Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[Anonymous]

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

When the budget is large enough to have smaller (22 to a class) classrooms, then differentiation across 4 - 5 levels will be possible.

[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.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

[Anonymous]

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

Ask a teacher with 32 kids in her classroom how she feels about doing remediation, Having ESL and kids with behavioral aids pushed in, teaching "average kids," and differentiating for LLIV I-IV-- all at the same time. Most kids aren't that different? Really? You are expecting a teacher to differentiate across about 6 different levels, so tpyou don't have to feel bad that your kid isn't in the top group. I would think you would be glad to have kids who require a high degree of differentiation formAAP in a separate classroom, so your kid'S teacher has more time time and energy to teach your kid at their level.

I'd be interested to know-- ES teachers-- can you effectively teaching ESL, LDs, behavioral challenges, GE, and all kids along the AAP spectrum in the same classroom-- especially as 30 kids per class become the norm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"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. "

"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."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

[Anonymous]

FCPS is supposed to make advanced math available in every school. IF that's not being done, administration needs to be made aware. It is FCPS's policy of offer advanced math to every child in FCPS every year of elementary. For middle school there is a test and all are eligible. Science and Social Studies are taught at about 2 hours a week in elementary. Who really cares if it's advanced learning or not. There's only so much you can do in 2 hours time per week. Language arts is already differentiated in groups in both general ed and AAP. What else is really needed?

[Anonymous]

Seems to be what is needed is that FCPS needs to offer differentiation at all levels, but without hurting any parent's feelings or egos. Not sure how to go about that, because no matter the model there will always be the disgruntled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"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. "

"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."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

NONE of those say that kids are all the same. You are misconstruing words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"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. "

"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."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

NONE of those say that kids are all the same. You are misconstruing words.

None of those use the exact words "kids are all the same", but they all infer that all kids could or should have the same curriculum. That they are all of similar ability. That they ALL could handle the AAP program. I'm not misconstruing anything. Are you really this dense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be what is needed is that FCPS needs to offer differentiation at all levels, but without hurting any parent's feelings or egos. Not sure how to go about that, because no matter the model there will always be the disgruntled.

This. The problem isn't AAP vs GE vs LLIII or whatever. It's the parents whose egos are so fragile tat they cannot cope (stalk DCUM, etc) if they don't believe their kid gets the "prestigious" label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"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. "

"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."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

NONE of those say that kids are all the same. You are misconstruing words.

"Virtually identical in ability" = "All kids are the same" In the context of this discussion about academic ability. Not that all kids are the same in every aspect....you get that at least, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be what is needed is that FCPS needs to offer differentiation at all levels, but without hurting any parent's feelings or egos. Not sure how to go about that, because no matter the model there will always be the disgruntled.

This. The problem isn't AAP vs GE vs LLIII or whatever. It's the parents whose egos are so fragile tat they cannot cope (stalk DCUM, etc) if they don't believe their kid gets the "prestigious" label.

Exactly.

[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.

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.

And you're not??

[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.

Precisely. PP wants her anecdotes ("many times" is always a red flag for a BS-er) to reflect reality, but the anecdotes the rest of us must be fictional, according to her. I'd love to hear her exact statistics, with links.

[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.

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.

And you're not??

No. I'm not. What are you asserting that I made up?

[Anonymous]

22 pages in-- It's officially time for a Sound Off If You THINK GE Parents who Start AAP is Bullsit Threads are Full of Sh@t and Have Deepseeded Feelings of Inadequacy.

For the purposes of my spin off thread, I only want to hear what AAP parents think. GE parents-- no one asked you, so zip it.