Why obsess over getting into gifted program?

[Anonymous]

Fairfax is getting tax dollars (company and individual) because of the AAP centers. We moved into the county bringing our $$$ with us b/c of the centers. We know plenty of others that have done the same. So the money coming in is a lot more than the nominal cost of the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Could you define "truly gifted." Could you name a few truly gifted individuals? I have been around students (at all levels, from k through graduate students) all my life. Each student has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to creativity, communication, comprehension, reasoning ... This differentiation between "gifted" and "ordinary" is puzzling to me and inconsistent with my experience. I consider most of our students intelligent and capable, although some are more motivated than others.

Different levels of giftedness goes by IQ in general.

This is a rather simplistic characterization of giftedness. Here is an interesting article on this topic

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure.html

Backed by research, the article asserts that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Could you define "truly gifted." Could you name a few truly gifted individuals? I have been around students (at all levels, from k through graduate students) all my life. Each student has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to creativity, communication, comprehension, reasoning ... This differentiation between "gifted" and "ordinary" is puzzling to me and inconsistent with my experience. I consider most of our students intelligent and capable, although some are more motivated than others.

Different levels of giftedness goes by IQ in general.

This is a rather simplistic characterization of giftedness. Here is an interesting article on this topic

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure.html

Backed by research, the article asserts that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test.

. This is simplistic too. For example, no matter how motivated he is to do well on these kinds of tests, my husband will never score higher than I do at my most half assed attempt. He usually does well, bu never higher than the low 90s, even with intensive prep. However, his EQ is very high, and he is an exceptionally hard worker, which contributes to a very successful life.

[Anonymous]

No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

One parent we know kept trying after her kid was denied admission twice, then on the third time the kid got in. So she got smarter/more intelligent in two years? Perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

It is true that there are always people smarter than you in at least some respects. But, what is concerning here is how we make that determination, and more importantly, to what ends. We inevitably run into a few problems when we decide giftedness based on standardized tests and then offer the "gifted" more learning opportunities under the assumption that these opportunities are not suitable for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

It is true that there are always people smarter than you in at least some respects. But, what is concerning here is how we make that determination, and more importantly, to what ends. We inevitably run into a few problems when we decide giftedness based on standardized tests and then offer the "gifted" more learning opportunities under the assumption that these opportunities are not suitable for others.

FCPS hasn't used the term "gifted" in several years. You really have a burr under your saddle about something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

One parent we know kept trying after her kid was denied admission twice, then on the third time the kid got in. So she got smarter/more intelligent in two years? Perhaps.

FCPS AAP admission process makes sure all qualified kids(by its standard) get in, but in doing so accepts some of less qualified kids.
No system is perfect.

[Anonymous]

No system is perfect.
You can also complaint all you want about why some gets in to some colleges, but some get rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

It is true that there are always people smarter than you in at least some respects. But, what is concerning here is how we make that determination, and more importantly, to what ends. We inevitably run into a few problems when we decide giftedness based on standardized tests and then offer the "gifted" more learning opportunities under the assumption that these opportunities are not suitable for others.

FCPS hasn't used the term "gifted" in several years. You really have a burr under your saddle about something.

Whether the program is GT or AAP, the selection process, in essence, has remained the same and the faulty assumption I stated above has persisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

It is true that there are always people smarter than you in at least some respects. But, what is concerning here is how we make that determination, and more importantly, to what ends. We inevitably run into a few problems when we decide giftedness based on standardized tests and then offer the "gifted" more learning opportunities under the assumption that these opportunities are not suitable for others.

FCPS hasn't used the term "gifted" in several years. You really have a burr under your saddle about something.

Whether the program is GT or AAP, the selection process, in essence, has remained the same and the faulty assumption I stated above has persisted.

no yours is the faulty assumption -- that being deemed academically advanced is based on standardized tests - that's incorrect.
I'm pleased to live in a county where the advanced students have their educations tailored to their abilities, just as the other students do.
And as was posted above, no system is perfect.

[Anonymous]

In reply to 16:50. Definitely a lie if parents or educators say that ALL aap are 2 years advanced.i know too many parents with kids in aap who have a tutor 3 days a week. The child would likely not struggle if they were in non aap classes. I love the idea of GT for the top 2%, AAP for the hard working, but average kids, and then nonAAP for the general ed. However, FCPS is too politically correct and would never employ this. The top 2% would, more than likely, represent the asian and white communities.

To the ofher poster, yes, I have met truly gifted kids. They tend to be more cerebral and quiet when compared to the just hard working kids. They learn in a different way. FCPS lacks in differentiated instruction. It is 2 words that FCPS refers to but is almost never used in real life. Even in the GT center, the teacher still has to teach to the LCD. Personally, I look at school as a supplement to my teaching at home. School is not the end all be all for learning. It is 1 of many facets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i know too many parents with kids in aap who have a tutor 3 days a week.

My daughter has a friend in her 6th grade AAP class that has a tutor three days a week. He has a tutor because he is advanced in math. He is taking Algebra I this year at middle school.

The parents of AAP kids that you know may have tutors to further challenge their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny that some kids are smarter/more intelligence than some others.

It is true that there are always people smarter than you in at least some respects. But, what is concerning here is how we make that determination, and more importantly, to what ends. We inevitably run into a few problems when we decide giftedness based on standardized tests and then offer the "gifted" more learning opportunities under the assumption that these opportunities are not suitable for others.

FCPS hasn't used the term "gifted" in several years. You really have a burr under your saddle about something.

Whether the program is GT or AAP, the selection process, in essence, has remained the same and the faulty assumption I stated above has persisted.

no yours is the faulty assumption -- that being deemed academically advanced is based on standardized tests - that's incorrect.
I'm pleased to live in a county where the advanced students have their educations tailored to their abilities, just as the other students do.
And as was posted above, no system is perfect.

Your underlying argument is that kids who are not in the AAP program are not capable of handling the AAP curriculum; they are where they need to be. Perhaps you have arrived at this conclusion based on your observations over the years. If that is the case, you and I have had different observations and experiences in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In reply to 16:50. Definitely a lie if parents or educators say that ALL aap are 2 years advanced.i know too many parents with kids in aap who have a tutor 3 days a week. The child would likely not struggle if they were in non aap classes. I love the idea of GT for the top 2%, AAP for the hard working, but average kids, and then nonAAP for the general ed. However, FCPS is too politically correct and would never employ this. The top 2% would, more than likely, represent the asian and white communities.

To the ofher poster, yes, I have met truly gifted kids. They tend to be more cerebral and quiet when compared to the just hard working kids. They learn in a different way. FCPS lacks in differentiated instruction. It is 2 words that FCPS refers to but is almost never used in real life. Even in the GT center, the teacher still has to teach to the LCD. Personally, I look at school as a supplement to my teaching at home. School is not the end all be all for learning. It is 1 of many facets.

The few truly gifted kids I know are not quiet, thoughtful ''cerebral'' creatures. They are talkative (won't quit talking in many cases) jittery, quirky, day dreamers, who bounce around and fiddle with things. Some border on aspergers. Others make you think they are ADHD kids who forgot to medicate, until you pay attention to what they are saying and thinking and how they process things. They are tempermental perfectionists who throw fits and quit when things aren't exactly how they know they should be. Yes, some are quiet and fit your stereotype, but some are the exact opposite.