Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

[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.

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.

The only thing that my anecdotes support is that some kids struggle with the Gen Ed curriculum. That's it. Do you dispute that?

I'm not trying to dismantle an entire program based on anecdotal evidence, contrary to the anti-AAP posters who, based on nothing, decide that ALL students should have the AAP curriculum, that all or most students have similar abilities - again, NO ONE has answered - how do you know?

[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 [b]curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS.[/b]"

"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.

Not the PP, but it really is you who has a reading comprehension problem. All of the above quotes clearly state that AAP could be used for all kids - not that all kids are the same. Big difference. The point is that AAP is not some lofty, magical curriculum that requires a genius IQ to access. Far from it. Plenty of kids are perfectly capable of working at a slightly more advanced level than GE offers. And yes, AAP is "slightly" more advanced - that's it.

And actually, I do absolutely believe that a large portion of GE/AAP kids are "virtually identical in ability." There is no way you can say that some arbitrary line in the sand separates really smart kids from not very smart kids. That's total BS.

So please: stop braying that we're saying "All kids are the same," because we're not. We're simply pointing out that most kids could do AAP work without any trouble. Though I know you refuse to believe that.

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

[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.

Um, yeah. AAP =/= prestigious. Sorry.

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

Exactly

[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 [b]curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS.[/b]"

"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.

Not the PP, but it really is you who has a reading comprehension problem. All of the above quotes clearly state that AAP could be used for all kids - not that all kids are the same. Big difference. The point is that AAP is not some lofty, magical curriculum that requires a genius IQ to access. Far from it. Plenty of kids are perfectly capable of working at a slightly more advanced level than GE offers. And yes, AAP is "slightly" more advanced - that's it.

And actually, I do absolutely believe that a large portion of GE/AAP kids are "virtually identical in ability." There is no way you can say that some arbitrary line in the sand separates really smart kids from not very smart kids. That's total BS.

So please: stop braying that we're saying "All kids are the same," because we're not. We're simply pointing out that most kids could do AAP work without any trouble. Though I know you refuse to believe that.

+1000

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

Exactly. If AAP parents admit that some GE kids could handle the same work then their inflated self-importance gets popped.

[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.

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.

The only thing that my anecdotes support is that some kids struggle with the Gen Ed curriculum. That's it. Do you dispute that?

I'm not trying to dismantle an entire program based on anecdotal evidence, contrary to the anti-AAP posters who, based on nothing, decide that ALL students should have the AAP curriculum, that all or most students have similar abilities - again, NO ONE has answered - how do you know?

Regarding the bolded, I absolutely don't dispute that. But then how can you dispute that there are kids in GE who could easily do the AAP curriculum? You can't. Also, do you dispute that there are kids within AAP who struggle with that curriculum, and who perhaps should not be there??

If AAP was an open, fluid program, kids would be able to cycle into and out of advanced classes, as needed. No testing, appeals, etc. would be necessary; classroom performance would be the only criteria needed for the teacher to determine who needed to move up, stay put, or move back down. The whole process would be much cheaper, not to mention far less complicated. But then it wouldn't be "special," and we all know how much you AAP parents love your special labels!

No one is trying to "dismantle" AAP, as much as you like to insist they are. Instead, we're trying to make AAP available to anyone capable of doing the work - big difference. And then maybe a true gifted program could be put into place for those kids who, you know, can't learn in regular classrooms. As the original mission of GT was supposed to be.

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

Wow. I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to get denser with each post. I've clearly bolded my words for you to attempt reading again: "THERE IS MUCH OVERLAP" is what I said. Not that "there is no difference." And I stand by that. Your "big chunk on the cusp" is the same way of saying "there is much overlap." Geez - stop making up things that people aren't saying.

And it would be so interesting to hear your song and dance if the cutoff were high enough that your own kid wasn't admitted to AAP. "Fragile egos," indeed. Try: this is a public school, funded by all FCPS families, not a private academy for your kid.

[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.

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.

The only thing that my anecdotes support is that some kids struggle with the Gen Ed curriculum. That's it. Do you dispute that?

I'm not trying to dismantle an entire program based on anecdotal evidence, contrary to the anti-AAP posters who, based on nothing, decide that ALL students should have the AAP curriculum, that all or most students have similar abilities - again, NO ONE has answered - how do you know?

Regarding the bolded, I absolutely don't dispute that. But then how can you dispute that there are kids in GE who could easily do the AAP curriculum? You can't. Also, do you dispute that there are kids within AAP who struggle with that curriculum, and who perhaps should not be there??

If AAP was an open, fluid program, kids would be able to cycle into and out of advanced classes, as needed. No testing, appeals, etc. would be necessary; classroom performance would be the only criteria needed for the teacher to determine who needed to move up, stay put, or move back down. The whole process would be much cheaper, not to mention far less complicated. But then it wouldn't be "special," and we all know how much you AAP parents love your special labels!

No one is trying to "dismantle" AAP, as much as you like to insist they are. Instead, we're trying to make AAP available to anyone capable of doing the work - big difference. And then maybe a true gifted program could be put into place for those kids who, you know, can't learn in regular classrooms. As the original mission of GT was supposed to be.

Very well said.

-Not an AAP hater, but just think it could be executed better.

[Anonymous]

You want to put it all on the teacher?? Wow. Think of all the introverted kids that would be missed. All of the parents angling the teacher. The subjectivity. If that were the system in place now parents would be begging for more objective measures (tests) and objectivity (central screening committee) oh wait....

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

+100

[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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

Exactly

And yet your snowflake didn't get in and your big mad! Hmmmm

[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.

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.

The only thing that my anecdotes support is that some kids struggle with the Gen Ed curriculum. That's it. Do you dispute that?

I'm not trying to dismantle an entire program based on anecdotal evidence, contrary to the anti-AAP posters who, based on nothing, decide that ALL students should have the AAP curriculum, that all or most students have similar abilities - again, NO ONE has answered - how do you know?

Regarding the bolded, I absolutely don't dispute that. But then how can you dispute that there are kids in GE who could easily do the AAP curriculum? You can't. Also, do you dispute that there are kids within AAP who struggle with that curriculum, and who perhaps should not be there??

If AAP was an open, fluid program, kids would be able to cycle into and out of advanced classes, as needed. No testing, appeals, etc. would be necessary; classroom performance would be the only criteria needed for the teacher to determine who needed to move up, stay put, or move back down. The whole process would be much cheaper, not to mention far less complicated. But then it wouldn't be "special," and we all know how much you AAP parents love your special labels!

No one is trying to "dismantle" AAP, as much as you like to insist they are. Instead, we're trying to make AAP available to anyone capable of doing the work - big difference. And then maybe a true gifted program could be put into place for those kids who, you know, can't learn in regular classrooms. As the original mission of GT was supposed to be.

Then your child should get in. If they're capable, it should ring true from their file.