Does AAP create unhelpful elitism and separation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Larla with the low 120s IQ does not need special gifted programming. She does not need to be segregated from gen ed kids for 6 years.

@ the earlier PP asking about those of us who "hate AAP". I "hate AAP" because I have a kid who needs gifted programming, is functioning at least 3 years above grade level in one core area, and can't have adequate gifted programming under AAP. FCPS has decided that it's more important to make moms with low 120s IQ kids feel special than it is to actually serve the needs of gifted kids. I also have a more "normal AAP kid" (high 120s), and I can see the farce for what it is. That kid doesn't "need AAP", and flexible grouping would be perfectly adequate for serving that child's needs. If kids like this remained in gen ed, the flexible grouping would be much more robust. Since many of these kids are in AAP, the ones left in gen ed don't necessarily have the opportunities for even a 1 year acceleration in core areas of strength. If these kids remained in gen ed, it would also allow AAP to move much faster and actually serve the needs of gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. I know a few, and they are very different from me in their learning abilities. Some that are still kids, and some that have turned into adults. And even if they are not 'profoundly gifted' but 'exceptionally gifted' by your definition, they still need at least some differentiation.

2. I do not have the viewpoint that the AAP committee is always right, but its the best we got. When you can come up with a better approach, and still meet the needs of advanced students, then I'm sure people will hear.

3. The top 20% are very different from the bottom 20%, and keeping them together is not doing anyone any favors. If you follow the Eastern European style, everyone got the gifted education, at a gifted pace, but not all would succeed. Only a handful of students could keep up in all classes, and have straight As, most of the students will have B average, then you'd have the bottom 20% who had no idea what was going on, because the teacher would not slow down for the kids that didn't get it, but would go at the pace of the kids that got it. Now in the US you have a system that separates kids, so they can cater to everyone. I'd be fine if my kid had to go through the most rigorous curriculum, and have a chance at everything. But I am not fine with my kids' education being watered down so the ones that are not selected for the AAP program can feel better, because they are not being labeled as smart. Who cares! People need to toughen up and see the truth for what it is. It is always good to know the truth sooner rather than later. And if Larla got in and Carla didn't then Carla can learn to work harder to give herself the same outcome. That's life.

(Eastern European Curriculum:

Algebra by 5th grade,
Geometry by 6th grade,
Physics 6-12, trig and calc based,
Chemistry 8-12th grade(including organic chemistry),
Biology 5-12 all the way to genetics and anatomy,
Trig, Precalculus, Calculus 1 and 2,
Probability Theory,
Knowledge of Machines,
Electronics,
Intro to Computer Science,
History,
Technical Design,
Intro to Micro and Macro Econ,
Intro to Sociology,
Intro to Philosophy,
Foreign Language,
National and World Lit,
and the list goes on)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Larla with the low 120s IQ does not need special gifted programming. She does not need to be segregated from gen ed kids for 6 years.

@ the earlier PP asking about those of us who "hate AAP". I "hate AAP" because I have a kid who needs gifted programming, is functioning at least 3 years above grade level in one core area, and can't have adequate gifted programming under AAP. FCPS has decided that it's more important to make moms with low 120s IQ kids feel special than it is to actually serve the needs of gifted kids. I also have a more "normal AAP kid" (high 120s), and I can see the farce for what it is. That kid doesn't "need AAP", and flexible grouping would be perfectly adequate for serving that child's needs. If kids like this remained in gen ed, the flexible grouping would be much more robust. Since many of these kids are in AAP, the ones left in gen ed don't necessarily have the opportunities for even a 1 year acceleration in core areas of strength. If these kids remained in gen ed, it would also allow AAP to move much faster and actually serve the needs of gifted kids.

Why don't you take your 120s kid out of AAP then? You can lead by example!

I have to say, I have 2 similar kids, one that understands rocket science, and one who is normally super smart. Yes, I wish the program were stronger for the rocket science one, but DC1 is still learning things in AAP, that DC1 would otherwise not learn, because DC1 would never pick up those subjects. Then I have the normal super smart one, who needs AAP, because it challenges DC2 at the right level, and DC feels good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Larla with the low 120s IQ does not need special gifted programming. She does not need to be segregated from gen ed kids for 6 years.

@ the earlier PP asking about those of us who "hate AAP". I "hate AAP" because I have a kid who needs gifted programming, is functioning at least 3 years above grade level in one core area, and can't have adequate gifted programming under AAP. FCPS has decided that it's more important to make moms with low 120s IQ kids feel special than it is to actually serve the needs of gifted kids. I also have a more "normal AAP kid" (high 120s), and I can see the farce for what it is. That kid doesn't "need AAP", and flexible grouping would be perfectly adequate for serving that child's needs. If kids like this remained in gen ed, the flexible grouping would be much more robust. Since many of these kids are in AAP, the ones left in gen ed don't necessarily have the opportunities for even a 1 year acceleration in core areas of strength. If these kids remained in gen ed, it would also allow AAP to move much faster and actually serve the needs of gifted kids.

Why don't you take your 120s kid out of AAP then? You can lead by example!

I have to say, I have 2 similar kids, one that understands rocket science, and one who is normally super smart. Yes, I wish the program were stronger for the rocket science one, but DC1 is still learning things in AAP, that DC1 would otherwise not learn, because DC1 would never pick up those subjects. Then I have the normal super smart one, who needs AAP, because it challenges DC2 at the right level, and DC feels good.

+1

[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.

All kids are in same school and same grade! Thy have plenty of opportunity to play!! At my DC school, classes are shuffled every year, even in KG, 1st and 2nd grade. If I am not mistaken this FCPS norm. In fact, in early years, teachers strongly recommend to split the best buddies in classes because more focus is given to chatting then actual studying!!

How is this different than your scenario? My DC best friend changes every year that's what kids do! She adapts and finds new friend and moves on. This will happen when child goes to high school, college and so on. New friends will be made, old will be remembered/forgotten. She still plays with her previous year friends in school. The only think I can think of is parent like you who will convinced their child "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: I'd be fine if my kid had to go through the most rigorous curriculum, and have a chance at everything. But I am not fine with my kids' education being watered down so the ones that are not selected for the AAP program can feel better, because they are not being labeled as smart. Who cares!

Agree. That's why I hate seeing my child's education in AAP be watered down by the inclusion of so many non gifted kids. It seems like the only reason they are being selected for AAP is to give them a label and make them feel special and smart. It's not because they have a real academic need that couldn't be met with flexible grouping. This is all happening at the expense of the kids who need a more rigorous curriculum, but aren't receiving it. AAP is only about 1 grade level advanced. That is easily accommodated in gen ed. AAP should be for kids who are 2+ grade levels ahead, as their academic needs can't be met in a regular classroom.

For the time being, FCPS has decided that the appropriate placement for 120s kids who are solid students is AAP. I don't begrudge people for placing their 120s kids in AAP. Any changes would need to come from FCPS and not from parents. I just want people to admit that their 120s Larlas don't "need" AAP, and don't need to be separated from the masses. The fact that so many people with kids who have IQs in the 120s seem to think that their kids "need" full time separate education from the masses shows both a grossly distorted view of their children's abilities as well as the exact elitism spoken of in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Wrong!

Just because some kids need an additional level of differentiation, does not mean that the ones already getting it don't need it! Instead of hating AAP we can work to improve it. I'm all for an additional layer of differentiation, where the highly gifted kids can benefit fully, or at least a lot more. But, to take differentiation away from kids that need it is not right. You have to draw the line at some point, and if the process is holistic then why are we relying so much on these test scores and ignoring the rest of the process? The system is not full proof, and can be improved, but there is no magic biller when it comes to this.

[Anonymous]

*magic bullet

[Anonymous]

^^^We clearly have different thresholds for when full time segregated gifted instruction is an academic need. I think it's more like 140+, whereas others think it's 120+. For my kids' base school, enough kids are designated level IV to fill a classroom for each of language arts and reading. The majority of those shouldn't need special treatment beyond that.

[Anonymous]

140 what?

140iq? 140 per in test section? 140nnat? 140cogat? 140cogat component?

any of the above? All of the above?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. I know a few, and they are very different from me in their learning abilities. Some that are still kids, and some that have turned into adults. And even if they are not 'profoundly gifted' but 'exceptionally gifted' by your definition, they still need at least some differentiation.

2. I do not have the viewpoint that the AAP committee is always right, but its the best we got. When you can come up with a better approach, and still meet the needs of advanced students, then I'm sure people will hear.

3. The top 20% are very different from the bottom 20%, and keeping them together is not doing anyone any favors. If you follow the Eastern European style, everyone got the gifted education, at a gifted pace, but not all would succeed. Only a handful of students could keep up in all classes, and have straight As, most of the students will have B average, then you'd have the bottom 20% who had no idea what was going on, because the teacher would not slow down for the kids that didn't get it, but would go at the pace of the kids that got it. Now in the US you have a system that separates kids, so they can cater to everyone. I'd be fine if my kid had to go through the most rigorous curriculum, and have a chance at everything. But I am not fine with my kids' education being watered down so the ones that are not selected for the AAP program can feel better, because they are not being labeled as smart. Who cares! People need to toughen up and see the truth for what it is. It is always good to know the truth sooner rather than later. And if Larla got in and Carla didn't then Carla can learn to work harder to give herself the same outcome. That's life.

(Eastern European Curriculum:

Algebra by 5th grade,
Geometry by 6th grade,
Physics 6-12, trig and calc based,
Chemistry 8-12th grade(including organic chemistry),
Biology 5-12 all the way to genetics and anatomy,
Trig, Precalculus, Calculus 1 and 2,
Probability Theory,
Knowledge of Machines,
Electronics,
Intro to Computer Science,
History,
Technical Design,
Intro to Micro and Macro Econ,
Intro to Sociology,
Intro to Philosophy,
Foreign Language,
National and World Lit,
and the list goes on)

Um, both algebra and geometry started in 5th grade. We survived.

- Eastern European

[Anonymous]

^ what's the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^We clearly have different thresholds for when full time segregated gifted instruction is an academic need. I think it's more like 140+, whereas others think it's 120+. For my kids' base school, enough kids are designated level IV to fill a classroom for each of language arts and reading. The majority of those shouldn't need special treatment beyond that.

I'm sure you can see that not every school in the county is like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ what's the point?

DP. To be well educated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Larla with the low 120s IQ does not need special gifted programming. She does not need to be segregated from gen ed kids for 6 years.

@ the earlier PP asking about those of us who "hate AAP". I "hate AAP" because I have a kid who needs gifted programming, is functioning at least 3 years above grade level in one core area, and can't have adequate gifted programming under AAP. FCPS has decided that it's more important to make moms with low 120s IQ kids feel special than it is to actually serve the needs of gifted kids. I also have a more "normal AAP kid" (high 120s), and I can see the farce for what it is. That kid doesn't "need AAP", and flexible grouping would be perfectly adequate for serving that child's needs. If kids like this remained in gen ed, the flexible grouping would be much more robust. Since many of these kids are in AAP, the ones left in gen ed don't necessarily have the opportunities for even a 1 year acceleration in core areas of strength. If these kids remained in gen ed, it would also allow AAP to move much faster and actually serve the needs of gifted kids.

Why don't you take your 120s kid out of AAP then? You can lead by example!

I have to say, I have 2 similar kids, one that understands rocket science, and one who is normally super smart. Yes, I wish the program were stronger for the rocket science one, but DC1 is still learning things in AAP, that DC1 would otherwise not learn, because DC1 would never pick up those subjects. Then I have the normal super smart one, who needs AAP, because it challenges DC2 at the right level, and DC feels good.

NP -- Part of the problem is that AAP expectations resemble that of the Gen Ed now, and Gen Ed has become more remedial in some schools. Couple that with more at risk (FARMS, and FARMS-ESOL students), and we have a perfect storm. The truth is we won't bring up the disadvantaged kids (some of which are quite smart), if we don't have the presence of the AAP kids raising everyone's expectations of themselves. I see 4th and 5th graders satisfied with being the smartest in their Title I Gen Ed classes, yet they don't even know their basics (e.g., knowing math facts like times tables cold). BTW I have kids in both a center and our local school. The difference in expectations is stark, and that is why I reluctantly send my kid to the Title I AAP center. The Gen Ed kids at the center benefit GREATLY. They even get some of the AAP materials in regular classrooms, not just the Level III and AAP classrooms. I like our local school a lot, I'm just tired with all the extra support we need to provide at home. At a recent conference, teachers again admitted that they havent had time to spend with their top performers, because they have had so much work to help the others (many with little support at home) get back on track with the holidays and snow days. I sympathize with the teachers, but the situation is frustrating.