Surprise top-down changes to AAP center this fall . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see any problem if the AAP and non-AAP kids are mixed together for PE, Music, Art - so what?
They should be separated for English, Math, History, Science because those are the subjects in which academically advanced kids will most benefir from being with others like themselves, no?

I agree. I have a child in a center and I hate that until this year, DC was separated from the Gen Ed kids. It seemed to feed into the hatred that the base school Gen Ed parents have for the AAP parents. I like that they seem to be (from what I can tell from DC) mixing them for some specials. They should do that.

An absurd statement on its face -- since often these are the same parents. I had kids in both AAP and gen. ed. and it didn't turn me against myself. But if I can speak for the Gen Ed. me I'd say that what parents hate are kids who aren't any smarter than theirs being given special instruction and elevated academic status. It's not what AAP was designed for, it's not equitable and it's not right. Period.

Exactly. And so many parents feel this way, I can't believe FCPS hasn't gotten a clue yet and changed the criteria for AAP placement to include only the profoundly gifted, those who cannot be educated in a Gen Ed classroom. The parents who are up in arms whenever somebody states this are those who know their child doesn't fit that criteria and so wouldn't be in AAP if the test scores and other criteria necessary for admission were raised.

If you ask parents of highly and profoundly gifted, they are happy with a larger group of students in the AAP class, and do not want a tiny, exclusive class of a dozen or so kids.
I say this as a parent of one of those kids you seem so concerned about.

Oh, well by all means: let's make sure the profoundly gifted are always happy. Forget about what makes Gen Ed parents and kids happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not necessarily. There are public schools in Arlington and DC that are Montessori and they are not always self selecting.

But Montessori isn't advanced education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see any problem if the AAP and non-AAP kids are mixed together for PE, Music, Art - so what?
They should be separated for English, Math, History, Science because those are the subjects in which academically advanced kids will most benefir from being with others like themselves, no?

I agree. I have a child in a center and I hate that until this year, DC was separated from the Gen Ed kids. It seemed to feed into the hatred that the base school Gen Ed parents have for the AAP parents. I like that they seem to be (from what I can tell from DC) mixing them for some specials. They should do that.

An absurd statement on its face -- since often these are the same parents. I had kids in both AAP and gen. ed. and it didn't turn me against myself. But if I can speak for the Gen Ed. me I'd say that what parents hate are kids who aren't any smarter than theirs being given special instruction and elevated academic status. It's not what AAP was designed for, it's not equitable and it's not right. Period.

Exactly. And so many parents feel this way, I can't believe FCPS hasn't gotten a clue yet and changed the criteria for AAP placement to include only the profoundly gifted, those who cannot be educated in a Gen Ed classroom. The parents who are up in arms whenever somebody states this are those who know their child doesn't fit that criteria and so wouldn't be in AAP if the test scores and other criteria necessary for admission were raised.

If you ask parents of highly and profoundly gifted, they are happy with a larger group of students in the AAP class, and do not want a tiny, exclusive class of a dozen or so kids.
I say this as a parent of one of those kids you seem so concerned about.

Oh, well by all means: let's make sure the profoundly gifted are always happy. Forget about what makes Gen Ed parents and kids happy.

By all means, let's trample on what's best for the profoundly and above average learners in AAP so Gen Ed kids can be happy. How about spending your time on advocating for making gen ed better instead of trying to dismantle the only part of the system that's working well now.

[Anonymous]

The classroom allows differentiation and allows students to move ahead. AAP parents above are concerned there won't be differentiation in the classroom. The consensus seems to be that AAP is mainly just an acceleration of FCPS's typical curriculum.

[Anonymous]

7:18 I think General Ed parents are advocating for their children. The solution however may end up being a change to AAP students as well. Personally most AAP parents would prefer some mixing at the center school verses LLIV at every school.

[Anonymous]

I'm both an AAP and a Gen Ed parent (both at a center) and here are my thoughts, for whatever they're worth. I feel that my AAP child, though somewhat academically advanced in some subjects, is not in the gifted category. By now (he's in 5th grade) I know his classmates and can pretty confidentally say that very, very few of them fit into the "highly gifted" category. With a few exceptions, they would all do great in a Gen Ed classroom. My daughter, in 4th grade Gen Ed, has had her classroom depleted of kids who are are no more advanced than she and who would be doing fine in her classroom. This year, several of her Gen Ed classmates have left for private school to get away from this silliness, and I can't say I blame them. It makes so much more sense to keep most of the kids together in Gen Ed, especially those whose needs would be met just fine there. I agree that the Gen Ed curriculum needs to be improved, but the AAP curriculum is really not much more advanced and I find it curious that so many parents are under the impression that it is. If I had a "highly gifted" child, I wouldn't find AAP nearly enough for them.

[Anonymous]

I am disappointed in AAP because I thought my child would have creative projects and opportunities to problem solve. Really the only difference between gen Ed is that they skip a year in math and the pace is much faster. However, my daughter needs the much faster pace.

Gen Ed, especially inside the beltway, is now too easy in general. My child never got a single math problem wrong in homework or on school work from K-2. She was getting a very skewed idea of her abilities and what school is about. Like all kids, she deserves to be challenged and she needs to learn about working hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that 90% of the posts on the "AAP" forum, at least in this thread, appear to be from disgruntled parents of children in the GE program? I thought the idea of this forum was to keep you from being offended by any mention of the program, but here you are, seeking out an opportunity to attack any parent who is genuinely interested in discussing the structure and delivery of the educational program that FCPS says is appropriate for their child and is supposed to be providing.

You all are so quick to trash the AAP program and accuse parents of trying to elevate their children at the expense of yours -- never considering that perhaps YOU are the ones who cannot tolerate the thought that another child may need a different kind of educational program -- not better, different -- and one that is promised by this public school system as appropriate for that child. Would you tell the parent of a child with a learning disability, physical challenges, or other special needs that the public school system is not the place for them, because it's not fair that anyone gets anything different from what your child receives? Your anger, snark, misunderstanding of GT education, and stubborn insistence that most posters' children could not possibly have different educational needs is really only revealing of your own ignorance and insecurities.

+1! So tired of the grumpy GE parents coming to this forum and criticizing every AAP kid and parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed in AAP because I thought my child would have creative projects and opportunities to problem solve. Really the only difference between gen Ed is that they skip a year in math and the pace is much faster. However, my daughter needs the much faster pace.

Gen Ed, especially inside the beltway, is now too easy in general. My child never got a single math problem wrong in homework or on school work from K-2. She was getting a very skewed idea of her abilities and what school is about. Like all kids, she deserves to be challenged and she needs to learn about working hard.

I never got a single problem wrong in K-2 either. So what! Making decisions about your child based on K-2 performance -- particularly if they came in to school with a couple of years of preschool under their belts like most middle class kids means very little. Is she advanced in every area compared to her peers? Emotionally, socially, physically, athletically? If so, perhaps you have a prodigy on your hands and need to move her to a very special school. Otherwise, she still can learn a lot in school with other children. The academic piece is one part of an education. I don't hear parents whose children are socially advanced complaining about all the babies their kids have to have classes with. Nor did I complain when one of mine didn't get to work out as much in P.E. because he had to wait for his peers to learn what came naturally to him.

It takes a variety of different experiences to shape a person.... it doesn't happen in a vacuum where folks with equal abilities and growth patterns march in lock step. No one is saying you can't find creative projects to stimulate your daughter. Even the GenEd curriculum has extensions to go deeper on class topics, so I'm sure the AAP curriculum does. My GT/AAP son was always taking things apart and rebuilding them. As he got older he taught himself programming and went on to win awards at state and national competitions. He did these things because he wanted to, not because someone was grading him on it. He did them because he had the room and opportunity to explore what he liked without parents always hovering looking to find him a challenge.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but with kids in high school and college, I've learned that academics around here really does get difficult soon enough. What is in short supply is time for kids to be kids and explore their own interests. I'm sorry that you don't think AAP is challenging enough for your daughter. Hopefully, she can find some activities that stretch her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The classroom allows differentiation and allows students to move ahead. AAP parents above are concerned there won't be differentiation in the classroom. The consensus seems to be that AAP is mainly just an acceleration of FCPS's typical curriculum.

There was absolutely no differentiation in DS' s K-2 classrooms. In 2nd grade he was bringing home homework on a consistent basis that was counting by ones from one number to another. In AAP with accelerated math he consistently gets perfect or almost perfect scores in math, and he consistently gets 4s across the board in all subjects. Forgive me for not being confident that the Gen Ed teachers will differentiate. Our Gen Ed curriculum was so watered down that we would have sent DS to private if he hadn't gotten into AAP. Do people on this board really think there is actually effective differentiation in the Gen Ed classroom or are they just pretending that there is in order to bolster their argument about mainstreaming AAP? Differentiating in a classroom with kids from zero percentile to 100 is too hard of a task, especially given the range in some schools.

[Anonymous]

10:27 Do you even know what the proposal is? You're arguing about something you don't even know about. First of all, if you have a school with a good gifted pullout program and low student ratio or if you're in a school with a very high SES population you don't have to deal with the problems you encountered. There is differentiation in K-2. Second, the proposal that LLIV programs have going is that for 2 hours out of the week, they teach the AAP science and social studies curriculum to all children, so it would actually be the slower children that would have to deal with this change, not your child. From what I understand FCPS is weak in these areas anyway, so probably the gen. ed. science and social studies program was pretty pathetic to begin with. Third, AAP center schools tend to have more AAP students than general ed students, so unless you're in an AAP center with only 1 class of AAP or something, your child in AAP would be in the majority in any classroom and therefore the teaching would be more catered to your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm both an AAP and a Gen Ed parent (both at a center) and here are my thoughts, for whatever they're worth. I feel that my AAP child, though somewhat academically advanced in some subjects, is not in the gifted category. By now (he's in 5th grade) I know his classmates and can pretty confidentally say that very, very few of them fit into the "highly gifted" category. With a few exceptions, they would all do great in a Gen Ed classroom. My daughter, in 4th grade Gen Ed, has had her classroom depleted of kids who are are no more advanced than she and who would be doing fine in her classroom. This year, several of her Gen Ed classmates have left for private school to get away from this silliness, and I can't say I blame them. It makes so much more sense to keep most of the kids together in Gen Ed, especially those whose needs would be met just fine there. I agree that the Gen Ed curriculum needs to be improved, but the AAP curriculum is really not much more advanced and I find it curious that so many parents are under the impression that it is. If I had a "highly gifted" child, I wouldn't find AAP nearly enough for them.

With all due respect to your very valid point of view for your family, it is tiresome for this conversation to be dominated by: 1) parents who seem perfectly happy with the GE program, or 2) parents like yourself who admit their child is not really gifted and don't see or understand the need for a true GT program! Believe it or not, your own anecdotal observations aside, there is a sizable community of gifted students whose parents do believe that both the GE and currently implemented AAP programs fail to challenge and appropriately educate their kids. Your reasoning is flawed -- well, it suits my kid and if I had a highly gifted child it wouldn't be enough, but leave it as is?! That's the whole point of those arguing against further watering down -- we would like the program to go back in the other direction! Yes, we realize that many just slightly advanced kids are now included in the program, and yes, we realize that the program is very diluted now, to the point that its opponents are happily pointing out how it's barely different. But if everyone who is unhappy with the direction of FCPS schools just goes private -- whether GE or AAP program students, our school system is weakened. Not to mention that for many families private is not an option. We owe it to our own and everyone else's kids who may not have advocates to try to improve these programs across the board -- both GE and AAP, and it does not have to be mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

But 10:27's argument was that there's no differentiation, not that their child was so gifted. I hear this complaint more than the fact that people have a child prodigy. In their school perhaps the children did nothing advanced. In my dc's school there was some basic adding for about a month in 1st like where DC came home with a colored butterfly with one single digit addition problem on it, but there was also about a month when they worked on simple multiplication and division. At some point also you have to be reasonable on what FCPS should spend the money on. I'm not sure I agree that 6th grade children should get bussed to middle school for 8th grade math. If their parents want to do this, I'm ok with it, but not spending additional resources on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm both an AAP and a Gen Ed parent (both at a center) and here are my thoughts, for whatever they're worth. I feel that my AAP child, though somewhat academically advanced in some subjects, is not in the gifted category. By now (he's in 5th grade) I know his classmates and can pretty confidentally say that very, very few of them fit into the "highly gifted" category. With a few exceptions, they would all do great in a Gen Ed classroom. My daughter, in 4th grade Gen Ed, has had her classroom depleted of kids who are are no more advanced than she and who would be doing fine in her classroom. This year, several of her Gen Ed classmates have left for private school to get away from this silliness, and I can't say I blame them. It makes so much more sense to keep most of the kids together in Gen Ed, especially those whose needs would be met just fine there. I agree that the Gen Ed curriculum needs to be improved, but the AAP curriculum is really not much more advanced and I find it curious that so many parents are under the impression that it is. If I had a "highly gifted" child, I wouldn't find AAP nearly enough for them.

With all due respect to your very valid point of view for your family, it is tiresome for this conversation to be dominated by: 1) parents who seem perfectly happy with the GE program, or 2) parents like yourself who admit their child is not really gifted and don't see or understand the need for a true GT program! Believe it or not, your own anecdotal observations aside, there is a sizable community of gifted students whose parents do believe that both the GE and currently implemented AAP programs fail to challenge and appropriately educate their kids. Your reasoning is flawed -- well, it suits my kid and if I had a highly gifted child it wouldn't be enough, but leave it as is?! That's the whole point of those arguing against further watering down -- we would like the program to go back in the other direction! Yes, we realize that many just slightly advanced kids are now included in the program, and yes, we realize that the program is very diluted now, to the point that its opponents are happily pointing out how it's barely different. But if everyone who is unhappy with the direction of FCPS schools just goes private -- whether GE or AAP program students, our school system is weakened. Not to mention that for many families private is not an option. We owe it to our own and everyone else's kids who may not have advocates to try to improve these programs across the board -- both GE and AAP, and it does not have to be mutually exclusive.

I think we are arguing for the same thing, though perhaps it didn't come across in my post. I absolutely DO think AAP and GE both need to be improved! I must not have emphasized it enough, but I did say that the Gen Ed curriculum needs to be improved. I never said to "leave it as it is". I said that my child, like many others, is not highly gifted and would do fine in a Gen Ed classroom, but what I should have added is a Gen Ed classroom that has been improved to be more challenging. And as far as taking AAP back in the other direction, that's exactly what I think needs to happen. I believe it should return to being a program for the highly gifted, and the above average students should go back to a GE class that has been (hopefully) revamped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:27 Do you even know what the proposal is? You're arguing about something you don't even know about. First of all, if you have a school with a good gifted pullout program and low student ratio or if you're in a school with a very high SES population you don't have to deal with the problems you encountered. There is differentiation in K-2. Second, the proposal that LLIV programs have going is that for 2 hours out of the week, they teach the AAP science and social studies curriculum to all children, so it would actually be the slower children that would have to deal with this change, not your child. From what I understand FCPS is weak in these areas anyway, so probably the gen. ed. science and social studies program was pretty pathetic to begin with. Third, AAP center schools tend to have more AAP students than general ed students, so unless you're in an AAP center with only 1 class of AAP or something, your child in AAP would be in the majority in any classroom and therefore the teaching would be more catered to your child.

Have you read this thread? That's not what a lot of the posters are suggesting. Also, thanks for clarifying that kids at a school with a good gifted pullout program and low student ratio or very high SES population don't have to deal with the problem I encountered