AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[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.

+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.

Sure, whatever you have to tell yourself to cope.

Lol, my kids were in AAP and PP is totally correct. There is plenty of overlap.

[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.

Where is the flexibility for the remedial children? Where are their centers? Why do they have to be lumped in with all of the normal children while your special snowflake gets advanced math and extra special worksheets in AAP?

Blame the "push in" remedial parents for that. AAP parents have achieved what you want for your kids, and rather than do something to help your own all you do is insult the ones who succeeded. Try advocating to fix your problem instead of being jealous of others who have addressed theirs.

As if those families have any power. Nice scapegoat you’ve manufactured there.

[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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

[Anonymous]

I knew two families who lobbied to get their GenEd kid into GT and keep their severely LD kid in GenEd. Two different parts of Fairfax County schools.

I don't think they saw the irony of that. And, I sure didn't mention it as they had a lot on their plates. This was some years ago. I think both of the children who were special ed ended up in self-contained in high school. One of the special ed kids was in DS's class. She likely would have benefited from self contained earlier. But, I might have done the same fight, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

And anxiety, which is rampant in GT kids. Any 504 or IEP counts as 2E, even if it's a physical disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

And anxiety, which is rampant in GT kids. Any 504 or IEP counts as 2E, even if it's a physical disability.

Wonder how much anxiety they would have in a GenEd class if family didn't put such pressure on them?

[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.

+1000

The parents who moan and groan are doing a greater disservice to their kids than anything else.

Um, you realize this is a parents' discussion board and no one is "moaning and groaning" to their own kids, right? This is a place to vent. I'm sure you come here and vent about issues that are important to you. And you and the PP you're agreeing with epitomize smug condescension in your erroneous claim that "the kids are really where they need to be and (we) should be happy the system allows this much flexibility for everyone's learning needs." Sorry, no. The "system" is a failure because it sees fit to label kids at the age of seven and lock them into two separate groups with ZERO flexibility. Applying every year isn't "flexible." You've wasted an entire year in the meantime.

Flexible groupings are actually flexible because kids can cycle into and out of the appropriate group - per subject - FOR THEM, at any time.

Actually, I do think plenty of parents are feeding these ideas of exclusion to their kids, filling their heads with ideas that the AAP kids are no longer their friends. It's toxic, and my experience is that it's more parent-driven than anything.

Your child's year isn't "wasted" unless you let it be while you wallow in your own hatred over children who have something your kids don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

And anxiety, which is rampant in GT kids. Any 504 or IEP counts as 2E, even if it's a physical disability.

Wonder how much anxiety they would have in a GenEd class if family didn't put such pressure on them?

Or if the parents of neurotypical kids who think our kids aren't deserving of AAP would stop being jerks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

And anxiety, which is rampant in GT kids. Any 504 or IEP counts as 2E, even if it's a physical disability.

Wonder how much anxiety they would have in a GenEd class if family didn't put such pressure on them?

NP: Maybe. But also the anxiety often manifests socially in gifted kids who don't have a peer group due to asynchronous development, something that centers attempt to combat. It's often not academic in nature.

[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.

Where is the flexibility for the remedial children? Where are their centers? Why do they have to be lumped in with all of the normal children while your special snowflake gets advanced math and extra special worksheets in AAP?

A good number of people would love to have tracked classes so that kids are taught at the level that they need. I would love there to be remedial classes. I think they should be smaller classes, 15 kids, supported by reading and math specialists. That would give the teacher time to focus on helping the kids learn the skills they need and move into the regular track class.

I would like to have a class for kids who are on grade level and a class for kids who are ahead of grade level. These classes could be a bit bigger because the teachers have fewer groupings to worry about and are focused on teaching material at grade level or ahead of grade level. The kids are on track and should need less support then remedial kids, so the classes can be bigger.

That is never going to happen because people will flip out when they see remedial classes that are full of kids who some from families with little to know academic support at home, mainly poor families. In our area that will mean mainly Black kids who come from generational poverty and Hispanic kids who come from immigrant families. Both groups tend not to have a history of strong academics. Toss in that the class of advanced learners is likely to be mainly Asian families, where there is a culture that focuses on education as a tool for advancement through better jobs and positions, and White kids in the grade level and advanced group and, well, we can't have that.

The argument for the push in classes is that it is better for the kids who are behind so that they don't feel lesser and so that they are motivated to catch their peers. Never mind that it hasn't actually worked and kids are falling further behind, we have classes that include everybody and that is awesome.

We are asking schools to find a way to educate kids who go home to empty houses because parents are working with no books, because the parents don't read or can't read, with no support to practice skills they are learning at school. And when that doesn't work, because the kids don't have support at home, we tell teachers they can't give hoework, because some kids don't have parents who can help them so homework isn't fair. And now all the kids are hurt, the kids who don't have support but who are able to it on their own, the kids with parents who can help them if they need help, because there is a population that doesn't have help at home.

The answer shouldn't be hurt the kids who have a program because they are ahead and can participate in the program. The answer should be finding a way to work with all the kids while understanding that there are some kids who we can't help. Try and find a way to help those kids but don't hurt the rest of the kids. Right now it feels like we are slowing down 60% of the kids to benefit 15% of the kids and those 15% are not benefiting. The ones who are getting something out of school are the 15%-20% in AAP who are allowed to learn at a regular, slightly advanced pace.

Assuming you mean the 15% not benefitting is the special needs/ESOL population being mainstreamed, I 100% agree. But to your last point, in my experience, there's very little difference between AAP centers and Gen Ed at the elementary level outside of the math pace. My child's base school peers actually did far more writing [with Benchmark] than she did in her AAP class this year - this could be a teacher quality issue, or a function of the number of 2e students in my child's class who were more or less incapable of sitting down and putting pencil to paper/typing out a coherent thought (one classmate gets multiple DAYS to complete a single iReady assessment because of attentiveness issues).

RE: teacher quality - once SOLs were over, my child's teacher told the class that she had "nothing more to teach them", which I find abhorrent - especially with a cohort of ostensibly bright, capable children, isn't there always more to be taught?!

[Anonymous]

I agree that there is not that much difference between Gen Ed and AAP other than math, I type that a lot. We deferred AAP in favor of LI. Our school had a separate Advanced Math class that started in 5th grade that was great. DS joined the AAP program in MS and had no problem walking into the classes and getting As. Math gives you the one grade jump and then the opportunity for a two grade jump if you take Algebra 1H in 7th grade. I was worried that DS might struggle in the other classes since he was not in a AAP class but nope. AAP just isn't that deep.

Most people want AAP for the guarentee of the Advanced Math, it removes the possibility of your kid being dropped from the Advanced Math group.

I think Centers for the AAP kids out of Title 1 schools make sense. There are fewer kids who are advanced and pooling that population to give that group of kids a legit cohort makes sense.

We do have friends at our LI program that have commented that the Center made a world of difference for their LIV kids in Gen Ed because the Gen Ed classes were smaller and there was a smaller cohort of kids who were ahead in the course material. The LI classes were maxed and half of the LI kids were in Advanced Math. There were 5 kids in Advanced Math in the Gen Ed grouping. Being able to move to the Center made a huge difference for the kids ahead in the Gen Ed program. We would have had a strong LLIV class if you combined the LI and Gen Ed kids in the school but that is not how the school worked.

I don't think Centers are needed at most other schools. Any school that has more than 10 kids selected for AAP has enough kids to make a LLIV class. You can add in the kids in LIII and the Advanced Math kids and fill a class pretty easily. If being in the advanced group is that important to parents, they can decide if they are ok with the kid being in the same class for 4 years.

I don't know how much the bus savings would be, but I am guessing it is enough to pay for some of the monitors and aids that are beign cut because of the budget shortfall. Dropping MS Centers is an easy call to make, you should have enough AAP kids feeding into each of the MS that they can run their own AAP classes. Again, the savings on bus runs might not be massive but I would bet it is a few monitor and aid positions. We need those positions in the ES to give Teachers the time to plan and grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

Right. The learning disability aspects of ADHD and autism that get accommodated with an IEP.

2E doesn’t mean poor social skills.


The kids with

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

Have you ever been around actual GT kids? It would be mostly the "2e" kids - exceptionally bright but with asynchronous social development.

2E means gifted plus learning disability, not just quirky kid with poor social skills.

ADHD and Autism are counted in 2e - there's a huge overlap between both and GT students.

And anxiety, which is rampant in GT kids. Any 504 or IEP counts as 2E, even if it's a physical disability.

Wonder how much anxiety they would have in a GenEd class if family didn't put such pressure on them?

Sounds like we should shut down AAP if people DGAF about academic potential anymore.

[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."

AAP Center Teacher here. I have several friends who teach at a LL4. The AAP curriculum is not what it was even last year. Every kid is doing Benchmark. The MAJORITY of schools teach Adv Math. SS and Science isn’t that different. The kids in my center class are doing the same things as my friends are doing with their Local Level 4 classes. At this point, there is no point to centers if the schools have a Local Level 4 class with a good peer group.

So, saying this not as a parent, but as an AAP teacher in the county. I love working with gifted kids. The vast majority of my class is not gifted. They should all be educated at their base schools.

Thank you, this confirms what I have always believed.

[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."

AAP Center Teacher here. I have several friends who teach at a LL4. The AAP curriculum is not what it was even last year. Every kid is doing Benchmark. The MAJORITY of schools teach Adv Math. SS and Science isn’t that different. The kids in my center class are doing the same things as my friends are doing with their Local Level 4 classes. At this point, there is no point to centers if the schools have a Local Level 4 class with a good peer group.

So, saying this not as a parent, but as an AAP teacher in the county. I love working with gifted kids. The vast majority of my class is not gifted. They should all be educated at their base schools.

Don’t care.

Maybe just an anecdote, but kid is in a class that actually reads and discusses books at their center and is thriving.

Before, kid was in a class with chair throwers and kids who were two grades behind with a teacher saying there isn’t much they can do for them.

This is the reality for many kids who don’t live in McLean and Vienna.

Sounds like you never gave LLIV a chance.