Sound off if you think AAP is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If your child doesn't mind doing busy work just for the sake of you claiming s/he is getting a "more rigorous" education, then sure. They all end up learning the same things and starting high school in the same place. So you do you.

You can choose Gen. Ed or AAP. No one is forced to go to AAP. Amazing how many people clamor to get in. All of them nuts I guess.
Well, we all make the choices we believe are best for our kids.

"So you do you", "We all make choices we believe are best for our kids". As an optimist, these statements sound like the makings of a shaky truce to me. It's OK to think AAP is BS and that the folks involved are all nuts. Live and let live, right? However, you dismiss the value of academic rigor at your peril. Middle school kids can choose to take honors, leading to AP or IB challenges in high school. Whether beginning with elementary AAP or middle school honors, a choice of greater academic challenge and responsibility will place your kid on a path that diverges more and more over time from Gen Ed. It may not be apparent yet, but at some point you'll realize that kids starting high school can be the same age, same grade and same school but not in the "same place" academically.

This sounds like an argument to open up elementary AAP to all kids who feel they can handle it and would like to give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If your child doesn't mind doing busy work just for the sake of you claiming s/he is getting a "more rigorous" education, then sure. They all end up learning the same things and starting high school in the same place. So you do you.

You can choose Gen. Ed or AAP. No one is forced to go to AAP. Amazing how many people clamor to get in. All of them nuts I guess.
Well, we all make the choices we believe are best for our kids.

"So you do you", "We all make choices we believe are best for our kids". As an optimist, these statements sound like the makings of a shaky truce to me. It's OK to think AAP is BS and that the folks involved are all nuts. Live and let live, right? However, you dismiss the value of academic rigor at your peril. Middle school kids can choose to take honors, leading to AP or IB challenges in high school. Whether beginning with elementary AAP or middle school honors, a choice of greater academic challenge and responsibility will place your kid on a path that diverges more and more over time from Gen Ed. It may not be apparent yet, but at some point you'll realize that kids starting high school can be the same age, same grade and same school but not in the "same place" academically.

This sounds like an argument to open up elementary AAP to all kids who feel they can handle it and would like to give it a try.

Not an argument at all. Merely indicating that honors is a choice and acknowledging that PP had observed that AAP is an optional choice for those identified as eligible. For reasons of its own, FCPS restricts AAP or "early honors" if you prefer, to those children it decides are ready and able. I'm not an education professional and have no basis by which to judge that policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If Gen Ed is "perfectly fine for most," then why are so many admitted to AAP?

[Anonymous]

OP, I agree with every word. AAP is bullish*t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If Gen Ed is "perfectly fine for most," then why are so many admitted to AAP?

85% aren't. That's most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with every word. AAP is bullish*t.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If Gen Ed is "perfectly fine for most," then why are so many admitted to AAP?

85% aren't. That's most.

So many? It's about 17% last I looked. For a county with so many high SES families, esp. in the western part of the county and now so many Indian, Chinese and Korean kids - 17% is about right. This really shouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows in a county like this. Of course, TJ is about 70% Asian now, and nearly all of those admitted come from the AAP program.

[Anonymous]

I have one kid with a genius level iq and another with a high average iq. My genius is in aap and it's not even close to being a productive environment for her. The program does not focus on kids with special needs in this range. It needs to be revamped into an actual special needs program. We're finally moving on to a college prep private school, which is a shame considering we live in an area with supposedly one of the best elem schools in ffx.

[Anonymous]

PP, I have similar kids, perhaps. 1 with genius iq, 2 with very superior iq. They've done fine in the program.

Genius never was "really" challenged - never studied, but did very well academically AND socially. Is in HS. No school could challenge DC- too bright, has amazing memory, sees it or hears it once and remembers. Scores perfect on just about everything including assessments and ability tests. Not lazy, but not motivated to go beyond. Doesn't need to work hard for an A. Has one grade less than an A , B+ because lacks motivation. Knows self is smart, could be anything, but has the attitude of why study or get overwhelmed when all I want to do is read, write and listen to music all day. Very involved in human rights, though.

2 and 3 are in upper ES and doing well in both academic and social life, as well. We've been pleased. Sorry to hear that you were not pleased with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If Gen Ed is "perfectly fine for most," then why are so many admitted to AAP?

85% aren't. That's most.

So many? It's about 17% last I looked. For a county with so many high SES families, esp. in the western part of the county and now so many Indian, Chinese and Korean kids - 17% is about right. This really shouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows in a county like this. Of course, TJ is about 70% Asian now, and nearly all of those admitted come from the AAP program.

It has never been at 17%, except possibky in the current seventh grade class (the weirdly bloated year).

Historically, AAP serves approximately between 12-14% of the students, using fcps' actual statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I have similar kids, perhaps. 1 with genius iq, 2 with very superior iq. They've done fine in the program.

Genius never was "really" challenged - never studied, but did very well academically AND socially. Is in HS. No school could challenge DC- too bright, has amazing memory, sees it or hears it once and remembers. Scores perfect on just about everything including assessments and ability tests. Not lazy, but not motivated to go beyond. Doesn't need to work hard for an A. Has one grade less than an A , B+ because lacks motivation. Knows self is smart, could be anything, but has the attitude of why study or get overwhelmed when all I want to do is read, write and listen to music all day. Very involved in human rights, though.

2 and 3 are in upper ES and doing well in both academic and social life, as well. We've been pleased. Sorry to hear that you were not pleased with the program.

Who talks like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if one gets into TJ or not; AAP is, in and of itself, a better way to spend years 3-8. As versus gen ed, (which is perfectly fine for most), AAP is the more rigorous academic route. Not the end of the world if you don't get in of course.

If Gen Ed is "perfectly fine for most," then why are so many admitted to AAP?

85% aren't. That's most.

So many? It's about 17% last I looked. For a county with so many high SES families, esp. in the western part of the county and now so many Indian, Chinese and Korean kids - 17% is about right. This really shouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows in a county like this. Of course, TJ is about 70% Asian now, and nearly all of those admitted come from the AAP program.

It has never been at 17%, except possibky in the current seventh grade class (the weirdly bloated year).

Historically, AAP serves approximately between 12-14% of the students, using fcps' actual statistics.

ok, I recall one year not too long ago it was 17%. Maybe that was the high water mark. Decent rule of thumb is probably around 15%. Not really worth arguing about. It's around 15%.

[Anonymous]

I can stomach the existence of TJ but AAP Centers and separate classrooms wrecks the emotional health of all students by making such harsh distinctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can stomach the existence of TJ but AAP Centers and separate classrooms wrecks the emotional health of all students by making such harsh distinctions.

TJ parents thank you for tolerating their kids-- who worked their ass@s off to be accespted. And they work their ass@s off to stay. So glad that you think these kids, who represent less than 2% of FCPS HS students in a highly affluent, highly educated area, (which under any definition makes it a "true"gifted program) should be allowed access to the TJ curriculum.

Then again, thete are plenty of parents on this board arguing that TJ should be done away with (too Asian, none of the students are US citizens-- which is BS; none of the kind do speak English-- againBS, extra FCPS resources-- again BS-- the governor's school supplement is about $1200/ student from the state, not the county).

There are always parents who will get their nose out of joint because some kids have opportunities their kids don't. Now-- take away the coaches, trainers and high sports, (which cost much more than AAP, and more than the TJ supplement (from the state, not FCPS) -- and watch the shit hit the fan.

Why do we believe athletics are so crucial-- especially when there are travel sports, but loudly protest extra academic opportunities for our brightest TJ kids?

[Anonymous]

Wow. Not reading the whole thread, because I'm sure it contains the same AAP bashing as every other thread with the exact same parents. All four of you should get together and start a climb. So *Yawn*. And get over it. Your kid was not in the top 15%. So cope.

But also, imagine if you took all of the ranting and raving and channeled it somewhere productive, like starting an FCAG type advocacy group for GE kids. Less fun that venting ad infinitim, I know. But it could lead to constructive suggestions to make GE better (since no matter how you contort your arguments, your kids will never sit on an AAP classroom).

Or you could continue with the sour grapes, tweenage girl type griping. Which no one takes seriously.