Question for those whose children were not admitted...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

Not the PP - you may not like hearing it, but it is the truth. The GT program was a far different animal than AAP of today. The kids in GT were truly exceptional (high IQ) and everyone knew it. There was no resentment because most kids were in General Ed. GT was reserved for kids with exceptional ability. There is no way anyone could argue that AAP comes anywhere close to that model.

Yeah, I totally agree with this. Have you talked to any of those kids going to an Ivy these days - man, they let anyone in. Back in my day getting an Ivy League degree really meant something.

What does going to an Ivy have to do with AAP (as in elementary and middle school)? Answer: nothing. Once high school starts, bright kids can choose to take Honors and AP classes and have just as much a shot at the Ivies as any other kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

Not the PP - you may not like hearing it, but it is the truth. The GT program was a far different animal than AAP of today. The kids in GT were truly exceptional (high IQ) and everyone knew it. There was no resentment because most kids were in General Ed. GT was reserved for kids with exceptional ability. There is no way anyone could argue that AAP comes anywhere close to that model.

Yeah, I totally agree with this. Have you talked to any of those kids going to an Ivy these days - man, they let anyone in. Back in my day getting an Ivy League degree really meant something.

What does going to an Ivy have to do with AAP (as in elementary and middle school)? Answer: nothing. Once high school starts, bright kids can choose to take Honors and AP classes and have just as much a shot at the Ivies as any other kid.

Sigh, I don't think that was the point being made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

10 or 12 or so years ago they changed the name from G&T to AAP, but it must have been before then because the cutoff for CogAt was still around the same in the immediate years prior - generally between 130-135- depending on the year. There were no substantive changes to the program at the time either. They added the Naglieri the next year for first graders. My eldest is a college freshman and about a third of his class qualified for Level IV AAP and a few more left every year after that. He did attend one of the "higher rated" McLean ES where AAP enrollment has perennially been high. My younger DS is currently a junior and his was the first year they offered a real LLIV program- which the majority chose and continue to do so.

9 years ago when DS did it there were quite a few with IQ/WISC of 130. This area has gotten far more competitive and smarter people are here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

There exists here this unsupported nostalgia for a fabled program where young Mozarts and Charles Wallaces moved chess pieces with their minds unencumbered by merely bright or advanced classmates. If it ever existed it's gone now and good riddance. Every year that passes makes such repeated reminiscences less relevant and their proponents more pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

There exists here this unsupported nostalgia for a fabled program where young Mozarts and Charles Wallaces moved chess pieces with their minds unencumbered by merely bright or advanced classmates. If it ever existed it's gone now and good riddance. Every year that passes makes such repeated reminiscences less relevant and their proponents more pathetic.

That was a very entertaining response! I don't know about moving chess pieces with their minds, but there were some seriously exceptional kids in GT. Kind of what you'd expect from a gifted program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

There exists here this unsupported nostalgia for a fabled program where young Mozarts and Charles Wallaces moved chess pieces with their minds unencumbered by merely bright or advanced classmates. If it ever existed it's gone now and good riddance. Every year that passes makes such repeated reminiscences less relevant and their proponents more pathetic.

That was a very entertaining response! I don't know about moving chess pieces with their minds, but there were some seriously exceptional kids in GT. Kind of what you'd expect from a gifted program.

I assume many of these younger super gifted kids are still in the same program, just with other kids who are bright but not super gifted. Most schools in the past and school districts now just have a once or twice a week pull out program with many kids who aren't exceptionally gifted. This is the view of most people talking about a gifted program in the US, not some single school that draws from all around only for the super gifted. Your description reminds me of Bloor's Academy in that book Charlie Bone where everyone is a genius, but that's not the reality of a gifted program in most public school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

There exists here this unsupported nostalgia for a fabled program where young Mozarts and Charles Wallaces moved chess pieces with their minds unencumbered by merely bright or advanced classmates. If it ever existed it's gone now and good riddance. Every year that passes makes such repeated reminiscences less relevant and their proponents more pathetic.

That was a very entertaining response! I don't know about moving chess pieces with their minds, but there were some seriously exceptional kids in GT. Kind of what you'd expect from a gifted program.

In which years did you have these experiences? 1970's? 1980s? 1990's, 2000's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

There exists here this unsupported nostalgia for a fabled program where young Mozarts and Charles Wallaces moved chess pieces with their minds unencumbered by merely bright or advanced classmates. If it ever existed it's gone now and good riddance. Every year that passes makes such repeated reminiscences less relevant and their proponents more pathetic.

That was a very entertaining response! I don't know about moving chess pieces with their minds, but there were some seriously exceptional kids in GT. Kind of what you'd expect from a gifted program.

In which years did you have these experiences? 1970's? 1980s? 1990's, 2000's?

1980s and 1990s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the result of turning a gifted program into advanced academics. When my son was in the GT program, the whole point was the busy work and unnecessary homework went away. He was very engaged in his school work, at school, but not doing heaps of h homework at night because he and his classmates "got" what they were teaching and didn't need all the repetition.

What year was that?

It is ridiculous. You hear this argument all the time: it was a gifted program when my kid went, but not now. Translation: Her kid really needed the program b/c her kid is really gifted. Today's program is not a gifted program and the children currently in it are not really that bright...well, compared to her kid.

What I want to understand is how is the program different than it used to be? I keep hearing it is, but FCPS still uses all those gifted and talented resources with the AAP students, so is it really that different in an actual classroom? If so, how? Or has FCPS just tried to pull as many people as they can up into the AAP program without slowing it down too much?

AAP is a completely watered-down version of what used to be GT. They've admitted so many kids - many of whom are right on the border with the top GE kids - that it's no longer only the very highest group of kids. They're mainly avg./above avg./very mainstream. There's no way they can teach a true "gifted" curriculum to this group.

There exists here this unsupported nostalgia for a fabled program where young Mozarts and Charles Wallaces moved chess pieces with their minds unencumbered by merely bright or advanced classmates. If it ever existed it's gone now and good riddance. Every year that passes makes such repeated reminiscences less relevant and their proponents more pathetic.

That was a very entertaining response! I don't know about moving chess pieces with their minds, but there were some seriously exceptional kids in GT. Kind of what you'd expect from a gifted program.

I assume many of these younger super gifted kids are still in the same program, just with other kids who are bright but not super gifted. Most schools in the past and school districts now just have a once or twice a week pull out program with many kids who aren't exceptionally gifted. This is the view of most people talking about a gifted program in the US, not some single school that draws from all around only for the super gifted. Your description reminds me of Bloor's Academy in that book Charlie Bone where everyone is a genius, but that's not the reality of a gifted program in most public school districts.

Doesn't MoCo have Highly Gifted Centers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People spend lots of money for those Asian test prep camps and classes.

And people spend even more on private IQ tests to get the score they want.

There is no evidence that that any licensed psychologist is cooking the scores.

You think the tester who received hundreds of dollars per testing would say yes I was influence by money?

I'm not familiar with how tests to support an appeal work. Are they not multiple choice like the ones at school? What gives you the idea that desired results have a price tag? Isn't payment made up front?

"I think private psychologists can sometimes "interpret" results in a way that they are able to give higher scores."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People spend lots of money for those Asian test prep camps and classes.

And people spend even more on private IQ tests to get the score they want.

There is no evidence that that any licensed psychologist is cooking the scores.

You think the tester who received hundreds of dollars per testing would say yes I was influence by money?

I'm not familiar with how tests to support an appeal work. Are they not multiple choice like the ones at school? What gives you the idea that desired results have a price tag? Isn't payment made up front?

"I think private psychologists can sometimes "interpret" results in a way that they are able to give higher scores."

Why do you "think" this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People spend lots of money for those Asian test prep camps and classes.

And people spend even more on private IQ tests to get the score they want.[/quote]

There is no evidence that that any licensed psychologist is cooking the scores.

You think the tester who received hundreds of dollars per testing would say yes I was influence by money?

I'm not familiar with how tests to support an appeal work. Are they not multiple choice like the ones at school? What gives you the idea that desired results have a price tag? Isn't payment made up front?

"I think private psychologists can sometimes "interpret" results in a way that they are able to give higher scores."

I need to tell my friend this! She spent hundreds of dollars and her kid's FSIQ was 105. Yes, it was for AAP admission. Please give me your amori tatie source for this golden nugget!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People spend lots of money for those Asian test prep camps and classes.

And people spend even more on private IQ tests to get the score they want.[/quote]

There is no evidence that that any licensed psychologist is cooking the scores.

You think the tester who received hundreds of dollars per testing would say yes I was influence by money?

I'm not familiar with how tests to support an appeal work. Are they not multiple choice like the ones at school? What gives you the idea that desired results have a price tag? Isn't payment made up front?

"I think private psychologists can sometimes "interpret" results in a way that they are able to give higher scores."

I need to tell my friend this! She spent hundreds of dollars and her kid's FSIQ was 105. Yes, it was for AAP admission. Please give me your amori tatie source for this golden nugget!

"Authoritative"