Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry you took it that way. I was responding to a poster saying that all the students should be offered the AAP curriculum and to the many (it is oft repeated) posters that say "there is no difference" between the kids in AAP and the kids in Gen Ed. My question is...how do you know???? I don't pretend to know what curriculum is appropriate for every child, but I DO know that there are some who struggle with the Gen Ed curriculum. For those that insist that they know that Student A in AAP and Student B in Gen Ed have the same academic needs - how do you know? Do the AAP kids you know just not seem like geniuses to you? What do you base these claims on? Because I doubt you have access to screening files, scores, work samples, GBRS, etc.

[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.

Not scolding - asking. Asking, what do you base this claim on exactly? The claim and most GE/AAP are the same? Have you done an analysis of the scores/screening files?

A sweeping judgment??? My "sweeping judgment" was that kids that are struggling with GE don't need an even more advanced curriculum than the one they are already struggling with. Do you really think that is far fetched to say?

I still have yet to see a response as to how on earth you come to the conclusion that all or most kids across the board are "the same" and all have the same academic needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP, but the answer is so obvious, I can't even believe it has to be spelled out (yet again). AAP should simply be made the regular curriculum for all. The kids who have trouble with it (and there wouldn't be many) could receive remedial help. The few kids who need a gifted curriculum could receive that. This is not difficult. Honestly, the parents who insist on having a closed AAP program do so only because they enjoy the idea of exclusivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP, but the answer is so obvious, I can't even believe it has to be spelled out (yet again). AAP should simply be made the regular curriculum for all. The kids who have trouble with it (and there wouldn't be many) could receive remedial help. The few kids who need a gifted curriculum could receive that. This is not difficult. Honestly, the parents who insist on having a closed AAP program do so only because they enjoy the idea of exclusivity.

[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?

+1000
This is it, exactly.

[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.

Not scolding - asking. Asking, what do you base this claim on exactly? The claim and most GE/AAP are the same? Have you done an analysis of the scores/screening files?

A sweeping judgment??? My "sweeping judgment" was that kids that are struggling with GE don't need an even more advanced curriculum than the one they are already struggling with. Do you really think that is far fetched to say?

I still have yet to see a response as to how on earth you come to the conclusion that all or most kids across the board are "the same" and all have the same academic needs.

No one has said that kids who have trouble with the GE curriculum should be taking an advanced curriculum. I think you're either confused or trying to make others look confused. The fact is, there is a vast segment of GE students who don't have any trouble with that curriculum and would be just fine working with the AAP curricula. The kids who need remedial help, AND the kids who need a full-on gifted program are in the minority.

[Anonymous]

I love the title of this thread

[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.

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.

Not scolding - asking. Asking, what do you base this claim on exactly? The claim and most GE/AAP are the same? Have you done an analysis of the scores/screening files?

A sweeping judgment??? My "sweeping judgment" was that kids that are struggling with GE don't need an even more advanced curriculum than the one they are already struggling with. Do you really think that is far fetched to say?

I still have yet to see a response as to how on earth you come to the conclusion that all or most kids across the board are "the same" and all have the same academic needs.

No one has said that kids who have trouble with the GE curriculum should be taking an advanced curriculum. I think you're either confused or trying to make others look confused. The fact is, there is a vast segment of GE students who don't have any trouble with that curriculum and would be just fine working with the AAP curricula. The kids who need remedial help, AND the kids who need a full-on gifted program are in the minority.

Not confused at all. PP said that I was making "sweeping judgements" because I said that kids struggling with Gen Ed don't need an advanced curriculum.

Will you kindly quantify (with actual data) "vast segment". You don't have any data. You're just making things up to support your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP, but the answer is so obvious, I can't even believe it has to be spelled out (yet again). AAP should simply be made the regular curriculum for all. The kids who have trouble with it (and there wouldn't be many) could receive remedial help. The few kids who need a gifted curriculum could receive that. This is not difficult. Honestly, the parents who insist on having a closed AAP program do so only because they enjoy the idea of exclusivity.

Please explain to me how you know that "not many" would need remedial help. What is this based on? Your observations walking down the school hallways? Volunteering in the classroom? Please quantify "not many" and let us know where you got that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP, but the answer is so obvious, I can't even believe it has to be spelled out (yet again). AAP should simply be made the regular curriculum for all. The kids who have trouble with it (and there wouldn't be many) could receive remedial help. The few kids who need a gifted curriculum could receive that. This is not difficult. Honestly, the parents who insist on having a closed AAP program do so only because they enjoy the idea of exclusivity.

I think it the inclusivity, not exclusivity of the program that bothers you.

[Anonymous]

LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"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?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"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?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP, but the answer is so obvious, I can't even believe it has to be spelled out (yet again). AAP should simply be made the regular curriculum for all. The kids who have trouble with it (and there wouldn't be many) could receive remedial help. The few kids who need a gifted curriculum could receive that. This is not difficult. Honestly, the parents who insist on having a closed AAP program do so only because they enjoy the idea of exclusivity.

I think it the inclusivity, not exclusivity of the program that bothers you.

inclusivity that doesn't include her snowflake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"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?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Needs should not have to be met in a separate classroom. Most kids aren't that different.