Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

+100

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

+200

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP mom here.

If an aap kid need a tutor, he shouldn't be in aap.
If an honor kid needs a tutor, she shouldn't be in honors.

Why? If a child has a tutor to make sure s/he is living up to his/her potential and reinforcing material learned in school why is that wrong? I don't get why "AAP mom" would care what another person's child does during non school hours. I suppose you could answer that it is holding back your "gifted" child if the teacher needs to slow down, but, again, AAP is NOT a gifted program and there is no rule that AAP is limited to kids who don't need reinforcement at home.

Because this woman said so, that's why. Essentially the bar for admissions seems to be set at whatever level each poster's kid(s) are at. So, for example, if poster A's kid was in the pool with a 140 on the CogAT, that poster will say that the cut off should be a 140 on the CogAT and no other way for admission. If poster B's kid has low group test scores from the school but an FSIQ of 132, then that poster will say that is the cut off. This woman's kids don't need tutors and therefore her bar is set so that other kids shouldn't need tutors. I'm speaking as a mom who has both kids in AAP, none have ever used tutors, but think it is ridiculous how parents look down on kids who are, in their opinion, beneath their kids' abilities because it (fill in the answer of your choice):

a. Waters down the program
b. Dumbs down the curriculum
c. Makes their kid wait until your kid catches up
d. Has their kid essentially teaching the other kids in the class
e. Makes their kid Claim he is bored
f. Results in their kid learning nothing all year (aka it was a "wasted year")
g. Makes it no longer a gifted program, which is really what their kid NEEDS to "thrive" in school

I think it's hilarious that there's even a hierarchy within AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

+100

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

It is already, in several parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP mom here.

If an aap kid need a tutor, he shouldn't be in aap.
If an honor kid needs a tutor, she shouldn't be in honors.

Why? If a child has a tutor to make sure s/he is living up to his/her potential and reinforcing material learned in school why is that wrong? I don't get why "AAP mom" would care what another person's child does during non school hours. I suppose you could answer that it is holding back your "gifted" child if the teacher needs to slow down, but, again, AAP is NOT a gifted program and there is no rule that AAP is limited to kids who don't need reinforcement at home.

Because this woman said so, that's why. Essentially the bar for admissions seems to be set at whatever level each poster's kid(s) are at. So, for example, if poster A's kid was in the pool with a 140 on the CogAT, that poster will say that the cut off should be a 140 on the CogAT and no other way for admission. If poster B's kid has low group test scores from the school but an FSIQ of 132, then that poster will say that is the cut off. This woman's kids don't need tutors and therefore her bar is set so that other kids shouldn't need tutors. I'm speaking as a mom who has both kids in AAP, none have ever used tutors, but think it is ridiculous how parents look down on kids who are, in their opinion, beneath their kids' abilities because it (fill in the answer of your choice):

a. Waters down the program
b. Dumbs down the curriculum
c. Makes their kid wait until your kid catches up
d. Has their kid essentially teaching the other kids in the class
e. Makes their kid Claim he is bored
f. Results in their kid learning nothing all year (aka it was a "wasted year")
g. Makes it no longer a gifted program, which is really what their kid NEEDS to "thrive" in school

I think it's hilarious that there's even a hierarchy within AAP.

No, there's a hierarchy within some people's minds. Thinking your kid is better doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous]

My child has aged out of AAP; she is now in high school.

For her, the curriculum and the teachers provided her a way to grow intellectually, to explore the areas she is interested in in greater depth.

Last spring I was helping out had her ES, and I was talking to her fifth grade teacher, who (three years later) went on and on with how expressive my daughter was in writing -- how thorough. Sure, she could have done that in Gen ED, assuming the questions were open ended, and not worksheets (I can not question that).

What DD really liked was that less time was spent on review: the assumption was the children would get it. Now, she is taking all honors, and so far, her classes are all review, even Algebra II honors.

BTW, the other advantage is the mean girls (in her case) were not in AAP and she does not have to interact with the worst offender (in the 6th grade, this girl offered DD's best friend $5 / week to stop being DD's friend).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child has aged out of AAP; she is now in high school.

For her, the curriculum and the teachers provided her a way to grow intellectually, to explore the areas she is interested in in greater depth.

Last spring I was helping out had her ES, and I was talking to her fifth grade teacher, who (three years later) went on and on with how expressive my daughter was in writing -- how thorough. Sure, she could have done that in Gen ED, assuming the questions were open ended, and not worksheets (I can not question that).

What DD really liked was that less time was spent on review: the assumption was the children would get it. Now, she is taking all honors, and so far, her classes are all review, even Algebra II honors.

BTW, the other advantage is the mean girls (in her case) were not in AAP and she does not have to interact with the worst offender (in the 6th grade, this girl offered DD's best friend $5 / week to stop being DD's friend).

This is the complete opposite of my daughter's experience. She was in Gen Ed at a majority AAP school, and the clique of mean girls was in AAP. She had to deal with them in specials, at lunch, and at recess. My daughter was so glad to move onto middle school and out of that environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has aged out of AAP; she is now in high school.

For her, the curriculum and the teachers provided her a way to grow intellectually, to explore the areas she is interested in in greater depth.

Last spring I was helping out had her ES, and I was talking to her fifth grade teacher, who (three years later) went on and on with how expressive my daughter was in writing -- how thorough. Sure, she could have done that in Gen ED, assuming the questions were open ended, and not worksheets (I can not question that).

What DD really liked was that less time was spent on review: the assumption was the children would get it. Now, she is taking all honors, and so far, her classes are all review, even Algebra II honors.

BTW, the other advantage is the mean girls (in her case) were not in AAP and she does not have to interact with the worst offender (in the 6th grade, this girl offered DD's best friend $5 / week to stop being DD's friend).

This is the complete opposite of my daughter's experience. She was in Gen Ed at a majority AAP school, and the clique of mean girls was in AAP. She had to deal with them in specials, at lunch, and at recess. My daughter was so glad to move onto middle school and out of that environment.

Yours is the opposite of my daughter's experience. She was bullied at our base school by a group of "Mean Girls", and we started seeing a counselor as she developed a tic and had nightmares due to the experience. She went to the Center and she immediately found friends, and was so pleased to be away from the Mean Girls environment.

Personally I think it varies from school to school and for each child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

Nope. It is an incorrect assumption that ALL or even most Gen Ed students can handle the AAP pace. You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books? These kids may be brilliant in other areas, but an advanced, more rigorous academic curriculum is not what these kids need.

I always wonder how the anti AAP posters on DCUM claim that all the GE/AAP students are the same??? You have no idea what is in these kids files re: test scores, work samples, GBRS, etc. Yeah, they all look the same running around on the playground. A superior IQ isn't always going to obvious. Do you quiz Larlo's friends at playdates and made judgements about what academic levels are appropriate for them? Sure there is a big chunk on the border of qualifying, but the cut off has to be somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

Nope. It is an incorrect assumption that ALL or even most Gen Ed students can handle the AAP pace. You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books? These kids may be brilliant in other areas, but an advanced, more rigorous academic curriculum is not what these kids need.

I always wonder how the anti AAP posters on DCUM claim that all the GE/AAP students are the same??? You have no idea what is in these kids files re: test scores, work samples, GBRS, etc. Yeah, they all look the same running around on the playground. A superior IQ isn't always going to obvious. Do you quiz Larlo's friends at playdates and made judgements about what academic levels are appropriate for them? Sure there is a big chunk on the border of qualifying, but the cut off has to be somewhere.

That is very kind of you to speak for these children and it's fortunate that you know so much about them. They are really lucky to have you looking out for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

Nope. It is an incorrect assumption that ALL or even most Gen Ed students can handle the AAP pace. You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books? These kids may be brilliant in other areas, but an advanced, more rigorous academic curriculum is not what these kids need.

I always wonder how the anti AAP posters on DCUM claim that all the GE/AAP students are the same??? You have no idea what is in these kids files re: test scores, work samples, GBRS, etc. Yeah, they all look the same running around on the playground. A superior IQ isn't always going to obvious. Do you quiz Larlo's friends at playdates and made judgements about what academic levels are appropriate for them? Sure there is a big chunk on the border of qualifying, but the cut off has to be somewhere.

That is very kind of you to speak for these children and it's fortunate that you know so much about them. They are really lucky to have you looking out for them.

Exactly. PP scolds those of us who say (most) GE/AAP kids are the same, or at least similar enough to be in the same classes. But then she makes her sweeping judgment that a "rigorous academic curriculum" (AAP?) is not what those "other" kids need. Guess she knows all about "those" kids, but God forbid we suggest the same thing.

The cutoff should be far higher; then most kids, probably including PP's, wouldn't qualify for what's supposed to be (but is not) a "gifted" program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has aged out of AAP; she is now in high school.

For her, the curriculum and the teachers provided her a way to grow intellectually, to explore the areas she is interested in in greater depth.

Last spring I was helping out had her ES, and I was talking to her fifth grade teacher, who (three years later) went on and on with how expressive my daughter was in writing -- how thorough. Sure, she could have done that in Gen ED, assuming the questions were open ended, and not worksheets (I can not question that).

What DD really liked was that less time was spent on review: the assumption was the children would get it. Now, she is taking all honors, and so far, her classes are all review, even Algebra II honors.

BTW, the other advantage is the mean girls (in her case) were not in AAP and she does not have to interact with the worst offender (in the 6th grade, this girl offered DD's best friend $5 / week to stop being DD's friend).

This is the complete opposite of my daughter's experience. She was in Gen Ed at a majority AAP school, and the clique of mean girls was in AAP. She had to deal with them in specials, at lunch, and at recess. My daughter was so glad to move onto middle school and out of that environment.

Yours is the opposite of my daughter's experience. She was bullied at our base school by a group of "Mean Girls", and we started seeing a counselor as she developed a tic and had nightmares due to the experience. She went to the Center and she immediately found friends, and was so pleased to be away from the Mean Girls environment.

Personally I think it varies from school to school and for each child.

Same here- at a local level IV with a lot of AAP kids- they were a handful to put it mildly. Parents were superficial and clique-y. It became apparent early on that to "fit in" you had to either be friends with the cliques or what they determined to be ok. I was ok for a long time but had a chance to move my kid to the center. Now we are mud- but I don't care. That local level IV was unhealthy and to boot academically inferior to the center. My child is happy there (me too but my child is the most important part).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has aged out of AAP; she is now in high school.

For her, the curriculum and the teachers provided her a way to grow intellectually, to explore the areas she is interested in in greater depth.

Last spring I was helping out had her ES, and I was talking to her fifth grade teacher, who (three years later) went on and on with how expressive my daughter was in writing -- how thorough. Sure, she could have done that in Gen ED, assuming the questions were open ended, and not worksheets (I can not question that).

What DD really liked was that less time was spent on review: the assumption was the children would get it. Now, she is taking all honors, and so far, her classes are all review, even Algebra II honors.

BTW, the other advantage is the mean girls (in her case) were not in AAP and she does not have to interact with the worst offender (in the 6th grade, this girl offered DD's best friend $5 / week to stop being DD's friend).

This is the complete opposite of my daughter's experience. She was in Gen Ed at a majority AAP school, and the clique of mean girls was in AAP. She had to deal with them in specials, at lunch, and at recess. My daughter was so glad to move onto middle school and out of that environment.

Yours is the opposite of my daughter's experience. She was bullied at our base school by a group of "Mean Girls", and we started seeing a counselor as she developed a tic and had nightmares due to the experience. She went to the Center and she immediately found friends, and was so pleased to be away from the Mean Girls environment.

Personally I think it varies from school to school and for each child.

Mean Girls are everywhere. It's silly to suggest there are more in GenEd than AAP or vice versa, and their existence is pretty much irrelevant to an overall ass same thing of AAP's merits.

[Anonymous]

Son's friend was a national merit semifinalist who entered a prestigious state university with 45 AP credits. He had to drop micro biology and it took him four years to graduate, same as my "not a genius" son.
There's a lot of BS out there about so called "gifted" kids with stage parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has aged out of AAP; she is now in high school.

For her, the curriculum and the teachers provided her a way to grow intellectually, to explore the areas she is interested in in greater depth.

Last spring I was helping out had her ES, and I was talking to her fifth grade teacher, who (three years later) went on and on with how expressive my daughter was in writing -- how thorough. Sure, she could have done that in Gen ED, assuming the questions were open ended, and not worksheets (I can not question that).

What DD really liked was that less time was spent on review: the assumption was the children would get it. Now, she is taking all honors, and so far, her classes are all review, even Algebra II honors.

BTW, the other advantage is the mean girls (in her case) were not in AAP and she does not have to interact with the worst offender (in the 6th grade, this girl offered DD's best friend $5 / week to stop being DD's friend).

This is the complete opposite of my daughter's experience. She was in Gen Ed at a majority AAP school, and the clique of mean girls was in AAP. She had to deal with them in specials, at lunch, and at recess. My daughter was so glad to move onto middle school and out of that environment.

Yours is the opposite of my daughter's experience. She was bullied at our base school by a group of "Mean Girls", and we started seeing a counselor as she developed a tic and had nightmares due to the experience. She went to the Center and she immediately found friends, and was so pleased to be away from the Mean Girls environment.

Personally I think it varies from school to school and for each child.

Mean Girls are everywhere. It's silly to suggest there are more in GenEd than AAP or vice versa, and their existence is pretty much irrelevant to an overall ass same thing of AAP's merits.

When Mean Girls are so mean that my kid is seeing a psychiatrist, I am pulling my kid out of the school, AAP or no AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

Nope. It is an incorrect assumption that ALL or even most Gen Ed students can handle the AAP pace. You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books? These kids may be brilliant in other areas, but an advanced, more rigorous academic curriculum is not what these kids need.

I always wonder how the anti AAP posters on DCUM claim that all the GE/AAP students are the same??? You have no idea what is in these kids files re: test scores, work samples, GBRS, etc. Yeah, they all look the same running around on the playground. A superior IQ isn't always going to obvious. Do you quiz Larlo's friends at playdates and made judgements about what academic levels are appropriate for them? Sure there is a big chunk on the border of qualifying, but the cut off has to be somewhere.

That is very kind of you to speak for these children and it's fortunate that you know so much about them. They are really lucky to have you looking out for them.

Exactly. PP scolds those of us who say (most) GE/AAP kids are the same, or at least similar enough to be in the same classes. But then she makes her sweeping judgment that a "rigorous academic curriculum" (AAP?) is not what those "other" kids need. Guess she knows all about "those" kids, but God forbid we suggest the same thing.

The cutoff should be far higher; then most kids, probably including PP's, wouldn't qualify for what's supposed to be (but is not) a "gifted" program.

I think the pp was referring to the kids struggling with math facts and reading, not all general ed kids.