Science says: never get rid of AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

I don't think that is true. For example, consider Donald Trump and Albert Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

What is the evidence/why the assumption that the majority of AAP kids somehow game the system? I’m at an upper SES school and don’t know a single family that did this, maybe I’m just unaware. I parent referred my kid in second, and he wasn’t accepted. Reapplied in third, accepted for fourth. I didn’t talk to the principal or a teacher about it, I just did it on my own. How are people gaming a system? Don’t claim they’re all PTA mom kids. Our center school has a fairly inactive PTA.

I don't know about the majority but many get in because their parents work the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

What is the evidence/why the assumption that the majority of AAP kids somehow game the system? I’m at an upper SES school and don’t know a single family that did this, maybe I’m just unaware. I parent referred my kid in second, and he wasn’t accepted. Reapplied in third, accepted for fourth. I didn’t talk to the principal or a teacher about it, I just did it on my own. How are people gaming a system? Don’t claim they’re all PTA mom kids. Our center school has a fairly inactive PTA.

I don't know about the majority but many get in because their parents work the system.

How. Are. They. Working. The. System?

You (and others) keep asserting that over and over again, but without any proof or even a solid allegation, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I just wanted to address a few of your points. The system is flawed. I agree. The kids with high scores who are rejected are Asian and White kids at the more affluent schools. The AAP equity report showed that URM kids and presumably FARMS kids with relatively low test scores are getting admitted, and in fact when controlling for the same test scores and GBRS, an AA child is over 5 times more likely to be admitted than an Asian child. There's no secret formula for convincing the appeals committee to admit your child, and many parents on dcum fully tried to leverage their knowledge and privilege to no avail. The main way parents gamed the system was prepping their children for the test, but the tests are no longer relied upon nearly as much as GBRS. If affluent parents are leveraging their privilege to get their non gifted kids into AAP, they're doing so by enriching their children to the point that they actually are advanced for their grade level. It makes sense to place advanced kids in an advanced academic program, regardless of how or why the kids are advanced.

I agree that it's an accelerated program and not a gifted program. For what it is, it would make sense to admit kids for math/science or for language arts/social studies individually rather than having an all-or-nothing approach. It would also make sense to adjust the membership of the program every year based on some sort of placement test. It's silly to have kids who are a grade level ahead stuck in gen ed and then have some on-grade level kids in AAP. There is a lot of overlap between the ability level of the bottom half of AAP and the top kids in gen ed, especially when you look at things on a subject by subject basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I guess what frosts me is this assertion that someone's kid is more deserving of opportunities like TJ because they were in AAP. Yes, my kids are in AAP, but so what. All kids deserve great opportunities, not just those whose parents know how to work the system. Lots of bright and gifted kids fallthrough the cracks.

In FCPS, there really aren't gifted URM or FARMS kids falling through the cracks. URM or FARMS kids who fail to get admitted into AAP failed to score in the gifted ranges in NNAT or CogAT, and then failed to impress any teachers or AARTs in 2nd-6th. Keep in mind that teachers can and often do refer children for AAP that they feel belong in the program and who lack parents who are likely to refer them. FCPS goes above and beyond almost any other school district in casting a very wide net and identifying any URM or FARMS kid who is showing potential.

Being in elementary school AAP should be meaningless for TJ. In middle school, however, the AAP classes while nominally the same as honors classes, are de facto more rigorous with harsher grading. Kids who want to attend TJ ought to be taking the most rigorous courseload possible for MS. I would either make MS AAP open enrollment and expressly more rigorous than Honors, or I would have all kids reapply for MS AAP in the 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I just wanted to address a few of your points. The system is flawed. I agree. The kids with high scores who are rejected are Asian and White kids at the more affluent schools. The AAP equity report showed that URM kids and presumably FARMS kids with relatively low test scores are getting admitted, and in fact when controlling for the same test scores and GBRS, an AA child is over 5 times more likely to be admitted than an Asian child. There's no secret formula for convincing the appeals committee to admit your child, and many parents on dcum fully tried to leverage their knowledge and privilege to no avail. The main way parents gamed the system was prepping their children for the test, but the tests are no longer relied upon nearly as much as GBRS. If affluent parents are leveraging their privilege to get their non gifted kids into AAP, they're doing so by enriching their children to the point that they actually are advanced for their grade level. It makes sense to place advanced kids in an advanced academic program, regardless of how or why the kids are advanced.

I agree that it's an accelerated program and not a gifted program. For what it is, it would make sense to admit kids for math/science or for language arts/social studies individually rather than having an all-or-nothing approach. It would also make sense to adjust the membership of the program every year based on some sort of placement test. It's silly to have kids who are a grade level ahead stuck in gen ed and then have some on-grade level kids in AAP. There is a lot of overlap between the ability level of the bottom half of AAP and the top kids in gen ed, especially when you look at things on a subject by subject basis.

+3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I just wanted to address a few of your points. The system is flawed. I agree. The kids with high scores who are rejected are Asian and White kids at the more affluent schools. The AAP equity report showed that URM kids and presumably FARMS kids with relatively low test scores are getting admitted, and in fact when controlling for the same test scores and GBRS, an AA child is over 5 times more likely to be admitted than an Asian child. There's no secret formula for convincing the appeals committee to admit your child, and many parents on dcum fully tried to leverage their knowledge and privilege to no avail. The main way parents gamed the system was prepping their children for the test, but the tests are no longer relied upon nearly as much as GBRS. If affluent parents are leveraging their privilege to get their non gifted kids into AAP, they're doing so by enriching their children to the point that they actually are advanced for their grade level. It makes sense to place advanced kids in an advanced academic program, regardless of how or why the kids are advanced.

I agree that it's an accelerated program and not a gifted program. For what it is, it would make sense to admit kids for math/science or for language arts/social studies individually rather than having an all-or-nothing approach. It would also make sense to adjust the membership of the program every year based on some sort of placement test. It's silly to have kids who are a grade level ahead stuck in gen ed and then have some on-grade level kids in AAP. There is a lot of overlap between the ability level of the bottom half of AAP and the top kids in gen ed, especially when you look at things on a subject by subject basis.

+3

The prospect of having to change schools every year would be incredibly disruptive for kids who attend the center. Maybe if they did away with centers and every school had LLIV. But what a huge stressor to put kids through every year--test to prove that you're still smart and get to stay with your friends? Might fly under the radar for younger kids, but definitely not the older set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

My kid is in AAP. My husband and I have graduate degrees. We are not dumb. So I’m not AAP hater. But the system is flawed. Kids with high scores get rejected. Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal. And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program. I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed. The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence.

I just wanted to address a few of your points. The system is flawed. I agree. The kids with high scores who are rejected are Asian and White kids at the more affluent schools. The AAP equity report showed that URM kids and presumably FARMS kids with relatively low test scores are getting admitted, and in fact when controlling for the same test scores and GBRS, an AA child is over 5 times more likely to be admitted than an Asian child. There's no secret formula for convincing the appeals committee to admit your child, and many parents on dcum fully tried to leverage their knowledge and privilege to no avail. The main way parents gamed the system was prepping their children for the test, but the tests are no longer relied upon nearly as much as GBRS. If affluent parents are leveraging their privilege to get their non gifted kids into AAP, they're doing so by enriching their children to the point that they actually are advanced for their grade level. It makes sense to place advanced kids in an advanced academic program, regardless of how or why the kids are advanced.

I agree that it's an accelerated program and not a gifted program. For what it is, it would make sense to admit kids for math/science or for language arts/social studies individually rather than having an all-or-nothing approach. It would also make sense to adjust the membership of the program every year based on some sort of placement test. It's silly to have kids who are a grade level ahead stuck in gen ed and then have some on-grade level kids in AAP. There is a lot of overlap between the ability level of the bottom half of AAP and the top kids in gen ed, especially when you look at things on a subject by subject basis.

+3

The prospect of having to change schools every year would be incredibly disruptive for kids who attend the center. Maybe if they did away with centers and every school had LLIV. But what a huge stressor to put kids through every year--test to prove that you're still smart and get to stay with your friends? Might fly under the radar for younger kids, but definitely not the older set.

Gen ed kids already switch reading groups after every administration of the DRA. Kids move into and out of advanced math based on various performance metrics. Kids receiving LIII services may be moved into and out of the program as the school sees fit. How is this any different? The goal should be to match each student with the most appropriate instructional level for that student at that given point in time. If a kid is struggling in advanced math and is more appropriately placed in regular math, you're not doing that kid any favors by keeping them in a class that is too fast. You're not even protecting the kid's self esteem, since the kid will feel bad for being the slowest kid in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

^ All of this is assuming LLIV setups. Changing schools on a frequent basis would be horrible for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

I have an AAP student and a kid in GenEd who struggles in school. I do not want AAP students, especially in this area, in my GenEd kid’s class. They do not raise him up, it’s not their job to teach him, and constantly feeling like the “dumbest” kid in class is murder on his self-esteem. I prefer that he’s in a class where there is not a huge range of abilities and his teacher can spend more time instructing at his level.

AAP has problems and could use reforms, but I don’t want them in my struggling kid’s class any more than the special snowflake’s parents want him in theirs.

[Anonymous]

There are so many dumb woke/liberal talking points on here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many dumb woke/liberal talking points on here

I know! Why can't they just leave well enough alone! We've been gaming admission to elite programs since the dawn of time. I just don't see that anyone is even asking for a level playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ All of this is assuming LLIV setups. Changing schools on a frequent basis would be horrible for the kids.

Except if my kid gets into one of the schools piloting LLV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

I don't think that is true. For example, consider Donald Trump and Albert Einstein.

Did you literally just pick two examples to try to disprove a statistical fact? I guess you didn't go to AAP either lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol

I don't think that is true. For example, consider Donald Trump and Albert Einstein.

Did you literally just pick two examples to try to disprove a statistical fact? I guess you didn't go to AAP either lol

No need to be cruel. Most people - even smart ones don't get statistics. Basic stats and financial literacy should be mandatory subjects in high schools.