AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents never give up. First it was changing the name to AAP from G&T now this.

LOL!! I have a child in AAP and even I know it is not a Gifted & Talented program. If it was, the vast majority of kids would not qualify.

Anyway, it's my understanding that G&T was an entirely different program than AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Centers are needed in schools where there aren’t enough level 4 kids to make a whole class.

Ok. But there are schools that have a large enough cohort. In my opinion, the centers should only be allowed if the cohort is too small. Why should we bus kids to a center when there is a large enough cohort with a designated class. I know our center pulls from two schools. Both of these schools including my own, has a designated AAP class (not cluster model) and routinely has enough kids (12-17 kids)

It's crazy that you are anti busing AAP kids but are just fine with a 1:12 teacher to student ratio only for AAP. Doubtful that general ed classes have that ratio.

Wow. No, mommy, principals place other smart students into the Level IV class to make sure it is a similar size to the other classrooms. Most of these kids would have gotten into AAP if they were in a Title I or lower SES school anyway, so it works out. Your little baby is not "gifted" as much as you want to think s/he is. Principal placed kids do just as well if not better than the kids who got into AAP because their 2nd grade teacher liked them.

Principal placed kids get there because parents suck up to them.
Second grade teachers of the student are not on the selection committee for full time AAP.
Principal placing kids who did not make the cut into classrooms are part of the reason people prefer centers. The peer group has all been selected by a neutral centralized committee rather than who sucks up to the principal.

AAP is an advanced program. It must be hard for you to accept that even with a lower standard than gifted your kid still didn't make the cut. It's not the end of the world.

You're absolutely right, it's not the end of the world, yet here you are getting suuuuper defensive and freaking out and insulting people that you 100% know are telling the truth but oh boy, you just can't handle the fact that your child isn't as precious as you think s/he is. Trust me, my kids are going to end up in the exact same AP classes as yours in high school and will probably blow them out of the water.

You were the first to bring up kids saying my "little baby isnt gifted as I think he is." Well it's a good thing there are tests that independently confirmed giftedness for them. No sucking up needed.

It's very weird that you are comparing your kids future academic success to that of strangers. You sound very insecure about needing that annual principal placement for your future academic rockstar.

Yeah some people are really bothered by their kids not being selected for AAP. I enjoy listening to them complain and denigrate others kids.

If they stood back and took a second to breathe, they would understand that the kids are really where they need to be and should be happy the system allows this much flexibility for everyone’s learning needs.

DP. Except - it doesn’t. Plenty of kids are advanced in one/two subjects but not all. Pullouts are useless and mean nothing. The different “levels” are absurd. Those kids deserve to have *their* needs met just as much as the kids who are in full time AAP.

Instead, they are locked (and labeled) into one group with zero flexibility to move up. And don’t say, “Oh, they can reapply every year.” That’s an entire YEAR wasted.

Flexible groupings are the answer that would allow ALL students to reach their potential at any given time. Frankly, I find it disgraceful that FCPS chooses to divide and label two enormous groups of kids, as if they don’t overlap greatly. They do.

Flexible groupings can’t happen in most schools in FCPS because of the massive range of skills and abilities. 1993 called to remind you we are not in a 5% FARMs school district with strong parenting and discipline encouraged at home and school. Times have changed dramaticallly.

If AAP kids "deserve" to have a sequestered and uninterrupted learning environment, then so do all the very bright Gen Ed kids. Flexible groupings absolutely can - and should - be implemented. There only need to be three levels, maybe four. Advanced, grade level, and remedial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our base school is a center and I would fully support this! The kids who come from other schools are like outsiders, no connection to our neighborhood.

let me guess haycock...

No Lemon Road. The bussed in kids cause a lot of problems.

Seriously? They’re coming from Westgate and Shrevewood 🙄
What kind of “problems” do these kids pose?

If anything, I feel badly for the kids assigned to a center school that don’t qualify for AAP; truly an “us” vs “them” scenario.

Yes, it sucks to have a bright kid at a center but not in aap. Wish we had a choice. The kids see kids that they are smarter than getting to learn stuff that they don't get to learn and they don't understand why they don't get to. Man, and some of the aap families are jerks about how "gifted and talented" they are.

We specifically avoided looking at houses zoned to AAP Center schools for this reason - my kids were entering 2nd & 4th when we moved so I knew one was not going to be in AAP and I didn't want to subject her to what I knew from just being at an LLIV school was going to be so much cliquishness and pettiness from AAP girls.

DP. Unfortunately, our school became an AAP center only after we had moved to the neighborhood, so we had no choice but to stay. And yes, it was miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents never give up. First it was changing the name to AAP from G&T now this.

LOL!! I have a child in AAP and even I know it is not a Gifted & Talented program. If it was, the vast majority of kids would not qualify.

Anyway, it's my understanding that G&T was an entirely different program than AAP.

+1
Oh, it absolutely was. GT was a very tiny and extremely selective program for the few gifted kids who truly needed a separate learning environment. They changed the name to AAP when they opened it up and lowered the admissions standards. Weird that the PP thinks it was parents who made them change the name, but typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents never give up. First it was changing the name to AAP from G&T now this.

LOL!! I have a child in AAP and even I know it is not a Gifted & Talented program. If it was, the vast majority of kids would not qualify.

Anyway, it's my understanding that G&T was an entirely different program than AAP.

+1
Oh, it absolutely was. GT was a very tiny and extremely selective program for the few gifted kids who truly needed a separate learning environment. They changed the name to AAP when they opened it up and lowered the admissions standards. Weird that the PP thinks it was parents who made them change the name, but typical.

+1
When it was GT, an elementary school with "prestige" was likely to send 7 or 8 kids of a grade level to a center--at most. Now the same elementary school has over 50 (likely more) in an AAP center.
And, there were certainly no "twice exceptional" kids included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents never give up. First it was changing the name to AAP from G&T now this.

LOL!! I have a child in AAP and even I know it is not a Gifted & Talented program. If it was, the vast majority of kids would not qualify.

Anyway, it's my understanding that G&T was an entirely different program than AAP.

+1
Oh, it absolutely was. GT was a very tiny and extremely selective program for the few gifted kids who truly needed a separate learning environment. They changed the name to AAP when they opened it up and lowered the admissions standards. Weird that the PP thinks it was parents who made them change the name, but typical.

+1
When it was GT, an elementary school with "prestige" was likely to send 7 or 8 kids of a grade level to a center--at most. Now the same elementary school has over 50 (likely more) in an AAP center.
And, there were certainly no "twice exceptional" kids included.

+2
Now what they have are two huge groups of mostly very similar kids. If AAP and GE was a Venn diagram, the overlap in the middle would take up most of the diagram. It's only the far edges on both ends that actually need special supports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our base school is a center and I would fully support this! The kids who come from other schools are like outsiders, no connection to our neighborhood.

let me guess haycock...

No Lemon Road. The bussed in kids cause a lot of problems.

Seriously? They’re coming from Westgate and Shrevewood 🙄
What kind of “problems” do these kids pose?

If anything, I feel badly for the kids assigned to a center school that don’t qualify for AAP; truly an “us” vs “them” scenario.

Yes, it sucks to have a bright kid at a center but not in aap. Wish we had a choice. The kids see kids that they are smarter than getting to learn stuff that they don't get to learn and they don't understand why they don't get to. Man, and some of the aap families are jerks about how "gifted and talented" they are.

We specifically avoided looking at houses zoned to AAP Center schools for this reason - my kids were entering 2nd & 4th when we moved so I knew one was not going to be in AAP and I didn't want to subject her to what I knew from just being at an LLIV school was going to be so much cliquishness and pettiness from AAP girls.

DP. Unfortunately, our school became an AAP center only after we had moved to the neighborhood, so we had no choice but to stay. And yes, it was miserable.

A lot of this is presumed to be due to AAP but not necessarily. We are at a center school, my son is in AAP and at least between the athletic kids, it's a good mix of kids from AAP and gen ed. Now my kid had a best friend in the 2nd grade class, but moved on in third grade. I overheard the parent assuming it had to do with AAP snobbery, but really it was that that kid didn't participate in the soccer teams at recess! So they drifted apart due to different interests, not AAP status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our base school is a center and I would fully support this! The kids who come from other schools are like outsiders, no connection to our neighborhood.

let me guess haycock...

No Lemon Road. The bussed in kids cause a lot of problems.

Seriously? They’re coming from Westgate and Shrevewood 🙄
What kind of “problems” do these kids pose?

If anything, I feel badly for the kids assigned to a center school that don’t qualify for AAP; truly an “us” vs “them” scenario.

Yes, it sucks to have a bright kid at a center but not in aap. Wish we had a choice. The kids see kids that they are smarter than getting to learn stuff that they don't get to learn and they don't understand why they don't get to. Man, and some of the aap families are jerks about how "gifted and talented" they are.

We specifically avoided looking at houses zoned to AAP Center schools for this reason - my kids were entering 2nd & 4th when we moved so I knew one was not going to be in AAP and I didn't want to subject her to what I knew from just being at an LLIV school was going to be so much cliquishness and pettiness from AAP girls.

DP. Unfortunately, our school became an AAP center only after we had moved to the neighborhood, so we had no choice but to stay. And yes, it was miserable.

A lot of this is presumed to be due to AAP but not necessarily. We are at a center school, my son is in AAP and at least between the athletic kids, it's a good mix of kids from AAP and gen ed. Now my kid had a best friend in the 2nd grade class, but moved on in third grade. I overheard the parent assuming it had to do with AAP snobbery, but really it was that that kid didn't participate in the soccer teams at recess! So they drifted apart due to different interests, not AAP status.

Are you sure they were at recess at the same time? That is not a given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Centers are needed in schools where there aren’t enough level 4 kids to make a whole class.

Ok. But there are schools that have a large enough cohort. In my opinion, the centers should only be allowed if the cohort is too small. Why should we bus kids to a center when there is a large enough cohort with a designated class. I know our center pulls from two schools. Both of these schools including my own, has a designated AAP class (not cluster model) and routinely has enough kids (12-17 kids)

It's crazy that you are anti busing AAP kids but are just fine with a 1:12 teacher to student ratio only for AAP. Doubtful that general ed classes have that ratio.

Wow. No, mommy, principals place other smart students into the Level IV class to make sure it is a similar size to the other classrooms. Most of these kids would have gotten into AAP if they were in a Title I or lower SES school anyway, so it works out. Your little baby is not "gifted" as much as you want to think s/he is. Principal placed kids do just as well if not better than the kids who got into AAP because their 2nd grade teacher liked them.

Principal placed kids get there because parents suck up to them.
Second grade teachers of the student are not on the selection committee for full time AAP.
Principal placing kids who did not make the cut into classrooms are part of the reason people prefer centers. The peer group has all been selected by a neutral centralized committee rather than who sucks up to the principal.

AAP is an advanced program. It must be hard for you to accept that even with a lower standard than gifted your kid still didn't make the cut. It's not the end of the world.

You're absolutely right, it's not the end of the world, yet here you are getting suuuuper defensive and freaking out and insulting people that you 100% know are telling the truth but oh boy, you just can't handle the fact that your child isn't as precious as you think s/he is. Trust me, my kids are going to end up in the exact same AP classes as yours in high school and will probably blow them out of the water.

You were the first to bring up kids saying my "little baby isnt gifted as I think he is." Well it's a good thing there are tests that independently confirmed giftedness for them. No sucking up needed.

It's very weird that you are comparing your kids future academic success to that of strangers. You sound very insecure about needing that annual principal placement for your future academic rockstar.

Yeah some people are really bothered by their kids not being selected for AAP. I enjoy listening to them complain and denigrate others kids.

If they stood back and took a second to breathe, they would understand that the kids are really where they need to be and should be happy the system allows this much flexibility for everyone’s learning needs.

DP. Except - it doesn’t. Plenty of kids are advanced in one/two subjects but not all. Pullouts are useless and mean nothing. The different “levels” are absurd. Those kids deserve to have *their* needs met just as much as the kids who are in full time AAP.

Instead, they are locked (and labeled) into one group with zero flexibility to move up. And don’t say, “Oh, they can reapply every year.” That’s an entire YEAR wasted.

Flexible groupings are the answer that would allow ALL students to reach their potential at any given time. Frankly, I find it disgraceful that FCPS chooses to divide and label two enormous groups of kids, as if they don’t overlap greatly. They do.

Flexible groupings can’t happen in most schools in FCPS because of the massive range of skills and abilities. 1993 called to remind you we are not in a 5% FARMs school district with strong parenting and discipline encouraged at home and school. Times have changed dramaticallly.

If AAP kids "deserve" to have a sequestered and uninterrupted learning environment, then so do all the very bright Gen Ed kids. Flexible groupings absolutely can - and should - be implemented. There only need to be three levels, maybe four. Advanced, grade level, and remedial.

The problem is that remedial is mixed in with gen Ed and pulls the gen ed classroom environment down.
Gen Ed parents then get mad that AAP kids don't have to deal with those things and try to dismantle AAP out of spite.
Parents of Gen Ed kids should focus on having remedial kids removed rather than trying to make the AAP environment worse to make things "equal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents never give up. First it was changing the name to AAP from G&T now this.

LOL!! I have a child in AAP and even I know it is not a Gifted & Talented program. If it was, the vast majority of kids would not qualify.

Anyway, it's my understanding that G&T was an entirely different program than AAP.

+1
Oh, it absolutely was. GT was a very tiny and extremely selective program for the few gifted kids who truly needed a separate learning environment. They changed the name to AAP when they opened it up and lowered the admissions standards. Weird that the PP thinks it was parents who made them change the name, but typical.

+1
When it was GT, an elementary school with "prestige" was likely to send 7 or 8 kids of a grade level to a center--at most. Now the same elementary school has over 50 (likely more) in an AAP center.
And, there were certainly no "twice exceptional" kids included.

+2
Now what they have are two huge groups of mostly very similar kids. If AAP and GE was a Venn diagram, the overlap in the middle would take up most of the diagram. It's only the far edges on both ends that actually need special supports.

The way you spew delusion with confidence is funny.

On what basis are you making this Venn diagram? You're completely making up these statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents never give up. First it was changing the name to AAP from G&T now this.

LOL!! I have a child in AAP and even I know it is not a Gifted & Talented program. If it was, the vast majority of kids would not qualify.

Anyway, it's my understanding that G&T was an entirely different program than AAP.

+1
Oh, it absolutely was. GT was a very tiny and extremely selective program for the few gifted kids who truly needed a separate learning environment. They changed the name to AAP when they opened it up and lowered the admissions standards. Weird that the PP thinks it was parents who made them change the name, but typical.

It likely depends on the school.

But, I am betting there are plenty of GenEd kids who perform at a higher level than some in AAP.

And, the truly gifted are not getting what they need.

+1
When it was GT, an elementary school with "prestige" was likely to send 7 or 8 kids of a grade level to a center--at most. Now the same elementary school has over 50 (likely more) in an AAP center.
And, there were certainly no "twice exceptional" kids included.

+2
Now what they have are two huge groups of mostly very similar kids. If AAP and GE was a Venn diagram, the overlap in the middle would take up most of the diagram. It's only the far edges on both ends that actually need special supports.

The way you spew delusion with confidence is funny.

On what basis are you making this Venn diagram? You're completely making up these statements.

[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:Centers are needed in schools where there aren’t enough level 4 kids to make a whole class.

Ok. But there are schools that have a large enough cohort. In my opinion, the centers should only be allowed if the cohort is too small. Why should we bus kids to a center when there is a large enough cohort with a designated class. I know our center pulls from two schools. Both of these schools including my own, has a designated AAP class (not cluster model) and routinely has enough kids (12-17 kids)

It's crazy that you are anti busing AAP kids but are just fine with a 1:12 teacher to student ratio only for AAP. Doubtful that general ed classes have that ratio.

Wow. No, mommy, principals place other smart students into the Level IV class to make sure it is a similar size to the other classrooms. Most of these kids would have gotten into AAP if they were in a Title I or lower SES school anyway, so it works out. Your little baby is not "gifted" as much as you want to think s/he is. Principal placed kids do just as well if not better than the kids who got into AAP because their 2nd grade teacher liked them.

Principal placed kids get there because parents suck up to them.
Second grade teachers of the student are not on the selection committee for full time AAP.
Principal placing kids who did not make the cut into classrooms are part of the reason people prefer centers. The peer group has all been selected by a neutral centralized committee rather than who sucks up to the principal.

AAP is an advanced program. It must be hard for you to accept that even with a lower standard than gifted your kid still didn't make the cut. It's not the end of the world.

You're absolutely right, it's not the end of the world, yet here you are getting suuuuper defensive and freaking out and insulting people that you 100% know are telling the truth but oh boy, you just can't handle the fact that your child isn't as precious as you think s/he is. Trust me, my kids are going to end up in the exact same AP classes as yours in high school and will probably blow them out of the water.

You were the first to bring up kids saying my "little baby isnt gifted as I think he is." Well it's a good thing there are tests that independently confirmed giftedness for them. No sucking up needed.

It's very weird that you are comparing your kids future academic success to that of strangers. You sound very insecure about needing that annual principal placement for your future academic rockstar.

Yeah some people are really bothered by their kids not being selected for AAP. I enjoy listening to them complain and denigrate others kids.

If they stood back and took a second to breathe, they would understand that the kids are really where they need to be and should be happy the system allows this much flexibility for everyone’s learning needs.

DP. Except - it doesn’t. Plenty of kids are advanced in one/two subjects but not all. Pullouts are useless and mean nothing. The different “levels” are absurd. Those kids deserve to have *their* needs met just as much as the kids who are in full time AAP.

Instead, they are locked (and labeled) into one group with zero flexibility to move up. And don’t say, “Oh, they can reapply every year.” That’s an entire YEAR wasted.

Flexible groupings are the answer that would allow ALL students to reach their potential at any given time. Frankly, I find it disgraceful that FCPS chooses to divide and label two enormous groups of kids, as if they don’t overlap greatly. They do.

Flexible groupings can’t happen in most schools in FCPS because of the massive range of skills and abilities. 1993 called to remind you we are not in a 5% FARMs school district with strong parenting and discipline encouraged at home and school. Times have changed dramaticallly.

If AAP kids "deserve" to have a sequestered and uninterrupted learning environment, then so do all the very bright Gen Ed kids. Flexible groupings absolutely can - and should - be implemented. There only need to be three levels, maybe four. Advanced, grade level, and remedial.

The problem is that remedial is mixed in with gen Ed and pulls the gen ed classroom environment down.
Gen Ed parents then get mad that AAP kids don't have to deal with those things and try to dismantle AAP out of spite.
Parents of Gen Ed kids should focus on having remedial kids removed rather than trying to make the AAP environment worse to make things "equal."

I just want my kid to get their needs met. The level and curriculum my kid needs exists and is being taught to half the kids in their grade at the center school....but it is full so instead I am told by the teacher that my kid needs more but there is nothing they can do. That's a huge issue for the top of Gen Ed kids. If the classroom teachers instead were able to say your kid needs more and here is how we are providing it, I wouldn't care about the aap stuff at all.

[Anonymous]

I just want my kid to get their needs met. The level and curriculum my kid needs exists and is being taught to half the kids in their grade at the center school....but it is full so instead I am told by the teacher that my kid needs more but there is nothing they can do. That's a huge issue for the top of Gen Ed kids. If the classroom teachers instead were able to say your kid needs more and here is how we are providing it, I wouldn't care about the aap stuff at all.

A good teacher can meet your child's needs. Does she not make the effort?

[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:Centers are needed in schools where there aren’t enough level 4 kids to make a whole class.

Ok. But there are schools that have a large enough cohort. In my opinion, the centers should only be allowed if the cohort is too small. Why should we bus kids to a center when there is a large enough cohort with a designated class. I know our center pulls from two schools. Both of these schools including my own, has a designated AAP class (not cluster model) and routinely has enough kids (12-17 kids)

It's crazy that you are anti busing AAP kids but are just fine with a 1:12 teacher to student ratio only for AAP. Doubtful that general ed classes have that ratio.

Wow. No, mommy, principals place other smart students into the Level IV class to make sure it is a similar size to the other classrooms. Most of these kids would have gotten into AAP if they were in a Title I or lower SES school anyway, so it works out. Your little baby is not "gifted" as much as you want to think s/he is. Principal placed kids do just as well if not better than the kids who got into AAP because their 2nd grade teacher liked them.

Principal placed kids get there because parents suck up to them.
Second grade teachers of the student are not on the selection committee for full time AAP.
Principal placing kids who did not make the cut into classrooms are part of the reason people prefer centers. The peer group has all been selected by a neutral centralized committee rather than who sucks up to the principal.

AAP is an advanced program. It must be hard for you to accept that even with a lower standard than gifted your kid still didn't make the cut. It's not the end of the world.

You're absolutely right, it's not the end of the world, yet here you are getting suuuuper defensive and freaking out and insulting people that you 100% know are telling the truth but oh boy, you just can't handle the fact that your child isn't as precious as you think s/he is. Trust me, my kids are going to end up in the exact same AP classes as yours in high school and will probably blow them out of the water.

You were the first to bring up kids saying my "little baby isnt gifted as I think he is." Well it's a good thing there are tests that independently confirmed giftedness for them. No sucking up needed.

It's very weird that you are comparing your kids future academic success to that of strangers. You sound very insecure about needing that annual principal placement for your future academic rockstar.

Yeah some people are really bothered by their kids not being selected for AAP. I enjoy listening to them complain and denigrate others kids.

If they stood back and took a second to breathe, they would understand that the kids are really where they need to be and should be happy the system allows this much flexibility for everyone’s learning needs.

DP. Except - it doesn’t. Plenty of kids are advanced in one/two subjects but not all. Pullouts are useless and mean nothing. The different “levels” are absurd. Those kids deserve to have *their* needs met just as much as the kids who are in full time AAP.

Instead, they are locked (and labeled) into one group with zero flexibility to move up. And don’t say, “Oh, they can reapply every year.” That’s an entire YEAR wasted.

Flexible groupings are the answer that would allow ALL students to reach their potential at any given time. Frankly, I find it disgraceful that FCPS chooses to divide and label two enormous groups of kids, as if they don’t overlap greatly. They do.

Flexible groupings can’t happen in most schools in FCPS because of the massive range of skills and abilities. 1993 called to remind you we are not in a 5% FARMs school district with strong parenting and discipline encouraged at home and school. Times have changed dramaticallly.

If AAP kids "deserve" to have a sequestered and uninterrupted learning environment, then so do all the very bright Gen Ed kids. Flexible groupings absolutely can - and should - be implemented. There only need to be three levels, maybe four. Advanced, grade level, and remedial.

The problem is that remedial is mixed in with gen Ed and pulls the gen ed classroom environment down.
Gen Ed parents then get mad that AAP kids don't have to deal with those things and try to dismantle AAP out of spite.
Parents of Gen Ed kids should focus on having remedial kids removed rather than trying to make the AAP environment worse to make things "equal."

I just want my kid to get their needs met. The level and curriculum my kid needs exists and is being taught to half the kids in their grade at the center school....but it is full so instead I am told by the teacher that my kid needs more but there is nothing they can do. That's a huge issue for the top of Gen Ed kids. If the classroom teachers instead were able to say your kid needs more and here is how we are providing it, I wouldn't care about the aap stuff at all.

AAP doesn't have a cap. If your child didn't get in, they don't need it. The teacher isn't the selection committee.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Centers are needed in schools where there aren’t enough level 4 kids to make a whole class.

Ok. But there are schools that have a large enough cohort. In my opinion, the centers should only be allowed if the cohort is too small. Why should we bus kids to a center when there is a large enough cohort with a designated class. I know our center pulls from two schools. Both of these schools including my own, has a designated AAP class (not cluster model) and routinely has enough kids (12-17 kids)

It's crazy that you are anti busing AAP kids but are just fine with a 1:12 teacher to student ratio only for AAP. Doubtful that general ed classes have that ratio.

Wow. No, mommy, principals place other smart students into the Level IV class to make sure it is a similar size to the other classrooms. Most of these kids would have gotten into AAP if they were in a Title I or lower SES school anyway, so it works out. Your little baby is not "gifted" as much as you want to think s/he is. Principal placed kids do just as well if not better than the kids who got into AAP because their 2nd grade teacher liked them.

Principal placed kids get there because parents suck up to them.
Second grade teachers of the student are not on the selection committee for full time AAP.
Principal placing kids who did not make the cut into classrooms are part of the reason people prefer centers. The peer group has all been selected by a neutral centralized committee rather than who sucks up to the principal.

AAP is an advanced program. It must be hard for you to accept that even with a lower standard than gifted your kid still didn't make the cut. It's not the end of the world.

You're absolutely right, it's not the end of the world, yet here you are getting suuuuper defensive and freaking out and insulting people that you 100% know are telling the truth but oh boy, you just can't handle the fact that your child isn't as precious as you think s/he is. Trust me, my kids are going to end up in the exact same AP classes as yours in high school and will probably blow them out of the water.

You were the first to bring up kids saying my "little baby isnt gifted as I think he is." Well it's a good thing there are tests that independently confirmed giftedness for them. No sucking up needed.

It's very weird that you are comparing your kids future academic success to that of strangers. You sound very insecure about needing that annual principal placement for your future academic rockstar.

Yeah some people are really bothered by their kids not being selected for AAP. I enjoy listening to them complain and denigrate others kids.

If they stood back and took a second to breathe, they would understand that the kids are really where they need to be and should be happy the system allows this much flexibility for everyone’s learning needs.

DP. Except - it doesn’t. Plenty of kids are advanced in one/two subjects but not all. Pullouts are useless and mean nothing. The different “levels” are absurd. Those kids deserve to have *their* needs met just as much as the kids who are in full time AAP.

Instead, they are locked (and labeled) into one group with zero flexibility to move up. And don’t say, “Oh, they can reapply every year.” That’s an entire YEAR wasted.

Flexible groupings are the answer that would allow ALL students to reach their potential at any given time. Frankly, I find it disgraceful that FCPS chooses to divide and label two enormous groups of kids, as if they don’t overlap greatly. They do.

Flexible groupings can’t happen in most schools in FCPS because of the massive range of skills and abilities. 1993 called to remind you we are not in a 5% FARMs school district with strong parenting and discipline encouraged at home and school. Times have changed dramaticallly.

If AAP kids "deserve" to have a sequestered and uninterrupted learning environment, then so do all the very bright Gen Ed kids. Flexible groupings absolutely can - and should - be implemented. There only need to be three levels, maybe four. Advanced, grade level, and remedial.

The problem is that remedial is mixed in with gen Ed and pulls the gen ed classroom environment down.
Gen Ed parents then get mad that AAP kids don't have to deal with those things and try to dismantle AAP out of spite.
Parents of Gen Ed kids should focus on having remedial kids removed rather than trying to make the AAP environment worse to make things "equal."

I just want my kid to get their needs met. The level and curriculum my kid needs exists and is being taught to half the kids in their grade at the center school....but it is full so instead I am told by the teacher that my kid needs more but there is nothing they can do. That's a huge issue for the top of Gen Ed kids. If the classroom teachers instead were able to say your kid needs more and here is how we are providing it, I wouldn't care about the aap stuff at all.

AAP doesn't have a cap. If your child didn't get in, they don't need it. The teacher isn't the selection committee.

Very unprofessional teacher if she really told the mom that the child needed to be in AAP. I'm a little doubtful on that.