Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I believe you found the bottom of the BS barrel. Unless someone has a juicy anecdote about a so-called gifted kid who pulls out his phone to calculate a restaurant tip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Most good college now give no or very limited credit for APs-- or give "credit"-- but don't let APs count for required/ general classes. If the kid went to, say, UVA, and only got 3-6 hours of usable credit, why would they graduate in less than 4 years?

[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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

[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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

So are you talking about *all* GenEd kids or just a subset that wouldn't benefit from the AAP curriculum? Why not have it available to all who would? Why only differentiate for some?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

So are you talking about *all* GenEd kids or just a subset that wouldn't benefit from the AAP curriculum? Why not have it available to all who would? Why only differentiate for some?

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

So are you talking about *all* GenEd kids or just a subset that wouldn't benefit from the AAP curriculum? Why not have it available to all who would? Why only differentiate for some?

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

So you're saying that the *only* people who'd benefit from the AAP curriculum are those who are already in AAP? And everyone in Gen Ed is struggling?

[Anonymous]

I think if there were fewer centers and more LLIV most of these complaints would go away.

[Anonymous]

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.


So you're saying that the *only* people who'd benefit from the AAP curriculum are those who are already in AAP? And everyone in Gen Ed is struggling?

Why don't you stop asking questions for a second and try to answer the ones you're given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

So are you talking about *all* GenEd kids or just a subset that wouldn't benefit from the AAP curriculum? Why not have it available to all who would? Why only differentiate for some?

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

So you're saying that the *only* people who'd benefit from the AAP curriculum are those who are already in AAP? And everyone in Gen Ed is struggling?

I'm saying that FCPS already casts a very wide net. No, not everyone is Gen Ed is struggling, but some are. And some are going at just the right pace in Gen Ed and some are receiving Level 2 or 3 or local Level 4. My initial response was to a poster that said the AAP curriculum should be offered to all students. It is not appropriate for all students. If there are kids in Gen Ed that were missed, I think that is probably the exception and not the norm. There are 2 tests given to ALL students, one of them nonverbal, parent referral, teacher referral, appeal, etc - there is every opportunity to be considered.

There are those of you that just are anti AAP no matter what. Some claim that pushy parents force their kids in and then the kids "can't keep up", need tutors, are drowning, etc. Depending on the given day, the same anti-AAP posters will say the program is so watered down, it is not even really advanced. So which is it? AAP is so challenging that "bright, not gifted' kids can't keep up OR it is so easy that ALL kids could handle it?? You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.


So you're saying that the *only* people who'd benefit from the AAP curriculum are those who are already in AAP? And everyone in Gen Ed is struggling?

Why don't you stop asking questions for a second and try to answer the ones you're given.

Yes. Please tell us how you suggest identifying ALL the students that would benefit.

[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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

People who say this usually don't have a child in AAP. I have 2 kids in AAP and 1 who is not old enough yet. I listen to my younger child's parent's friends talk about little Max who is having a hard time in 1st grade or Larla who has issues in 2nd. Meanwhile my kid is bored to death. If you're child is having a hard time now and they introduce the AAP curriculum at the AAP pace (pace is something anti-AAP people ever seem to bring up. They always talk about bringing the curriculum to all of Gen Ed. but surprisingly never mention the pace) your kid wouldn't be able to handle it. Go on DCUM older kids and read about all the parents complaining about homework and how little Max can't write that much in one sitting or Larla is struggling with reading (all of which is perfectly normal as all children develop differently and at different paces and some kids have LDs) and then tell me AAP should be applied to all Gen. Ed. students. It's a load of BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think if there were fewer centers and more LLIV most of these complaints would go away.

How? The criteria to get into LLIV is the same as a center. You still have to test in and be chosen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

So are you talking about *all* GenEd kids or just a subset that wouldn't benefit from the AAP curriculum? Why not have it available to all who would? Why only differentiate for some?

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

So you're saying that the *only* people who'd benefit from the AAP curriculum are those who are already in AAP? And everyone in Gen Ed is struggling?

I'm saying that FCPS already casts a very wide net. No, not everyone is Gen Ed is struggling, but some are. And some are going at just the right pace in Gen Ed and some are receiving Level 2 or 3 or local Level 4. My initial response was to a poster that said the AAP curriculum should be offered to all students. It is not appropriate for all students. If there are kids in Gen Ed that were missed, I think that is probably the exception and not the norm. There are 2 tests given to ALL students, one of them nonverbal, parent referral, teacher referral, appeal, etc - there is every opportunity to be considered.

There are those of you that just are anti AAP no matter what. Some claim that pushy parents force their kids in and then the kids "can't keep up", need tutors, are drowning, etc. Depending on the given day, the same anti-AAP posters will say the program is so watered down, it is not even really advanced. So which is it? AAP is so challenging that "bright, not gifted' kids can't keep up OR it is so easy that ALL kids could handle it?? You can't have it both ways.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you disagree? You think kids that struggle with Gen Ed curriculum might need a more advanced curriculum? Interesting, would love to hear more.

So are you talking about *all* GenEd kids or just a subset that wouldn't benefit from the AAP curriculum? Why not have it available to all who would? Why only differentiate for some?

How do you suggest identifying "all who would" benefit? Currently, FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible (which is why so many complain that it is bloated) There is already a system in place that attempts to identify ALL that would benefit. It's not perfect, but errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

So you're saying that the *only* people who'd benefit from the AAP curriculum are those who are already in AAP? And everyone in Gen Ed is struggling?

I'm saying that FCPS already casts a very wide net. No, not everyone is Gen Ed is struggling, but some are. And some are going at just the right pace in Gen Ed and some are receiving Level 2 or 3 or local Level 4. My initial response was to a poster that said the AAP curriculum should be offered to all students. It is not appropriate for all students. If there are kids in Gen Ed that were missed, I think that is probably the exception and not the norm. There are 2 tests given to ALL students, one of them nonverbal, parent referral, teacher referral, appeal, etc - there is every opportunity to be considered.

There are those of you that just are anti AAP no matter what. Some claim that pushy parents force their kids in and then the kids "can't keep up", need tutors, are drowning, etc. Depending on the given day, the same anti-AAP posters will say the program is so watered down, it is not even really advanced. So which is it? AAP is so challenging that "bright, not gifted' kids can't keep up OR it is so easy that ALL kids could handle it?? You can't have it both ways.

I'm not anti-AAP at all, but was put-off by your comments. Condescending, presumptive, and hypocritical.

Also, there are many posters here. It's inaccurate to lump all all comments together.