Are you in AAP?

[Anonymous]

No. U r incorrect. Nothing about unwashed was suggested.

[Anonymous]

This is the OP. It's been a few weeks and the boys are all back to playing without the AAP talk. Maybe they really were only trying to find out who was going to be in their classes. Maybe I was having a bad week and was being over sensitive. Either way, they are enjoying the last few weeks of summer and do not seem overly stressed about school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP. It's been a few weeks and the boys are all back to playing without the AAP talk. Maybe they really were only trying to find out who was going to be in their classes. Maybe I was having a bad week and was being over sensitive. Either way, they are enjoying the last few weeks of summer and do not seem overly stressed about school.

Great news!

My DD posted to Instagram that she wants vacation to be over so she can be back at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The center model has worked well for all three of my children. One has an IQ of 155, another has 132. The third has a GAI of 141, and a 504 for extreme low processing. Basically small class for testing and longer testing time.

For the 1st, MS was the first challenging environment and mainly because of self-stress. By 8th grade, DC was all As. For the 2nd, the center provides an environment where DCs perfection is rewarded. For the 3rd, the center has proven to be a great reward as DCs teachers understand 2E kids.

The GE model would have created hardship for my kids. DC1 was basically an in-class tutor for k-2. Even the school said they couldn't do much for DC than they were doing. For DC 2, the lowest common denominator model used in GE was not beneficial to DCs perfectionism. As for DC3, being 2E and in an environment in which the teacher is certified in gifted education had been great!

What's wrong with that? A big part of the younger grades is socialization and learning to get along. Is your DC's intelligence going to drain away if she has to help others? Could it be these children your resent your daughter had to help might have something to teach her?

And how do you know the GE model (most of us call it public school) would create hardship for your kids? I've had kids in both and somehow they've all managed to get fine educations. Your attitude of entitlement is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole AAP system. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be there, because they sound very smart. I'm just saying since they're not in GE you don't know what mixing with the unwashed might have taught them.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with having a child not learn a thing, but instead spend his/her time helping other children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Putting kids in separate AAP classrooms, as is done at center schools, does no one any good.

P!ease do not speak for my kids, who benefitted greatly from attending AAP Center classes where teachers and staff partnered to identify, document, and implement the necessary supports for my children with LDs. We tried the Local Level IV option at our base school and it was a failure. At the recommendation of our kids' doctors, we switched them to the Center program, where both kids were successful.

Maybe the Center did not work well for your kids. However, your kids do not represent the needs of all kids.

NP here. It is good your child's needs were met. I know a couple of other brilliant children with disabilities who were served very well by AAP. That said, I think they would be even better served if AAP was still an actual gifted program. As PPs have noted, too many kids of similar abilities arbitrarily consigned to in GE, too many prepped and parentally pushed children getting a better education than their intellectual peers simply because mom and dad know how to work the system. Too many gifted SES kids dropping through the cracks, while well-heeled parents brag that their non-gifted child still needs AAP. Too much entitlement, not enough equity. The current method for separating kids into AAP and GE is a scam.

There is no scam, myth, or conspiracy with AAP. It is actually a very transparent, thorough, and fair screening system. I guarantee you, if parent referral or appeals options were taken away, parents would complain that the system is terrible because it is all based on test scores and one score on one day (or 2 NNAT and CoGAT) does not give a complete picture - and DCUM would be full of these complainers. Likewise, if the the required test scores were raised, parents of children who just missed the benchmark would complain that their children are NO DIFFERENT than the kids who made the benchmark. If Centers were eliminated, parents would complain about preferential treatment for Local level IV students in their school. FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible and we live in a highly educated area.

The 'stress' really is parent driven. AAP is not that big of a deal. I tell my kids - yeah, you do well with an accelerated academic curriculum, good for you, big deal. There are kids in Gen Ed and/or AAP that can speak 3 languages, or are brilliantly artistic or are incredible athletes. The fact that you are academically gifted is great and all, but success is more determined by a positive attitude, a spirit of gratitude, hard work, determination and the way in which you approach challenges. No way do my kids think they are superior for being in AAP. And if they were in Gen Ed, I would be saying the exact same thing!

It would be great if more AAP parents were like you.

It's nice that you don't make a big deal about AAP for your kids. But throwing your hands up and saying we can't change AAP or make the standards higher because people would complain is a cop-out acceptable only to folks comfortable with the inequitable status quo. A program that was designed to meet the needs of "gifted" kids has been turned into something that primarily rewards high SES households where parents have the means to enrich their kids. That's not what I'm paying taxes for and I'd wager plenty of other FFX residents feel the same way. A public system needs to meet the needs of all kids and not the better prepared more than others. If FCPS is going to segregate kids by academic potential they need to find a better way to do it.

Be careful what you wish for. Know where there is no GT program? DC. That's working out realllll well for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The center model has worked well for all three of my children. One has an IQ of 155, another has 132. The third has a GAI of 141, and a 504 for extreme low processing. Basically small class for testing and longer testing time.

For the 1st, MS was the first challenging environment and mainly because of self-stress. By 8th grade, DC was all As. For the 2nd, the center provides an environment where DCs perfection is rewarded. For the 3rd, the center has proven to be a great reward as DCs teachers understand 2E kids.

The GE model would have created hardship for my kids. DC1 was basically an in-class tutor for k-2. Even the school said they couldn't do much for DC than they were doing. For DC 2, the lowest common denominator model used in GE was not beneficial to DCs perfectionism. As for DC3, being 2E and in an environment in which the teacher is certified in gifted education had been great!

What's wrong with that? A big part of the younger grades is socialization and learning to get along. Is your DC's intelligence going to drain away if she has to help others? Could it be these children your resent your daughter had to help might have something to teach her?

And how do you know the GE model (most of us call it public school) would create hardship for your kids? I've had kids in both and somehow they've all managed to get fine educations. Your attitude of entitlement is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole AAP system. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be there, because they sound very smart. I'm just saying since they're not in GE you don't know what mixing with the unwashed might have taught them.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with having a child not learn a thing, but instead spend his/her time helping other children?

Not learn a thing??? Like nails on a chalkboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The center model has worked well for all three of my children. One has an IQ of 155, another has 132. The third has a GAI of 141, and a 504 for extreme low processing. Basically small class for testing and longer testing time.

For the 1st, MS was the first challenging environment and mainly because of self-stress. By 8th grade, DC was all As. For the 2nd, the center provides an environment where DCs perfection is rewarded. For the 3rd, the center has proven to be a great reward as DCs teachers understand 2E kids.

The GE model would have created hardship for my kids. DC1 was basically an in-class tutor for k-2. Even the school said they couldn't do much for DC than they were doing. For DC 2, the lowest common denominator model used in GE was not beneficial to DCs perfectionism. As for DC3, being 2E and in an environment in which the teacher is certified in gifted education had been great!

What's wrong with that? A big part of the younger grades is socialization and learning to get along. Is your DC's intelligence going to drain away if she has to help others? Could it be these children your resent your daughter had to help might have something to teach her?

And how do you know the GE model (most of us call it public school) would create hardship for your kids? I've had kids in both and somehow they've all managed to get fine educations. Your attitude of entitlement is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole AAP system. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be there, because they sound very smart. I'm just saying since they're not in GE you don't know what mixing with the unwashed might have taught them.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with having a child not learn a thing, but instead spend his/her time helping other children?

Not learn a thing??? Like nails on a chalkboard.

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

[Anonymous]

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

Sorry to hear that your kid ultimately suffered from your choice to keep him in GT. Was he ever able to balance his under-developed social skills with his super-developed brain? Anyway, parents these days who believe their AAP kids would be better off long-term in a GE classroom can actually place them there. Problem (if any) solved. But if you think those who prefer AAP do so only because "they've bought into a silly race" you need to increase your sample size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The center model has worked well for all three of my children. One has an IQ of 155, another has 132. The third has a GAI of 141, and a 504 for extreme low processing. Basically small class for testing and longer testing time.

For the 1st, MS was the first challenging environment and mainly because of self-stress. By 8th grade, DC was all As. For the 2nd, the center provides an environment where DCs perfection is rewarded. For the 3rd, the center has proven to be a great reward as DCs teachers understand 2E kids.

The GE model would have created hardship for my kids. DC1 was basically an in-class tutor for k-2. Even the school said they couldn't do much for DC than they were doing. For DC 2, the lowest common denominator model used in GE was not beneficial to DCs perfectionism. As for DC3, being 2E and in an environment in which the teacher is certified in gifted education had been great!

What's wrong with that? A big part of the younger grades is socialization and learning to get along. Is your DC's intelligence going to drain away if she has to help others? Could it be these children your resent your daughter had to help might have something to teach her?

And how do you know the GE model (most of us call it public school) would create hardship for your kids? I've had kids in both and somehow they've all managed to get fine educations. Your attitude of entitlement is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole AAP system. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be there, because they sound very smart. I'm just saying since they're not in GE you don't know what mixing with the unwashed might have taught them.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with having a child not learn a thing, but instead spend his/her time helping other children?

Not learn a thing??? Like nails on a chalkboard.

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

What? My gifted kid is very popular and relates very well to others. Her social skills are fine. I dare say we could bring it down a notch. She's a social butterfly. And let's be clear, even in a gifted program there is a ranking of intelligence. So essentially she is with kids who are not as quick as she is and who everything doesn't come easy too and she is with kids who get things faster than she does and she's the one realizing it takes longer for her than someone else. She's not missing out on anything being at a center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Putting kids in separate AAP classrooms, as is done at center schools, does no one any good.

P!ease do not speak for my kids, who benefitted greatly from attending AAP Center classes where teachers and staff partnered to identify, document, and implement the necessary supports for my children with LDs. We tried the Local Level IV option at our base school and it was a failure. At the recommendation of our kids' doctors, we switched them to the Center program, where both kids were successful.

Maybe the Center did not work well for your kids. However, your kids do not represent the needs of all kids.

NP here. It is good your child's needs were met. I know a couple of other brilliant children with disabilities who were served very well by AAP. That said, I think they would be even better served if AAP was still an actual gifted program. As PPs have noted, too many kids of similar abilities arbitrarily consigned to in GE, too many prepped and parentally pushed children getting a better education than their intellectual peers simply because mom and dad know how to work the system. Too many gifted SES kids dropping through the cracks, while well-heeled parents brag that their non-gifted child still needs AAP. Too much entitlement, not enough equity. The current method for separating kids into AAP and GE is a scam.

There is no scam, myth, or conspiracy with AAP. It is actually a very transparent, thorough, and fair screening system. I guarantee you, if parent referral or appeals options were taken away, parents would complain that the system is terrible because it is all based on test scores and one score on one day (or 2 NNAT and CoGAT) does not give a complete picture - and DCUM would be full of these complainers. Likewise, if the the required test scores were raised, parents of children who just missed the benchmark would complain that their children are NO DIFFERENT than the kids who made the benchmark. If Centers were eliminated, parents would complain about preferential treatment for Local level IV students in their school. FCPS tries to be as inclusive as possible and we live in a highly educated area.

The 'stress' really is parent driven. AAP is not that big of a deal. I tell my kids - yeah, you do well with an accelerated academic curriculum, good for you, big deal. There are kids in Gen Ed and/or AAP that can speak 3 languages, or are brilliantly artistic or are incredible athletes. The fact that you are academically gifted is great and all, but success is more determined by a positive attitude, a spirit of gratitude, hard work, determination and the way in which you approach challenges. No way do my kids think they are superior for being in AAP. And if they were in Gen Ed, I would be saying the exact same thing!

It would be great if more AAP parents were like you.

It's nice that you don't make a big deal about AAP for your kids. But throwing your hands up and saying we can't change AAP or make the standards higher because people would complain is a cop-out acceptable only to folks comfortable with the inequitable status quo. A program that was designed to meet the needs of "gifted" kids has been turned into something that primarily rewards high SES households where parents have the means to enrich their kids. That's not what I'm paying taxes for and I'd wager plenty of other FFX residents feel the same way. A public system needs to meet the needs of all kids and not the better prepared more than others. If FCPS is going to segregate kids by academic potential they need to find a better way to do it.

Be careful what you wish for. Know where there is no GT program? DC. That's working out realllll well for everyone.

I completely agree with the PP. The way the AAP system is administered in FCPS is ridiculous. It's not even a gifted program, it's a high SES household program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The center model has worked well for all three of my children. One has an IQ of 155, another has 132. The third has a GAI of 141, and a 504 for extreme low processing. Basically small class for testing and longer testing time.

For the 1st, MS was the first challenging environment and mainly because of self-stress. By 8th grade, DC was all As. For the 2nd, the center provides an environment where DCs perfection is rewarded. For the 3rd, the center has proven to be a great reward as DCs teachers understand 2E kids.

The GE model would have created hardship for my kids. DC1 was basically an in-class tutor for k-2. Even the school said they couldn't do much for DC than they were doing. For DC 2, the lowest common denominator model used in GE was not beneficial to DCs perfectionism. As for DC3, being 2E and in an environment in which the teacher is certified in gifted education had been great!

What's wrong with that? A big part of the younger grades is socialization and learning to get along. Is your DC's intelligence going to drain away if she has to help others? Could it be these children your resent your daughter had to help might have something to teach her?

And how do you know the GE model (most of us call it public school) would create hardship for your kids? I've had kids in both and somehow they've all managed to get fine educations. Your attitude of entitlement is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole AAP system. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be there, because they sound very smart. I'm just saying since they're not in GE you don't know what mixing with the unwashed might have taught them.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with having a child not learn a thing, but instead spend his/her time helping other children?

Not learn a thing??? Like nails on a chalkboard.

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

WELL SAID. +100

[Anonymous]

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

WELL SAID. +100

+100!? Whoa there big spender. You must be really ready for Fall to get so excited about such an obvious straw man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

Sorry to hear that your kid ultimately suffered from your choice to keep him in GT. Was he ever able to balance his under-developed social skills with his super-developed brain? Anyway, parents these days who believe their AAP kids would be better off long-term in a GE classroom can actually place them there. Problem (if any) solved. But if you think those who prefer AAP do so only because "they've bought into a silly race" you need to increase your sample size.

I wouldn't have liked to keep my kid at his base school. The problem was he arrived in 4th grade and by then any other kid who shared his interests had already moved to the center. This was what his teacher told me when we were talking about his difficulty making friends, btw. Trust me, if there had been even one other kid at his level or if he was simply above average bright we would have happily kept him at the base school. But that's not the way the system is set up, which is my complaint.

[Anonymous]

I meant, I would have liked to keep my kid at our local school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yup. I was the PP who dared suggest that super bright kids might actually learn something from helping kids who aren't at their academic level. I know that because I was that kid back in the day. Schoolwork was easy, I was always ahead, etc. I helped the teacher, I helped other kids and they helped me. The outgoing ones taught me how to get along better with other kids and even spoke for me when I was too shy to say anything in front of class. From the ones who struggled with reading or math, I learned to appreciate that not everything comes easily for everyone. I also learned that the measure of a person is not how they perform in school.

I can't help but think that these lessons are still as valuable today as they were back when. I had a son in the GT and I watched him and his classmates struggle with the imbalance between their super-developed brains and under-developed social skills. I can't help but think they might have benefitted a little hanging out with average kids who could get along with anyone. You can talk about more competition today and kids needing to meet certain benchmarks to position themselves for college and beyond, but facts can always be learned. I have yet to meet a gifted kid who isn't constantly learning new things-- often on his/her own. But I have met quite a few where I wonder how they'll ever get along in life with a complete inability to relate to other people. It's not all about gifted kids academic advancement and I feel sorry for the parents who have convinced themselves that it is. IMO,they've bought into a silly race to nowhere and the people who ultimately suffer will be their kids.

WELL SAID. +100

+100!? Whoa there big spender. You must be really ready for Fall to get so excited about such an obvious straw man.

I am actually really excited about fall!

But also in total agreement with the PP. No strawman found, sorry!