Too many in AAP and the new F.A.T.

[Anonymous]

Now that FCPS has finally come up with their own test for AAP entrance , perhaps they should also test every year to see if kids should remain in AAP - a test for which kids cannot be prepped - ie not the SOL's. I know of so many who are not in AAP who are as bright as the ones that I know who are in AAP - the difference is parental awareness and/or perseverance. The kids who get into AAP and are at the bottom of the 15-25% curve don't fail because their parents make sure they don't. I wish FCPS would really decide what their goal is for AAP and stick with it. If 25% of our kids are getting into AAP, is the program really that advanced? It's definitely not "gifted".

[Anonymous]

Nice way to spend the FCPS budget - on yet another meaningless test.

@@

[Anonymous]

Most kids have the necessary cognitive ability to handle the AAP curriculum, if they and/or their parents get their priorities straight. I say raise the bar and make AAP the standard. Kids who really are not able to make it in such a program can be placed in a less rigorous one.

I have two kids who went through the so called "gifted" program and ended up at TJ. Frankly, I don't see much difference, in terms of mental abilities, between my kids and their "gifted" peers and most of the so called "general ed" kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most kids have the necessary cognitive ability to handle the AAP curriculum, if they and/or their parents get their priorities straight. I say raise the bar and make AAP the standard. Kids who really are not able to make it in such a program can be placed in a less rigorous one.

I have two kids who went through the so called "gifted" program and ended up at TJ. Frankly, I don't see much difference, in terms of mental abilities, between my kids and their "gifted" peers and most of the so called "general ed" kids.

Can we get an FB-like, "Like" button on DCUM. Raise the bar!

[Anonymous]

Why are so many parents obsessed with an AAP curriculum being implemented in Gen Ed? FCPS already pushes beyond most school district's expectations. There are many average learners who are already challenged by the standard curriculum. They are important, well rounded smart kids too but pushing them beyond their level just to say they are getting the same curriculum isn't fair to them.
I have an A/B child in high school who has gotten honor roll throughout DC's school career. But DC works for it, it doesn't come easy, just a great work ethic and a great kid. DC would not fare well in an advanced program. In fact I think it would be potentially detrimental emotionally.
If you want your kids to have more enrichment take that responsibility on yourself. Stop expecting your public school to provide everything. Teach your child another language, go to museums, expose them to other cultures, research, money management and travel to places other than Disneyland, your child will be much better served.

Every time I read this forum it seems that parents are obsessed with which program acronym to attach to their child. Knowledge is so much bigger than that, we should be focused on broadening our children's horizon's, teaching tolerance and kindness. That's what so many are lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many parents obsessed with an AAP curriculum being implemented in Gen Ed? FCPS already pushes beyond most school district's expectations. There are many average learners who are already challenged by the standard curriculum. They are important, well rounded smart kids too but pushing them beyond their level just to say they are getting the same curriculum isn't fair to them.
I have an A/B child in high school who has gotten honor roll throughout DC's school career. But DC works for it, it doesn't come easy, just a great work ethic and a great kid. DC would not fare well in an advanced program. In fact I think it would be potentially detrimental emotionally.
If you want your kids to have more enrichment take that responsibility on yourself. Stop expecting your public school to provide everything. Teach your child another language, go to museums, expose them to other cultures, research, money management and travel to places other than Disneyland, your child will be much better served.

Every time I read this forum it seems that parents are obsessed with which program acronym to attach to their child. Knowledge is so much bigger than that, we should be focused on broadening our children's horizon's, teaching tolerance and kindness. That's what so many are lacking.

Raising the bar on education (in public or private schools) has nothing to do with being obsessed with acronyms. It really has to do with us as a society wanting and helping the next generation reach its full potential. The idea that (public) schools need to have a lower standard for learning for students, and parents should be solely responsible for the advancement of their own kids' education, although may work for some families, does not effectively address the problem at the societal level. Let's just forget about acronyms, is it okay with you if schools make available to every student (who wants it) a rigorous and challenging curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many parents obsessed with an AAP curriculum being implemented in Gen Ed? FCPS already pushes beyond most school district's expectations. There are many average learners who are already challenged by the standard curriculum. They are important, well rounded smart kids too but pushing them beyond their level just to say they are getting the same curriculum isn't fair to them.
I have an A/B child in high school who has gotten honor roll throughout DC's school career. But DC works for it, it doesn't come easy, just a great work ethic and a great kid. DC would not fare well in an advanced program. In fact I think it would be potentially detrimental emotionally.
If you want your kids to have more enrichment take that responsibility on yourself. Stop expecting your public school to provide everything. Teach your child another language, go to museums, expose them to other cultures, research, money management and travel to places other than Disneyland, your child will be much better served.

Every time I read this forum it seems that parents are obsessed with which program acronym to attach to their child. Knowledge is so much bigger than that, we should be focused on broadening our children's horizon's, teaching tolerance and kindness. That's what so many are lacking.

Raising the bar on education (in public or private schools) has nothing to do with being obsessed with acronyms. It really has to do with us as a society wanting and helping the next generation reach its full potential. The idea that (public) schools need to have a lower standard for learning for students, and parents should be solely responsible for the advancement of their own kids' education, although may work for some families, does not effectively address the problem at the societal level. Let's just forget about acronyms, is it okay with you if schools make available to every student (who wants it) a rigorous and challenging curriculum?

No, it's not okay because it won't be the kids, it will be the pushy parents. My youngest is in AAP and there are several socially challenged students with label obsessed parents in the class. The parents are totally open about pushing their child's referrals for AAP through and prepping for tests.

Not every kid needs a curriculum beyond the standard. I have two very different students, one that works hard for honor roll in Gen Ed, the other, who has an IQ of 146 (not my idea to get WISC-IV, previous school district provided it) who puts forth minimal effort and gets straight A's. If more average students were in my youngest child's class I think DC would be less served and more bored than ever.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just think it opens the flood gates to offer advanced studies at an early age to every child and parent who wants it. If a child consistently exhibits the need for more challenging work then of course they should be entitled to it. But if that child got there by way of prep classes and hours long sessions going over math facts with mommy then they are just going to drag down the rest of the group. We see it all the time in older students who sign up for all AP classes and they need tutoring, counseling and retesting to pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many parents obsessed with an AAP curriculum being implemented in Gen Ed? FCPS already pushes beyond most school district's expectations. There are many average learners who are already challenged by the standard curriculum. They are important, well rounded smart kids too but pushing them beyond their level just to say they are getting the same curriculum isn't fair to them.
I have an A/B child in high school who has gotten honor roll throughout DC's school career. But DC works for it, it doesn't come easy, just a great work ethic and a great kid. DC would not fare well in an advanced program. In fact I think it would be potentially detrimental emotionally.
If you want your kids to have more enrichment take that responsibility on yourself. Stop expecting your public school to provide everything. Teach your child another language, go to museums, expose them to other cultures, research, money management and travel to places other than Disneyland, your child will be much better served.

Every time I read this forum it seems that parents are obsessed with which program acronym to attach to their child. Knowledge is so much bigger than that, we should be focused on broadening our children's horizon's, teaching tolerance and kindness. That's what so many are lacking.

LOL. Are you the same poster with Disney hatred on the "missing days of school" thread? Give it a rest. What do you care where people go for family fun trips?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many parents obsessed with an AAP curriculum being implemented in Gen Ed? FCPS already pushes beyond most school district's expectations. There are many average learners who are already challenged by the standard curriculum. They are important, well rounded smart kids too but pushing them beyond their level just to say they are getting the same curriculum isn't fair to them.
I have an A/B child in high school who has gotten honor roll throughout DC's school career. But DC works for it, it doesn't come easy, just a great work ethic and a great kid. DC would not fare well in an advanced program. In fact I think it would be potentially detrimental emotionally.
If you want your kids to have more enrichment take that responsibility on yourself. Stop expecting your public school to provide everything. Teach your child another language, go to museums, expose them to other cultures, research, money management and travel to places other than Disneyland, your child will be much better served.

Every time I read this forum it seems that parents are obsessed with which program acronym to attach to their child. Knowledge is so much bigger than that, we should be focused on broadening our children's horizon's, teaching tolerance and kindness. That's what so many are lacking.

LOL. Are you the same poster with Disney hatred on the "missing days of school" thread? Give it a rest. What do you care where people go for family fun trips?

I haven't seen that thread but I'll take a look. Sorry to bring your world to a grinding halt but I guess there are two people who realize that Disney is a great place to visit, I've actually been several times (imagine that), but it's not worth much in the way of cultural or educational value. I hope you're not arguing otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many parents obsessed with an AAP curriculum being implemented in Gen Ed? FCPS already pushes beyond most school district's expectations. There are many average learners who are already challenged by the standard curriculum. They are important, well rounded smart kids too but pushing them beyond their level just to say they are getting the same curriculum isn't fair to them.
I have an A/B child in high school who has gotten honor roll throughout DC's school career. But DC works for it, it doesn't come easy, just a great work ethic and a great kid. DC would not fare well in an advanced program. In fact I think it would be potentially detrimental emotionally.
If you want your kids to have more enrichment take that responsibility on yourself. Stop expecting your public school to provide everything. Teach your child another language, go to museums, expose them to other cultures, research, money management and travel to places other than Disneyland, your child will be much better served.

Every time I read this forum it seems that parents are obsessed with which program acronym to attach to their child. Knowledge is so much bigger than that, we should be focused on broadening our children's horizon's, teaching tolerance and kindness. That's what so many are lacking.

LOL. Are you the same poster with Disney hatred on the "missing days of school" thread? Give it a rest. What do you care where people go for family fun trips?

the comments were not so much about where people go but when they go. But you knew that. (I think?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most kids have the necessary cognitive ability to handle the AAP curriculum, if they and/or their parents get their priorities straight. I say raise the bar and make AAP the standard. Kids who really are not able to make it in such a program can be placed in a less rigorous one.

I have two kids who went through the so called "gifted" program and ended up at TJ. Frankly, I don't see much difference, in terms of mental abilities, between my kids and their "gifted" peers and most of the so called "general ed" kids.

Can we get an FB-like, "Like" button on DCUM. Raise the bar!

100% agree, raise the bar!!!

[Anonymous]

In many countries parents get upset if too many children are testing out at a high level thinking the class is too easy. In the US everyone with an average, bright, and gifted child thinks their child should get an A. It wouldn't be a problem in general ed if the US could see that not everyone is going to get an A or even pass and that's ok. Unfortunately they've dumbed down the curriculum so there are rarely any failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not every kid needs a curriculum beyond the standard. I have two very different students, one that works hard for honor roll in Gen Ed, the other, who has an IQ of 146 (not my idea to get WISC-IV, previous school district provided it) who puts forth minimal effort and gets straight A's. If more average students were in my youngest child's class I think DC would be less served and more bored than ever.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just think it opens the flood gates to offer advanced studies at an early age to every child and parent who wants it. If a child consistently exhibits the need for more challenging work then of course they should be entitled to it. But if that child got there by way of prep classes and hours long sessions going over math facts with mommy then they are just going to drag down the rest of the group. We see it all the time in older students who sign up for all AP classes and they need tutoring, counseling and retesting to pass.

I see your point. But, I am less worried about opening the flood gate than guarding the gate so tight that only a small fraction of qualified kids could get access to a rewarding educational experience.

I do think hard work is a central pillar of academic success. Kids who test well, can solve elementary math problems or puzzles quickly and effortlessly in the early years do not necessarily succeed academically in later years. As an educator, I am not prepared to differentiate between those who have to work hard to get an "A" in a class vs those who get the same grade with less effort, especially in elementary and middle school years. My experience tells me that students who work hard to grasp scientific concepts eventually develop a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the concepts than their "sharper" but less committed peers. It seems to me that we use the school as a sieve for identifying and separating "extra-ordinary" from "ordinary" kids. We then offer the "gifted" group ample opportunities to succeed but leave the "ordinary" kids kind of behind. Then, a generation later we start complaining about a wide-spread lack of technical competency in the workforce, and lament the demise of our global competitiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not every kid needs a curriculum beyond the standard. I have two very different students, one that works hard for honor roll in Gen Ed, the other, who has an IQ of 146 (not my idea to get WISC-IV, previous school district provided it) who puts forth minimal effort and gets straight A's. If more average students were in my youngest child's class I think DC would be less served and more bored than ever.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just think it opens the flood gates to offer advanced studies at an early age to every child and parent who wants it. If a child consistently exhibits the need for more challenging work then of course they should be entitled to it. But if that child got there by way of prep classes and hours long sessions going over math facts with mommy then they are just going to drag down the rest of the group. We see it all the time in older students who sign up for all AP classes and they need tutoring, counseling and retesting to pass.

I see your point. But, I am less worried about opening the flood gate than guarding the gate so tight that only a small fraction of qualified kids could get access to a rewarding educational experience.

I do think hard work is a central pillar of academic success. Kids who test well, can solve elementary math problems or puzzles quickly and effortlessly in the early years do not necessarily succeed academically in later years. As an educator, I am not prepared to differentiate between those who have to work hard to get an "A" in a class vs those who get the same grade with less effort, especially in elementary and middle school years. My experience tells me that students who work hard to grasp scientific concepts eventually develop a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the concepts than their "sharper" but less committed peers. It seems to me that we use the school as a sieve for identifying and separating "extra-ordinary" from "ordinary" kids. We then offer the "gifted" group ample opportunities to succeed but leave the "ordinary" kids kind of behind. Then, a generation later we start complaining about a wide-spread lack of technical competency in the workforce, and lament the demise of our global competitiveness.

This is really a lot of nonsense. First, kids in gen. Ed. aren't exactly "left behind." That's just baseless kvetching. The curricula in gen. Ed. and AAP are about the same. The latter is a bit more accelerated in math, and some projects a little more in depth. (assuming of course the kids do the projects themselves, rahther than their parents, which is a big prblem).

Second, this view is at odds with the many, many posts I've read on DCUM and elsewhere that after students get out of school and into real life, the kids who were in Gen. Ed. will do just as well if not better than the AAP kids. They will excel in business, law, filmamking - whatever they want to go into. Go to a 10 or 20 yr. reunion and see who is successful and see if you find any comnnection between what program they were in nin elementary school. Just nonsense really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not every kid needs a curriculum beyond the standard. I have two very different students, one that works hard for honor roll in Gen Ed, the other, who has an IQ of 146 (not my idea to get WISC-IV, previous school district provided it) who puts forth minimal effort and gets straight A's. If more average students were in my youngest child's class I think DC would be less served and more bored than ever.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just think it opens the flood gates to offer advanced studies at an early age to every child and parent who wants it. If a child consistently exhibits the need for more challenging work then of course they should be entitled to it. But if that child got there by way of prep classes and hours long sessions going over math facts with mommy then they are just going to drag down the rest of the group. We see it all the time in older students who sign up for all AP classes and they need tutoring, counseling and retesting to pass.

I see your point. But, I am less worried about opening the flood gate than guarding the gate so tight that only a small fraction of qualified kids could get access to a rewarding educational experience.

I do think hard work is a central pillar of academic success. Kids who test well, can solve elementary math problems or puzzles quickly and effortlessly in the early years do not necessarily succeed academically in later years. As an educator, I am not prepared to differentiate between those who have to work hard to get an "A" in a class vs those who get the same grade with less effort, especially in elementary and middle school years. My experience tells me that students who work hard to grasp scientific concepts eventually develop a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the concepts than their "sharper" but less committed peers. It seems to me that we use the school as a sieve for identifying and separating "extra-ordinary" from "ordinary" kids. We then offer the "gifted" group ample opportunities to succeed but leave the "ordinary" kids kind of behind. Then, a generation later we start complaining about a wide-spread lack of technical competency in the workforce, and lament the demise of our global competitiveness.

This is really a lot of nonsense. First, kids in gen. Ed. aren't exactly "left behind." That's just baseless kvetching. The curricula in gen. Ed. and AAP are about the same. The latter is a bit more accelerated in math, and some projects a little more in depth. (assuming of course the kids do the projects themselves, rahther than their parents, which is a big prblem).

Second, this view is at odds with the many, many posts I've read on DCUM and elsewhere that after students get out of school and into real life, the kids who were in Gen. Ed. will do just as well if not better than the AAP kids. They will excel in business, law, filmamking - whatever they want to go into. Go to a 10 or 20 yr. reunion and see who is successful and see if you find any comnnection between what program they were in nin elementary school. Just nonsense really.

If there is such little difference in the curriculum, what would the problem be with offering to everyone?