GT/Selected kids

[Anonymous]

The parent volunteer is going to misjudge all children with different personality types then their own child....if the child is outgoing, then a shy child is is clearly not for AAP....OTHO, if the child is shy, that is a deep thinker, and the outgoing kid is a social climber that uses connections to get ahead.

The kids are not in competition. From what I see after one year of DD in AAP is the committee does a pretty good job. There is one child in gen ed I know that I thought should be in AAP, but her mother did not want her in. And all of the kids that I interact with in AAP (as a sports coach) seem to be doing fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous Perhaps we should get rid of general ed and put everyone into AAP....[/quote wrote:

looks like the only real difference is not the kids so much but how hard the parents want to push.

I do respect the parents who are willing to take "no" for an answer, but not too many of them post on here.

[Anonymous]

the thing is some kids -- ones that like more structure -- will do better in gen ed. AAP is more project/group learning.

The cutest thing was watching another third grader help my DD with a math problem over the phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds ridiculous. Why would an 'average seeming' child excel more at a center than an 'obviously gifted' child.

Please remember that we are talking about people's children here.

Because sometimes "obviously gifted" just means they do well in their base school. That could be a nicely above average child (i.e. 92-95th percentile) who fits well with a traditional approach. A 98-99 percentile child may not learn as well in traditional curriculum so may appear to be a "dim bulb" as some of the nasties here like to say, but when put into a different curriculum model can really excel. I'm not saying "I heard" this either because I saw it with my own child.

[Anonymous]

Well that would explain why a kid I worked with last year as a parent volunteer got into AAP. This kid couldn't read and could barely finish first grade. He needed constant help with everything. This year he made AAP. I don't know how, and I'm scratching my head as to what I missed when I worked with him. The other children that got in from our first grade class were no surprise to me, but this kid flabbered my gasted.

[Anonymous]

This child could have a disability like dyslexia that was not yet diagnosed. As a parent volunteer, there is no way for you to know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well that would explain why a kid I worked with last year as a parent volunteer got into AAP. This kid couldn't read and could barely finish first grade. He needed constant help with everything. This year he made AAP. I don't know how, and I'm scratching my head as to what I missed when I worked with him. The other children that got in from our first grade class were no surprise to me, but this kid flabbered my gasted.

one AP kid in a reading group who wasn't saying anything said to the parent volunteer "I don't like to read." Probably a 99% WISC & "thriving" I'm sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds ridiculous. Why would an 'average seeming' child excel more at a center than an 'obviously gifted' child.

Please remember that we are talking about people's children here.

Because sometimes "obviously gifted" just means they do well in their base school. That could be a nicely above average child (i.e. 92-95th percentile) who fits well with a traditional approach. A 98-99 percentile child may not learn as well in traditional curriculum so may appear to be a "dim bulb" as some of the nasties here like to say, but when put into a different curriculum model can really excel. I'm not saying "I heard" this either because I saw it with my own child.

and did you have to appeal to get your child in? WISC and all that? Because you know better than the teachers, AART etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: and did you have to appeal to get your child in? WISC and all that? Because you know better than the teachers, AART etc?

Teachers only identify giftedness about 20% of the time. On the flip side..."Parents are excellent identifiers of giftedness in their children: 84% of 1,000 children whose parents felt that they exhibited 3/4 of the traits in our Characteristics of Giftedness Scale tested in the superior or gifted range. Over 95% demonstrated giftedness in at least one area, but were asynchronous in their development, and their weaknesses depressed their composite IQ scores." http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds ridiculous. Why would an 'average seeming' child excel more at a center than an 'obviously gifted' child.

Please remember that we are talking about people's children here.

Because sometimes "obviously gifted" just means they do well in their base school. That could be a nicely above average child (i.e. 92-95th percentile) who fits well with a traditional approach. A 98-99 percentile child may not learn as well in traditional curriculum so may appear to be a "dim bulb" as some of the nasties here like to say, but when put into a different curriculum model can really excel. I'm not saying "I heard" this either because I saw it with my own child.

I see what you are saying. Second grade is so young still, that just a hard working child can seem very above average because there's not much critical thinking that's is needed. I'm sure some children really start to 'thrive' in a center environment because they are finally able to use their gifts to really think and problem solve, not just recite back facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds ridiculous. Why would an 'average seeming' child excel more at a center than an 'obviously gifted' child.

Please remember that we are talking about people's children here.

Because sometimes "obviously gifted" just means they do well in their base school. That could be a nicely above average child (i.e. 92-95th percentile) who fits well with a traditional approach. A 98-99 percentile child may not learn as well in traditional curriculum so may appear to be a "dim bulb" as some of the nasties here like to say, but when put into a different curriculum model can really excel. I'm not saying "I heard" this either because I saw it with my own child.

I see what you are saying. Second grade is so young still, that just a hard working child can seem very above average because there's not much critical thinking that's is needed. I'm sure some children really start to 'thrive' in a center environment because they are finally able to use their gifts to really think and problem solve, not just recite back facts.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

To OP's point about some kids being "shockers" - Is anyone here aware of an actual situation where a child has started the AAP program and for some reason or another has gone back to gen ed. (can't keep up, decides it's not for them, etc.)?

Just curious, as there seems to be quite a bit on these threads about "shockers," but not much evidence that the shockers in fact flounder in AAP.

[Anonymous]

PP, I remember this question was asked at our center's orientation when we attended 2 years ago. The principal said that "occasionally" there was a student who struggled so much they recommend going back to gen ed.

I have personally known of one case where the child was so unhappy socially with the move, that her parents moved her back to her base school. The parents were not happy with the language arts "enrichment" she got at the base school, but she was still in compacted math. She moved back into the AAP center for middle school and did fine.

My child is in 4th grade and doing well (her scores were uneven) but I do know that there are some kids who struggle with either the writing or the math. I recently learned that there is a "math tutoring" class given by the teacher before and after school for kids who need extra support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To OP's point about some kids being "shockers" - Is anyone here aware of an actual situation where a child has started the AAP program and for some reason or another has gone back to gen ed. (can't keep up, decides it's not for them, etc.)?

Just curious, as there seems to be quite a bit on these threads about "shockers," but not much evidence that the shockers in fact flounder in AAP.

I don't think anyone flounders. Once you're in, you're in for the duration - the better question would be do they ever boot anyone out because they're not able to keep up or are disruptive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that would explain why a kid I worked with last year as a parent volunteer got into AAP. This kid couldn't read and could barely finish first grade. He needed constant help with everything. This year he made AAP. I don't know how, and I'm scratching my head as to what I missed when I worked with him. The other children that got in from our first grade class were no surprise to me, but this kid flabbered my gasted.

one AP kid in a reading group who wasn't saying anything said to the parent volunteer "I don't like to read." Probably a 99% WISC & "thriving" I'm sure.

No, this is a kid who went to a reading specialist. I just knew that he couldn't read directions, and when I read the directions TO him he still couldn't follow them. Now, more power to him if his parents and teachers worked with him and he blossomed. He's in the AAP pullout for second graders, so someone unlocked something in this kid. It just wasn't me, and that's fine.