Petition to Keep Centers - Hypocritical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the petition:

"Anyone with an AAP kid knows that they might feel like a “nerd” or outcast when they are in the minority. But at a Center school, where most kids are like them, they “fit in” and thrive."

The AAP kids of today are no longer the "nerds" (using their words, not mine) of GT programs from a decade ago. They are completely mainstream, involved in sports and other activities. And why is this? Because AAP has opened up the program to vast numbers of kids over the years, kids who wouldn't have otherwise been identified as "gifted". It is moronic to claim that these are the outcasts, the "nerds" who need their "peer group". These kids are as mainstream as any others and their peer groups are found everywhere - yes, even in the base schools.

Enough with this attitude that AAP kids are some sort of special breed who must be hot-housed with other AAP kids lest they not reach their "potential". It has become such a crock of B.S.

This shows that the program works very well and succeeds in its purpose. This means the program should continue relatively unchanged.

No. This shows that the program has become so bloated that most of the kids in it are now indistinguishable from the most of the kids in Gen Ed. The purpose of the program was supposed to be to educate kids who were not able to learn in a traditional classroom. To say that the majority of kids in AAP are "not able to learn in a traditional classroom," and so must be educated separately, is insulting. I didn't plan on my tax dollars funding a program for mainstream kids who are no different than my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the petition:

"Anyone with an AAP kid knows that they might feel like a “nerd” or outcast when they are in the minority. But at a Center school, where most kids are like them, they “fit in” and thrive."

The AAP kids of today are no longer the "nerds" (using their words, not mine) of GT programs from a decade ago. They are completely mainstream, involved in sports and other activities. And why is this? Because AAP has opened up the program to vast numbers of kids over the years, kids who wouldn't have otherwise been identified as "gifted". It is moronic to claim that these are the outcasts, the "nerds" who need their "peer group". These kids are as mainstream as any others and their peer groups are found everywhere - yes, even in the base schools.

Enough with this attitude that AAP kids are some sort of special breed who must be hot-housed with other AAP kids lest they not reach their "potential". It has become such a crock of B.S.

This shows that the program works very well and succeeds in its purpose. This means the program should continue relatively unchanged.

This response is a great example of why people hate AAP parents. If there is now a significantly larger number of kids getting in, the logical step is to get rid of centers because they don't need to bus kids to centers to get a critical mass of peers with similar ability. Centers were created to provide kids will a similar peer group. If AAP has expanded to include so many kids, the center model is entirely unnecessary. You can't even argue that the center model should be kept because of the profoundly gifted kids because they most certainly aren't being served by the current center model because they are now placed in a class including a ton of moderately gifted kids, rather than one with kids of their ability.

EXACTLY. This is not a gifted program, by any stretch of the imagination. And centers are certainly not needed anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the petition:

"Anyone with an AAP kid knows that they might feel like a “nerd” or outcast when they are in the minority. But at a Center school, where most kids are like them, they “fit in” and thrive."

The AAP kids of today are no longer the "nerds" (using their words, not mine) of GT programs from a decade ago. They are completely mainstream, involved in sports and other activities. And why is this? Because AAP has opened up the program to vast numbers of kids over the years, kids who wouldn't have otherwise been identified as "gifted". It is moronic to claim that these are the outcasts, the "nerds" who need their "peer group". These kids are as mainstream as any others and their peer groups are found everywhere - yes, even in the base schools.

Enough with this attitude that AAP kids are some sort of special breed who must be hot-housed with other AAP kids lest they not reach their "potential". It has become such a crock of B.S.

This shows that the program works very well and succeeds in its purpose. This means the program should continue relatively unchanged.

This response is a great example of why people hate AAP parents. If there is now a significantly larger number of kids getting in, the logical step is to get rid of centers because they don't need to bus kids to centers to get a critical mass of peers with similar ability. Centers were created to provide kids will a similar peer group. If AAP has expanded to include so many kids, the center model is entirely unnecessary. You can't even argue that the centergley model should be kept because of the profoundly gifted kids because they most certainly aren't being served by the current center model because they are now placed in a class including a ton of moderately gifted kids, rather than one with kids of their ability.

Get out of your Langley bubble. As many, many people have pointed out, what is happening in Colvin Run's 6th grades is NOT a reflection of what is happening in the rest of FCPS.

I'd love to know why you assume the PP is a Colvin Run or Langley parent. I'm not the PP, but I agree completely with what s/he is saying. You seem to have tunnel vision that everyone who wants centers to be a thing of the past must have kids at Colvin Run - you've mentioned it a couple of times previously. Why is that? Perhaps it's you who should get out of your bubble and get the chip off your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that arguing that AAP-eligible kids would be nerds or outcasts at their base school is just a clever way of arguing they deserve favorable treatment. It sounds better than explicitly arguing that the other kids are a bunch of Neanderthals, but the intent is essentially the same. You're just prepared to use slightly pejorative language about your own kids to secure the same special benefits denied other children. There are very few children who really have the combination of smarts and idiosyncrasies that would lead them to be ostracized in a typical classroom, if they were properly socialized, but AAP parents have a vested interest in making sure the skin of their children remains very thin.

YES. It's interesting that it's the AAP parents who keep referring to their own kids as "nerds, outcasts," etc. The AAP kids at our center are anything but. Most of them are very athletic and super popular. I think it's almost reassuring to these parents to say these things in order to keep up the farce of their kids being special and different. There will always be a few kids who actually are so different as to be outcasts, and this is unfortunate - but it's deliberately misleading to imply that this could only happen among the AAP population. There are children like this in General Ed too, yet they don't get the option of leaving the base school to seek out their "peer group" at a center.

I have had it with this group expecting their kids to be treated more favorably than others. They don't deserve to go to special schools, any more than all the other kids deserve that opportunity. I'm imagining the outrage if General Ed students were offered the opportunity to go to a different school, but the AAP kids were expected to remain in the base school. Oh, what an outcry there would be! But instead, all we hear is how "unfair" it will be for the AAP kids to have to remain at the base school. You know, like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the petition:

"Anyone with an AAP kid knows that they might feel like a “nerd” or outcast when they are in the minority. But at a Center school, where most kids are like them, they “fit in” and thrive."

The AAP kids of today are no longer the "nerds" (using their words, not mine) of GT programs from a decade ago. They are completely mainstream, involved in sports and other activities. And why is this? Because AAP has opened up the program to vast numbers of kids over the years, kids who wouldn't have otherwise been identified as "gifted". It is moronic to claim that these are the outcasts, the "nerds" who need their "peer group". These kids are as mainstream as any others and their peer groups are found everywhere - yes, even in the base schools.

Enough with this attitude that AAP kids are some sort of special breed who must be hot-housed with other AAP kids lest they not reach their "potential". It has become such a crock of B.S.

This shows that the program works very well and succeeds in its purpose. This means the program should continue relatively unchanged.

This response is a great example of why people hate AAP parents. If there is now a significantly larger number of kids getting in, the logical step is to get rid of centers because they don't need to bus kids to centers to get a critical mass of peers with similar ability. Centers were created to provide kids will a similar peer group. If AAP has expanded to include so many kids, the center model is entirely unnecessary. You can't even argue that the centergley model should be kept because of the profoundly gifted kids because they most certainly aren't being served by the current center model because they are now placed in a class including a ton of moderately gifted kids, rather than one with kids of their ability.

Get out of your Langley bubble. As many, many people have pointed out, what is happening in Colvin Run's 6th grades is NOT a reflection of what is happening in the rest of FCPS.

I'd love to know why you assume the PP is a Colvin Run or Langley parent. I'm not the PP, but I agree completely with what s/he is saying. You seem to have tunnel vision that everyone who wants centers to be a thing of the past must have kids at Colvin Run - you've mentioned it a couple of times previously. Why is that? Perhaps it's you who should get out of your bubble and get the chip off your shoulder.

Have you ever read of someone posting from a general ed school in a title 1 district saying that centers aren't a good thing for their neighborhood? I have yet to read about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the petition:

"Anyone with an AAP kid knows that they might feel like a “nerd” or outcast when they are in the minority. But at a Center school, where most kids are like them, they “fit in” and thrive."

The AAP kids of today are no longer the "nerds" (using their words, not mine) of GT programs from a decade ago. They are completely mainstream, involved in sports and other activities. And why is this? Because AAP has opened up the program to vast numbers of kids over the years, kids who wouldn't have otherwise been identified as "gifted". It is moronic to claim that these are the outcasts, the "nerds" who need their "peer group". These kids are as mainstream as any others and their peer groups are found everywhere - yes, even in the base schools.

Enough with this attitude that AAP kids are some sort of special breed who must be hot-housed with other AAP kids lest they not reach their "potential". It has become such a crock of B.S.

This shows that the program works very well and succeeds in its purpose. This means the program should continue relatively unchanged.

This response is a great example of why people hate AAP parents. If there is now a significantly larger number of kids getting in, the logical step is to get rid of centers because they don't need to bus kids to centers to get a critical mass of peers with similar ability. Centers were created to provide kids will a similar peer group. If AAP has expanded to include so many kids, the center model is entirely unnecessary. You can't even argue that the centergley model should be kept because of the profoundly gifted kids because they most certainly aren't being served by the current center model because they are now placed in a class including a ton of moderately gifted kids, rather than one with kids of their ability.

Get out of your Langley bubble. As many, many people have pointed out, what is happening in Colvin Run's 6th grades is NOT a reflection of what is happening in the rest of FCPS.

I'd love to know why you assume the PP is a Colvin Run or Langley parent. I'm not the PP, but I agree completely with what s/he is saying. You seem to have tunnel vision that everyone who wants centers to be a thing of the past must have kids at Colvin Run - you've mentioned it a couple of times previously. Why is that? Perhaps it's you who should get out of your bubble and get the chip off your shoulder.

Have you ever read of someone posting from a general ed school in a title 1 district saying that centers aren't a good thing for their neighborhood? I have yet to read about it.

If my kids were in general ed (which they are) in a Title 1 district, I would be even more outraged by the system allowing some kids (AAP) to leave the base school for the center. What does that say about how FCPS feels about those Gen Ed kids who are stuck at the base school? They're expendable, so they can just stay at the base school and languish, while we invest all our efforts into improving the education of only the AAP kids? No way would I be on board with that.

[Anonymous]

What are you talking about? Those schools get the most money in the county. They don't languish at all. It's just that the peer group for gifted children is very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever read of someone posting from a general ed school in a title 1 district saying that centers aren't a good thing for their neighborhood? I have yet to read about it.

AAP students and their families would be the lifeblood of Title I schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about? Those schools get the most money in the county. They don't languish at all. It's just that the peer group for gifted children is very small.

My kids are at a Title I school and I did not have the choice of local level IV. I also didn't have the option of compacted math for my child if we decided to skip the center and keep DC in level III. The level III differentiation was spotty at best. I don't like the center model, and would have preferred to keep my kids in local level IV. I would have also been fine with base school and compacted math because DC loves math. I had neither option, which I found frustrating because some schools have compacted math, local level IV and a center option. Not every parent with a child who qualifies wants to take their kids out of the neighborhood schools, but given the choices (or lack thereof) we picked the center. If local level IV were offered next year, there is no doubt I would put DC back at the base school. DC is doing well at the center, but the center starts later, gets out later, is not as conveniently located to our house, so playdates with classmates are also not as convenient, and I think the sense of community was better at the local school. So, I'm a Title I school parent who doesn't like the center system and would be happy with local level IV. For me, I'm more concerned about DC having access to the curriculum rather than the peer group because I think access to the curriculum is what is most important and the peer group is a bonus if available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about? Those schools get the most money in the county. They don't languish at all. It's just that the peer group for gifted children is very small.

My kids are at a Title I school and I did not have the choice of local level IV. I also didn't have the option of compacted math for my child if we decided to skip the center and keep DC in level III. The level III differentiation was spotty at best. I don't like the center model, and would have preferred to keep my kids in local level IV. I would have also been fine with base school and compacted math because DC loves math. I had neither option, which I found frustrating because some schools have compacted math, local level IV and a center option. Not every parent with a child who qualifies wants to take their kids out of the neighborhood schools, but given the choices (or lack thereof) we picked the center. If local level IV were offered next year, there is no doubt I would put DC back at the base school. DC is doing well at the center, but the center starts later, gets out later, is not as conveniently located to our house, so playdates with classmates are also not as convenient, and I think the sense of community was better at the local school. So, I'm a Title I school parent who doesn't like the center system and would be happy with local level IV. For me, I'm more concerned about DC having access to the curriculum rather than the peer group because I think access to the curriculum is what is most important and the peer group is a bonus if available.

You seem to be advocating for level 2 services at your school for compacted math only. First, this should already be available at your school if you are looking for math one grade level above. See the attached link which has a chart showing what advanced math is open to all students. http://www.fcps.edu/is/math/elementary/. I'd start here with trying to figure out why this is not an option at your base school. I'd contact your principal, your school board member and your area administration as well as the FCPS mathematics coordinator and get them to either implement what they say is available or change their website to indicate which schools this is available for. Regarding the other subjects, have you talked to your principal and the teachers as to the availability and difficulties of implementing a full level 4 curriculum for just a couple of students? Are they on board?

Also, are you fully comfortable with doing away with the center option for your entire neighborhood and not just your child? You seem to be jealous that other schools have all these great LLIV options, however this is precisely because they have so many students that qualify for advanced instruction. Doing away with the center model would not necessarily bring the same options to your school as exists at a school like Spring Hill.

[Anonymous]

Also, FCPS a couple of years ago changed their requirements for needs based staffing to limit additional teachers only to schools with I think over 20% of students qualifying for free and reduced meals. There are also requirement for title 1 schools. Putting gifted kids back into these title 1 public schools could have the effect of disqualifying these schools from meeting title 1 status or receiving additional needs based teachers and thus reduce the number of teachers and resources they receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever read of someone posting from a general ed school in a title 1 district saying that centers aren't a good thing for their neighborhood? I have yet to read about it.

AAP students and their families would be the lifeblood of Title I schools.

OMG. Sorry, but no. Also, how can you even say that when the AAP kids leave for centers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about? Those schools get the most money in the county. They don't languish at all. It's just that the peer group for gifted children is very small.

My kids are at a Title I school and I did not have the choice of local level IV. I also didn't have the option of compacted math for my child if we decided to skip the center and keep DC in level III. The level III differentiation was spotty at best. I don't like the center model, and would have preferred to keep my kids in local level IV. I would have also been fine with base school and compacted math because DC loves math. I had neither option, which I found frustrating because some schools have compacted math, local level IV and a center option. Not every parent with a child who qualifies wants to take their kids out of the neighborhood schools, but given the choices (or lack thereof) we picked the center. If local level IV were offered next year, there is no doubt I would put DC back at the base school. DC is doing well at the center, but the center starts later, gets out later, is not as conveniently located to our house, so playdates with classmates are also not as convenient, and I think the sense of community was better at the local school. So, I'm a Title I school parent who doesn't like the center system and would be happy with local level IV. For me, I'm more concerned about DC having access to the curriculum rather than the peer group because I think access to the curriculum is what is most important and the peer group is a bonus if available.

WOW! I could have written that post myself. I'm in the same situation and feel the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about? Those schools get the most money in the county. They don't languish at all. It's just that the peer group for gifted children is very small.

My kids are at a Title I school and I did not have the choice of local level IV. I also didn't have the option of compacted math for my child if we decided to skip the center and keep DC in level III. The level III differentiation was spotty at best. I don't like the center model, and would have preferred to keep my kids in local level IV. I would have also been fine with base school and compacted math because DC loves math. I had neither option, which I found frustrating because some schools have compacted math, local level IV and a center option. Not every parent with a child who qualifies wants to take their kids out of the neighborhood schools, but given the choices (or lack thereof) we picked the center. If local level IV were offered next year, there is no doubt I would put DC back at the base school. DC is doing well at the center, but the center starts later, gets out later, is not as conveniently located to our house, so playdates with classmates are also not as convenient, and I think the sense of community was better at the local school. So, I'm a Title I school parent who doesn't like the center system and would be happy with local level IV. For me, I'm more concerned about DC having access to the curriculum rather than the peer group because I think access to the curriculum is what is most important and the peer group is a bonus if available.

You seem to be advocating for level 2 services at your school for compacted math only. First, this should already be available at your school if you are looking for math one grade level above. See the attached link which has a chart showing what advanced math is open to all students. http://www.fcps.edu/is/math/elementary/. I'd start here with trying to figure out why this is not an option at your base school. I'd contact your principal, your school board member and your area administration as well as the FCPS mathematics coordinator and get them to either implement what they say is available or change their website to indicate which schools this is available for. Regarding the other subjects, have you talked to your principal and the teachers as to the availability and difficulties of implementing a full level 4 curriculum for just a couple of students? Are they on board?

Also, are you fully comfortable with doing away with the center option for your entire neighborhood and not just your child? You seem to be jealous that other schools have all these great LLIV options, however this is precisely because they have so many students that qualify for advanced instruction. Doing away with the center model would not necessarily bring the same options to your school as exists at a school like Spring Hill.

It's interesting that you think I'm jealous. That's such an immature word choice. PPs implied that there are no patents of kids in title I schools who don't support the center model, and I was just pointing out that's not true. I guess when Spring Hill parents try to hang on to all the options, it's a fairness issue, but if a parent from a Title one school points out that those services are not available, it's jealousy. I'm just stating that facts about what is and isn't available at my child's school. As far as the rest of my neighborhood goes, they have nothing to worry about because if FCPS won't put compacted math in the school they most certainly won't put local level IV.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting that you think I'm jealous. That's such an immature word choice. PPs implied that there are no patents of kids in title I schools who don't support the center model, and I was just pointing out that's not true. I guess when Spring Hill parents try to hang on to all the options, it's a fairness issue, but if a parent from a Title one school points out that those services are not available, it's jealousy. I'm just stating that facts about what is and isn't available at my child's school. As far as the rest of my neighborhood goes, they have nothing to worry about because if FCPS won't put compacted math in the school they most certainly won't put local level IV.

What's so "interesting" about that? Jealous, according to the Macmillan Dictionary of Immature Words, means "unhappy because someone has something that you would like or can do something that you would like to do".