pipeline to TJ and produces students who make the whole school system look good. Nevertheless, it's the program GE parents want to target-- because it looks bad to gripe about Special Ed and ELL. And because they aren't jealous of the kids in Special Ed and ELL.

Uh, no. The reason AAP is such a target is because ALL taxpayers are funding this program, but unlike Special Ed, most kids admitted to AAP are not gifted and don't need special services. No one is arguing that we need to do away with programs like Special Ed - obviously, there's a tremendous need for those kids to receive services. Taxpayers are happy to help. What we're not happy to do, however, is spend money on frivolous programs for enormous groups of mostly average kids who don't need special intervention at all. In fact, that "enrichment" we're paying for could easily benefit ALL kids, but isn't. If calling inequity "jealousy" makes you feel better, then so be it. But as long as we're all footing the bill for your kid's extra (and unnecessary) enrichment, expect some push back by those of us who realize this is a PUBLIC school system, not an exclusive private school within a school for some but not all.

oh well! Get over it, it's not going anywhere. Thank God!

Glad you're appreciative of my tax dollars benefitting your child.

NP here - Oh please...if your child was in it, you'd not say a peep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of these AAP kids go on to TJ?

Almost all of the kids at TJ went through AAP.

But only a tiny fraction of AAP kids actually get into TJ. The wheat is definitely separated from the chaff during the TJ admissions process.

Most AAP kids in our pyramid do not apply for TJ.

Most AAP kids would be unable to get into TJ in the first place. Only the truly exceptional are admitted, which is a hard truth for AAP parents to swallow.

and a majority of Gen. Ed kids are clearly unable to, so what? It's a hard pill for you to swallow your kid can't get into AAP (as shown but the crazy jealousy on this thread) and you're talking about AAP kids being upset about getting into TJ? Our kids are good.

Check out any thread on TJ and you'll see just how "good" the parents of rejected AAP kids are. They just can't get over the fact that their snowflakes weren't admitted to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a child that just started in the AAP program this year. My initial thoughts are that it is a good program. I like the higher expectations and focus on critical thinking, however I don't think it is all that much of a gifted program. My DC is one of those kids that tests in the highly gifted range but is lazy and will rise to only to whatever expectations are set for the class unless he is interested in the what he is doing. He needs a class that is more in depth and accelerated than what the current AAP program offers.

That said I think the Aap extensions that focus on critical thinking would benefit all kids and should be provided as part of the general education curriculum.
I do think the current program is bloated and clearly includes kids who don't belong in a traditional gifted classroom. I know lots of kids that got in without the requisite test or GBRS scores. I am all for offering the current AAP curriculum as the general education curriculum and reducing the current AAP cohort to the top 2% of FCPS takers and offering a truly accelerated and gifted program. That way the vast majority of kids can benefit from the AAP focus on critical thinking that I think that most generally bright kids can handle.

This is absolutely true and why AAP is so watered down - it can't be a real gifted program, because so few of the kids in it are actually gifted! Instead, it's just a slightly accelerated regular curriculum, that could easily be done by most kids. It boggles the mind why it's considered a "test-in" program, when it could just be open to all. That would allow a REAL gifted program to be developed for exceptionally gifted kids - who are few and far between.

You do know the mom that you are quoting has less than two weeks experience total with AAP. They haven't even had many real assignments or projects yet. She has no idea who is or who is not gifted among her kid's new classmates.

It's irrelevant how long her child has been in AAP, or even if she has a child in AAP. Everything she - and others - have stated about the program is true.

Great! It's true, "AAP lets in too many kids who aren't gifted" and yet YOUR kid still couldn't get in. Now what?

My kid IS in AAP, you dolt. And she's bored silly as it's not even a gifted program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Uh, no. The reason AAP is such a target is because ALL taxpayers are funding this program, but unlike Special Ed, most kids admitted to AAP are not gifted and don't need special services. No one is arguing that we need to do away with programs like Special Ed - obviously, there's a tremendous need for those kids to receive services. Taxpayers are happy to help. What we're not happy to do, however, is spend money on frivolous programs for enormous groups of mostly average kids who don't need special intervention at all. In fact, that "enrichment" we're paying for could easily benefit ALL kids, but isn't. If calling inequity "jealousy" makes you feel better, then so be it. But as long as we're all footing the bill for your kid's extra (and unnecessary) enrichment, expect some push back by those of us who realize this is a PUBLIC school system, not an exclusive private school within a school for some but not all.

Well put.

+100
Finally, some sanity and common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Uh, no. The reason AAP is such a target is because ALL taxpayers are funding this program, but unlike Special Ed, most kids admitted to AAP are not gifted and don't need special services. No one is arguing that we need to do away with programs like Special Ed - obviously, there's a tremendous need for those kids to receive services. Taxpayers are happy to help. What we're not happy to do, however, is spend money on frivolous programs for enormous groups of mostly average kids who don't need special intervention at all. In fact, that "enrichment" we're paying for could easily benefit ALL kids, but isn't. If calling inequity "jealousy" makes you feel better, then so be it. But as long as we're all footing the bill for your kid's extra (and unnecessary) enrichment, expect some push back by those of us who realize this is a PUBLIC school system, not an exclusive private school within a school for some but not all.

Well put.

Um, no.

Actually, yes. Unlike your inarticulate utterance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14 pages in, it's striking that GE parents hate AAP, but they can't really string together a rational reason. AAP helps the kids in AAP, is good for FCPS, is good for the county, probably brings in more money than it costs to bus the kids, takes nothing away from GE kids, except a subset of the students that the GE parents loudly disparage as unexceptional at best and socially awkward disruptive troublemakers at worst. And, in general, the FCPS GE curriculum is very good-- stronger than most of the country and comparable to APS. So the problem is???

It seems like lots of DCUM over privileged helicopter type parents have bumped up against a major area where they can't buy or do "the best" for Larla for the first time ever. With AAP in play, they have to settle for something less prestigious for Larla in the area of education. And it's not that they need FCPS GE to be better for their kid (or they would focus on that). They just don't want there to be something perceived as "better" they don't get. Even if it's not better for their specific kid-- they still have live with their friends and neighbors knowing that they were not invited to the party.

And it's sad-- because the kids really don't care who has the harder spelling list or math worksheet. But it eats the parents alive, and they turn around and make their kids miserable.

I would agree with this but for the fact that you don't shy away at all from ascribing a uniform set of views to "GE parents," as if all GE parents think and act the same. It creates the impression that you'd be more than happy to band together with all the other AAP parents and have a good laugh about the angst-ridden, bummed-out GE parents whose kids didn't quite make the cut.

A more nuanced view would allow for the possibility that, DCUM diatribes notwithstanding, most parents of GE kids are find with their kids being in the GE program and that, conversely, there are more than a handful of AAP parents who bend every rule in the book just so that their own Larlas can be part of the AAP program and afford them local bragging rights.

Mic drop. Best post ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've only been here for a few years, & I think I've decided that this area is a little nuts. Outside of math, there is no reason why a good teacher can't teach a heterogeneous class all the while challenging the kids who need it while supporting the kids who need support. It's being done all over the country. This district has the resources to ensure it would be done well here. Dedicate good professional development to differentiation - support it - create teachers who are really good at it. I'm a former administrator (different state) - I've seen it done really well. What this district has created is not a gifted program anymore anyway... It has created the "prep" culture & has added to the pressure that is put on kids. They've encouraged everyone to read "How to Raise an Adult," but have created a culture that feeds exactly the opposite of what the book suggests!! Crazy. Figure out how to accelerate math for the kids who need it & create excellent teachers who can teach everything else to ANY child. Before I'm accused of being anti-AAP - I am the parent of an AAP student at a center & a GE student at a base school. I've been through a different style GT program myself, & I have an older child out of school (was not in this district) & out in the real world. I don't at all wish she had gone through school here...

If you're saying that AAP is the cause of this area's craziness, I think you've got it backwards. The craziness over AAP is the result of this area's craziness. They are crazy over the inclusiveness of the gifted program in Arlington, and the lack of a gifted program in DC, etc. Everyone's crazy here, and some of it comes out whenever anyone talks about AAP. If Fairfax had a different gifted program, people would be crazy about that program, too.