Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[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.

1) If there are kids in GE who could easily "do" the AAP curriculum, they were not able to demonstrate that in the screening file. If their parents feel like their child does need or could benefit from AAP, there is an opportunity to appeal EVERY year. And its not just Gen Ed or AAP - there are services across the spectrum in between. So if a child is in Gen Ed, but advanced in math, they get into the higher math groups, etc. Kids in Gen Ed are given oppporunties to be challenged as well, its not just a flat curriculum for all.

2) If there are kids in AAP who don't belong there, I'd sure hope their parents/teachers would collaborate to find the most appropriate place for them. As I said before, FCPS errors on the side of inclusion, not exclusion - as I think should be the case. No system is perfect, but I'd rather have one that mistakenly identifies kids, rather than one that misses more kids.

3) This is only anecdotal, but the AAP parents I know don't give a rat's ass about labels.

4) I cannot believe you think that having the teacher as the SOLE criteria for identifying gifted kids. This is so problematic, I'm not even sure where to begin. Let's see...

Scenario A: Shy, introverted, or maybe twice exceptional Susie doesn't impress the teacher, is never identified as gifted and never receives an appropriate curriculum. Unless, of course, her parents recognize her giftedness and advocate for her and/or pay for expensive private testing. But if Susie is poor....or her parents think she struggles in school because she's just not that bright....well, then Susie is screwed. And so are the the hundreds of other Susie's who are never given a shot at being identified because there are no tests.

Scenario B: Loudmouth, know it all Bobby is the teacher's pet and all the parents know that he's at the top of class because his mom is Room Mom. If only there were some objective, more removed way to see which kids need a more rigorous curriculum.....hmmmmmmm.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP works well for the same reason TJ is the best high school in the nation- despite the fact that, until recently, they had some of the crappiest facilities. It's not the teachers, it's not the research labs. It's the it's the smart, hardworking, creative cohort of kids.

People who think the "AAP curriculum" should be available to all kids are missing the point. There is nothing magical or special about the curriculum itself. AAP works well because they get cohort of kids who can work at an accelerated pace without the need for remediation. When my DC moved from an LLIV program (about 1/2 the kids principal placed) to a TJ feeder ES Center in 5th grade, she suddenly started having very little homework. When I asked her about it, she said, in essence, that they got through a lot more material in class because they weren't wasting time teaching, reteaching, remediating, and waiting for kids to catch up. So, in a program where about 14 of the "on the cusp kids" got principal placed, the entire class was slowed down significantly. This was most evidence in math, where she went in behind the rest of the class, despite being taught "advanced math" in most schools. She's now in 7th, and we are still running into places where she has gaps in math.

Pretty clearly, all kids in FCPS cannot work at an accelerated pace, or the GE classes would be moving as fast as the AAP classes. It's not like the GE teachers are slowing down and remediating just to waste time.

So it's not that all kids can't handle the substance of the curriculum. The core curriculum is the largely the same for AAP and GE. AAP just seems to go "deeper," which appears to mean extra projects and faster. It's that all kids can't handle the acceleration. If you think your kid can, quit bitching on DCUM and reapply for next year. FCPS tries to make this program very inclusive, and there are not a set number of seats. If your kid can't get in, the committee has a reason.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yep. You nailed it. The only "fragile egos" I see on this thread are those of the AAP parents who would probably rather impale themselves than admit that there are many GE kids who could easily do the same work Larla is doing.

Those "many GR kids" had all the same opportunities to get in to the AAP program. No one was jilted.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for those of you who are dead set against making AAP the general curriculum for most kids:

How, exactly, would it harm your child if AAP became an open program, used for any child capable of doing the work? Please explain to us why it matters so much that AAP remain a closed/admission only program and why it would affect you or your child in any way if AAP supplanted GE, and a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids.

It'll be interesting to hear your responses, especially from those of you claiming that no one can know what the abilities of all kids are. That goes for you too, right? You certainly don't know the abilities of any child other than yours, right?

It would not affect my family in any way as long as a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids. But I suspect, there is always a line and those on the outs will be upset so right now the line is 132 for in pool. Those who score 125-131 cry foul that they too should be included. Move the line and the same thing will happen. My child's IQ was a 148. If the line was 145, people who score 140-144 will cry foul. If the line was 150, I would. My child does not belong in a class with kids who's IQ is 128, sorry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP works well for the same reason TJ is the best high school in the nation- despite the fact that, until recently, they had some of the crappiest facilities. It's not the teachers, it's not the research labs. It's the it's the smart, hardworking, creative cohort of kids.

People who think the "AAP curriculum" should be available to all kids are missing the point. There is nothing magical or special about the curriculum itself. AAP works well because they get cohort of kids who can work at an accelerated pace without the need for remediation. When my DC moved from an LLIV program (about 1/2 the kids principal placed) to a TJ feeder ES Center in 5th grade, she suddenly started having very little homework. When I asked her about it, she said, in essence, that they got through a lot more material in class because they weren't wasting time teaching, reteaching, remediating, and waiting for kids to catch up. So, in a program where about 14 of the "on the cusp kids" got principal placed, the entire class was slowed down significantly. This was most evidence in math, where she went in behind the rest of the class, despite being taught "advanced math" in most schools. She's now in 7th, and we are still running into places where she has gaps in math.

Pretty clearly, all kids in FCPS cannot work at an accelerated pace, or the GE classes would be moving as fast as the AAP classes. It's not like the GE teachers are slowing down and remediating just to waste time.

So it's not that all kids can't handle the substance of the curriculum. The core curriculum is the largely the same for AAP and GE. AAP just seems to go "deeper," which appears to mean extra projects and faster. It's that all kids can't handle the acceleration. If you think your kid can, quit bitching on DCUM and reapply for next year. FCPS tries to make this program very inclusive, and there are not a set number of seats. If your kid can't get in, the committee has a reason.

*slow clap* +1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for those of you who are dead set against making AAP the general curriculum for most kids:

How, exactly, would it harm your child if AAP became an open program, used for any child capable of doing the work? Please explain to us why it matters so much that AAP remain a closed/admission only program and why it would affect you or your child in any way if AAP supplanted GE, and a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids.

It'll be interesting to hear your responses, especially from those of you claiming that no one can know what the abilities of all kids are. That goes for you too, right? You certainly don't know the abilities of any child other than yours, right?

It would not affect my family in any way as long as a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids. But I suspect, there is always a line and those on the outs will be upset so right now the line is 132 for in pool. Those who score 125-131 cry foul that they too should be included. Move the line and the same thing will happen. My child's IQ was a 148. If the line was 145, people who score 140-144 will cry foul. If the line was 150, I would. My child does not belong in a class with kids who's IQ is 128, sorry!

I have a child with a higher FSIQ than your child's and I would never say that my child doesn't belong with a child whose IQ is 128. I have no idea what that child's other data points show. Indeed, I'm guessing the vast majority in AAP have never had their IQs tested. If this child had a 16 GBRS and was doing just fine in AAP, would it change your mind if you found out that 2 years into the program he had a 128 IQ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for those of you who are dead set against making AAP the general curriculum for most kids:

How, exactly, would it harm your child if AAP became an open program, used for any child capable of doing the work? Please explain to us why it matters so much that AAP remain a closed/admission only program and why it would affect you or your child in any way if AAP supplanted GE, and a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids.

It'll be interesting to hear your responses, especially from those of you claiming that no one can know what the abilities of all kids are. That goes for you too, right? You certainly don't know the abilities of any child other than yours, right?

It would not affect my family in any way as long as a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids. But I suspect, there is always a line and those on the outs will be upset so right now the line is 132 for in pool. Those who score 125-131 cry foul that they too should be included. Move the line and the same thing will happen. My child's IQ was a 148. If the line was 145, people who score 140-144 will cry foul. If the line was 150, I would. My child does not belong in a class with kids who's IQ is 128, sorry! [/quote]

With an attitude like yours, your child certainly could benefit from being in a class with someone whose IQ is 128 -- which is pretty darn bright, btw. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for your kids.

How did we get to the point in FCPS when people would even be comfortable voicing this kind of ridiculous and misguided entitlement? Honestly, I tested gifted and my best and dearest friends growing up could barely manage C's. But I learned more from them about life than so many people on this thread seemed to have learned in their bubbles. In college, iI had a peer group who was more like me academically, but so what? That was college.

Repeat after me folks: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS NOT COLLEGE! And if you think the only way your kids are going to get into a good one is by their being sequestered with other kids who "test" like they do, you are sorely mistaken.

[Anonymous]

With an attitude like yours, PP^^ your child certainly could benefit from being in a class with someone whose IQ is 128 -- which is pretty darn bright, btw. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for your kids.

How did we get to the point in FCPS when people would even be comfortable voicing this kind of ridiculous and misguided entitlement? Honestly, I tested gifted and my best and dearest friends growing up could barely manage C's. But I learned more from them about life than so many people on this thread seemed to have learned in their bubbles. In college, iI had a peer group who was more like me academically, but so what? That was college.

Repeat after me folks: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS NOT COLLEGE! And if you think the only way your kids are going to get into a good one is by their being sequestered with other kids who "test" like they do, you are sorely mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With an attitude like yours, PP^^ your child certainly could benefit from being in a class with someone whose IQ is 128 -- which is pretty darn bright, btw. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for your kids.

How did we get to the point in FCPS when people would even be comfortable voicing this kind of ridiculous and misguided entitlement? Honestly, I tested gifted and my best and dearest friends growing up could barely manage C's. But I learned more from them about life than so many people on this thread seemed to have learned in their bubbles. In college, iI had a peer group who was more like me academically, but so what? That was college.

Repeat after me folks: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS NOT COLLEGE! And if you think the only way your kids are going to get into a good one is by their being sequestered with other kids who "test" like they do, you are sorely mistaken.

We haven't. It's DCUM, an anonymous poster on an anonymous forum. This is not, repeat, NOT the attitude of most AAP parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With an attitude like yours, PP^^ your child certainly could benefit from being in a class with someone whose IQ is 128 -- which is pretty darn bright, btw. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for your kids.

How did we get to the point in FCPS when people would even be comfortable voicing this kind of ridiculous and misguided entitlement? Honestly, I tested gifted and my best and dearest friends growing up could barely manage C's. But I learned more from them about life than so many people on this thread seemed to have learned in their bubbles. In college, iI had a peer group who was more like me academically, but so what? That was college.

Repeat after me folks: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS NOT COLLEGE! And if you think the only way your kids are going to get into a good one is by their being sequestered with other kids who "test" like they do, you are sorely mistaken.

We haven't. It's DCUM, an anonymous poster on an anonymous forum. This is not, repeat, NOT the attitude of most AAP parents.

I certainly hope not. But sadly, I suspect more parents feel this way than would say it aloud. It's sad, really, that anybody has developed such a distorted view of what public education should be in America.

[Anonymous]

FCPS has advanced academic level 4, level 3, and level 2 advanced math groups and kids can be brought into any of these levels at any given year. How many more levels do people want for advanced academics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has advanced academic level 4, level 3, and level 2 advanced math groups and kids can be brought into any of these levels at any given year. How many more levels do people want for advanced academics?

People (aap haters) don't want to say that they're child receives some advanced services. It's not enough. They want to say "my child is in AAP" and if they can't, then they don't want anyone to be able to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has advanced academic level 4, level 3, and level 2 advanced math groups and kids can be brought into any of these levels at any given year. How many more levels do people want for advanced academics?

People (aap haters) don't want to say that they're child receives some advanced services. It's not enough. They want to say "my child is in AAP" and if they can't, then they don't want anyone to be able to.

Ack. Their. Voice text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has advanced academic level 4, level 3, and level 2 advanced math groups and kids can be brought into any of these levels at any given year. How many more levels do people want for advanced academics?

People (aap haters) don't want to say that they're child receives some advanced services. It's not enough. They want to say "my child is in AAP" and if they can't, then they don't want anyone to be able to.

Waa!!! Waa!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has advanced academic level 4, level 3, and level 2 advanced math groups and kids can be brought into any of these levels at any given year. How many more levels do people want for advanced academics?

People (aap haters) don't want to say that they're child receives some advanced services. It's not enough. They want to say "my child is in AAP" and if they can't, then they don't want anyone to be able to.

Waa!!! Waa!!

I'm a PP who wrote critically about AAP earlier and I had a son in the program -- it's not waah, waah, trust me. It's sensible people looking at a program that's driven a wedge into the FCPS community because of how it's been implemented and wondering how did we get here?