Parents of AAP kids: is your kid an actual genius or works hard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.[/quote




True, and it just doesn't matter, because the "very bright" + "hard working" are going to do just fine in AAP and more importantly, in the long run in their lives beyond ES. The bona fide geniuses, while amazing, have a harder time because they have no peer group and are looked at as freaks by their classmates. Furthermore, their parents may not know how to parent kids who are smarter than they are.

[Anonymous]

I have had 3 kids in AAP in the last 8 years. One is smart and a hard worker that is very advanced in liberal arts stuff but struggled with advanced math and dropped down to Math honors instead of Algebra 1 for 7th. That was the right choice for them, especially with them having lots of gaps in math learning due to doing their 6th grade year virtually during Covid. Another kid tests high in IQ (Wisc 146) but very low in processing speed and has thrived in AAP. That kid easily excels at anything that can keep their attention and has learned to buckle down and put in the time for the other things. My youngest is a social butterfly that does well on all things without trying hard and is the kind of kid that does the shortest answer to get it right without putting in any extra effort. I’m hoping AAP will challenge them to try harder and encourage better work habits.

While volunteering with my kids’ AAP classes and hearing my kids’ stories, I seen/heard about lots of smart kids and lots of hard workers, but not a ton of geniuses. Certainly there are some. One example from my daughter—One boy taught her chess during indoor recess, shared with her that he was diagnosed as autistic, organized and managed a complex class economy for the kids, retained all facts/reading in a photographic way, and just knew all the math, always. The class understood that kid operated on a different level. But most of the AAP kids are similar to mine—smart and capable, but not geniuses.

I have noticed that many of the AAP kids share one thing—the ability to hear/read something, retain it easily, and access that info later for a test or project. Is this because of intelligence, or good work habits? No clue. There are also a lot of *super stars*—kids that are very skilled and stand out in one area—math or violin or dance or baseball or swim or spelling or theater, etc. Is this because of genius or because their affluent parents funded them on this skill since preschool? No clue.

[Anonymous]

This is what I hated about gifted programs. Why is an IQ test the determining factor? I’m above average IQ but not genius level. I graduated top in the my class. I was a very hard worker and it’s served me well in life.

I wish all kids were allowed into AAP and if they get a C they’re sent to a lower class. Classes should be more fluid and kids should have the ability to place themselves. Regular classes are basically remedial and below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what I hated about gifted programs. Why is an IQ test the determining factor? I’m above average IQ but not genius level. I graduated top in the my class. I was a very hard worker and it’s served me well in life.

I wish all kids were allowed into AAP and if they get a C they’re sent to a lower class. Classes should be more fluid and kids should have the ability to place themselves. Regular classes are basically remedial and below grade level.

There are no Cs in elementary school. The report cards are supposed to measure effort, not ability. My DC who is 99%tile in math is getting 2s bc he doesn't try in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD in AAP works pretty hard and enjoys learning but is definitely not a genius. AAP feels appropriate but also challenging for her. She is not one of those kids who is bored in AAP.
Also, a side note— you don’t have to be a genius to do algebra in 1st grade. I have multiple nieces and nephews doing algebra and trig in 2nd/3rd grade and it is because their parents enjoy teaching them and they enjoy learning. Obviously a unique situation but it helped me see that kids can learn a lot with the right teacher / attention.

What sort of algebra and trig?

I have no idea but I’m guessing it is intro stuff and they do not go too deep. It is truly a math loving family (the adults - including my spouse — occasionally send math puzzlers to the group chat and people enjoy spending hours trying to figure them out) so it’s not surprising. I know my spouse knew about logarithms (trig) by 9, and my nephew that age recently learned sin/cos so I guess he’s doing trig too.
The adults’ abilities are way beyond mine but it’s cool to see math turn from something just done on paper to something that can be discussed, debated over.

So you mean that your nephew dabbled in some trig concepts in 3rd grade, but he wasn't taking a full class or anything like that. A lot of bright kids can dabble with the concept of variables in 1st grade. It's exceedingly rare for one of them to be capable of sitting in an Honors Algebra I classroom, independently doing all of the work, and earning an A in the course.

I never said anything remotely like your last sentence, and your interpretation is bizarre. My spouse and nephew were absolutely doing problems like the ones I did in trig in high school and are definitely beyond dabbling, but there’s a big difference between that and getting an A in high school course. I don’t understand your point or why this seems like something you need to refute.

You originally claimed that "you don't have to be a genius to do algebra in 1st grade." I guess that all depends on what your definition is of "doing" algebra. I somehow doubt that your nephew will be ready to sit for the AP Calc exam in a couple years, which would be expected for a kid who is truly "doing trig" right now.

NP, there are a handful of kids in FCPS doing trig and/or calc in MS right now. Based on my experience with accelerated kids, I would wager that these kids already know the material and are not actually learning trig/calc in the FCPS school itself. It's not incredible to think that PP is the aunt of such a kid.

The kids doing pre-calc and calc in FCPS middle schools are geniuses. They also likely didn't learn trig in the 2nd/3rd grade, which is what PP claimed her nephew was doing. Let's be reasonable here. Either PP's nephews and nieces are extreme outlier geniuses, or PP is using a very broad definition of what it means to be "doing" trig. PP's original statement that "you don't have to be a genius to do algebra in 1st grade" is ludicrous. The kid either is a genius, or the algebra and trig that they are doing is being grossly exaggerated.

I did algebra and trig in elementary school (3rd, 4th grade) and am definitely not a genius! I was doing it a high school level (so high school math was easy for me by the time that rolled around). In general, my siblings and I work and worked very hard and are able to focus very well. My parents were also great teachers (and professors) who made it fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

[Anonymous]

If your child is in AAP, how do you know how your child performs compared to other students? Does the school make everyone's scores/grades visible to everyone else? Or do you socialize with other parents and know from there how the other kids are performing?

[Anonymous]

The kids know and talk among themselves. They share their day to day test scores with each other.

[Anonymous]

dcum AAP forum: It's not that rare for kids to be learning Algebra in 1st grade. These kids aren't even geniuses. They're just bright, normal kids with involved parents.

also dcum AAP forum: AAP math moves super fast, and it's not reasonable to set a lower limit of Algebra in 7th grade for TJ. Kids need more time for their brains to mature.

Have we jumped the shark yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:dcum AAP forum: It's not that rare for kids to be learning Algebra in 1st grade. These kids aren't even geniuses. They're just bright, normal kids with involved parents.

also dcum AAP forum: AAP math moves super fast, and it's not reasonable to set a lower limit of Algebra in 7th grade for TJ. Kids need more time for their brains to mature.

Have we jumped the shark yet?

Also dcum forum: Compelled to compare. If another kid is smarter than mine, then their parent is pushy. If another kid is a slow learner than mine, then that kid doesnt belong in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is your child an actual prodigy (like Young Sheldon, doing Algebra in 1st grade) or works hard (gets high marks and gets things right with reading/study but no prodigal abilities)?

I recognize the former would be a shoe-in for AAP but how good of a chance does the hard worker have?

My AAP child is neither. She's a people-pleasing little girl with a great attention span who read early. My son, on the other hand, is a fidgety little boy with no attention span who read late. She's AAP and he isn't. I suspect they will be equally accomplished in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

Genius doesn't have a real, specific meaning anyway.

IMO is nowhere near the lower limit of who would get value from AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

Genius doesn't have a real, specific meaning anyway.

IMO is nowhere near the lower limit of who would get value from AAP.

I think the Terrance Tao and IMO comments were to address whether FCPS has had any "real" geniuses within its midst. The comments were not made to argue that AAP should only be available to IMO-level kids and above.

Each person has his/her own definition of genius, but I would hope that everyone's definition includes Terrance Tao and IMO kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

Genius doesn't have a real, specific meaning anyway.

IMO is nowhere near the lower limit of who would get value from AAP.

I think the Terrance Tao and IMO comments were to address whether FCPS has had any "real" geniuses within its midst. The comments were not made to argue that AAP should only be available to IMO-level kids and above.

Each person has his/her own definition of genius, but I would hope that everyone's definition includes Terrance Tao and IMO kids.

There are only around 50 MOPS participants in the country, spanning around 4-5 grade levels. There are only 6 kids on the IMO team. I would hope people have a much broader definition of genius than that.

For my part, I'd consider any kid above the 99.9th percentile to be a genius. Even if you went with a 99.99th percentile cutoff, that would be around 500 kids per grade level in the US, which is still much less restrictive than only including the very small number of MOPS/IMO kids. FCPS still on average should have between 1 and 2 of these kids per grade level.

[Anonymous]

Not a genius but on another level. Understands math instantly after being shown one example and then plays around with the numbers/equations in his head. Amazing memory and can recall in detail. Only problem is he does not like to work hard or put in any effort.