What is so special about AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

Yes, math is a different animal. There will always need to be many levels of math. But there is no reason AAP language arts, social studies, and science shouldn't be offered to ALL kids, in every school.

i

In our AAP school, advanced math is included in the science curriculum. Not sure how non - advanced math kids could participate in the science portion.

This isn't true at our center school. Math is completely separate - lots of Gen Ed kids in AAP math classes. Science is not part of the math curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

But math aptitude/performance is only one aspect of the AAP screening. It is possible to be not great at math and get into AAP and it is also possible to have high math aptitude / grades and not get into AAP (low GBRS, lower scores on other sub tests). And then supposedly Advanced Math should be available for the Gen Ed students but in some schools it is and some schools it really is not. And if differentiated math is really the main feature of AAP then while all the noise about "kids who think differently"?

PP, I have long wondered this. It appears math is the only major difference, and even with that, plenty of Gen Ed kids take advanced math. The stark division of AAP/Gen Ed classes in centers is mind-boggling, especially when there is so much overlapping of ability in all subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

But math aptitude/performance is only one aspect of the AAP screening. It is possible to be not great at math and get into AAP and it is also possible to have high math aptitude / grades and not get into AAP (low GBRS, lower scores on other sub tests). And then supposedly Advanced Math should be available for the Gen Ed students but in some schools it is and some schools it really is not. And if differentiated math is really the main feature of AAP then while all the noise about "kids who think differently"?

I also wonder why the schools really need a separate AAP program. DS is a level III student in a center school. The school "levels" the math classes thoughout AAP and Gen Ed. DS is in the highest math group and doesn't have a problem with it. Some of the AAP students are in the on-grade-level math class. Those students are labeled AAP and DS is labeled Gen Ed. I don't understand why they need separate base classes. Why don't the school's just level the classes as needed. Isn't this what is going to happen in middle and high school?

Exactly. This is what so many of us wonder as well and why the concept of AAP centers has been so criticized. And yes, once middle and high school roll around, things absolutely do even out as the kids can choose which class levels they want to take. I've had two go through high school so far and can absolutely attest that elementary school AAP has no bearing on high school success, whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

But math aptitude/performance is only one aspect of the AAP screening. It is possible to be not great at math and get into AAP and it is also possible to have high math aptitude / grades and not get into AAP (low GBRS, lower scores on other sub tests). And then supposedly Advanced Math should be available for the Gen Ed students but in some schools it is and some schools it really is not. And if differentiated math is really the main feature of AAP then while all the noise about "kids who think differently"?

I also wonder why the schools really need a separate AAP program. DS is a level III student in a center school. The school "levels" the math classes thoughout AAP and Gen Ed. DS is in the highest math group and doesn't have a problem with it. Some of the AAP students are in the on-grade-level math class. Those students are labeled AAP and DS is labeled Gen Ed. I don't understand why they need separate base classes. Why don't the school's just level the classes as needed. Isn't this what is going to happen in middle and high school?

Exactly. This is what so many of us wonder as well and why the concept of AAP centers has been so criticized. And yes, once middle and high school roll around, things absolutely do even out as the kids can choose which class levels they want to take. I've had two go through high school so far and can absolutely attest that elementary school AAP has no bearing on high school success, whatsoever.

It sounds like all you can attest to is that kids who didn't attend AAP centers can succeed, and few would argue to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

But math aptitude/performance is only one aspect of the AAP screening. It is possible to be not great at math and get into AAP and it is also possible to have high math aptitude / grades and not get into AAP (low GBRS, lower scores on other sub tests). And then supposedly Advanced Math should be available for the Gen Ed students but in some schools it is and some schools it really is not. And if differentiated math is really the main feature of AAP then while all the noise about "kids who think differently"?

I also wonder why the schools really need a separate AAP program. DS is a level III student in a center school. The school "levels" the math classes thoughout AAP and Gen Ed. DS is in the highest math group and doesn't have a problem with it. Some of the AAP students are in the on-grade-level math class. Those students are labeled AAP and DS is labeled Gen Ed. I don't understand why they need separate base classes. Why don't the school's just level the classes as needed. Isn't this what is going to happen in middle and high school?

Exactly. This is what so many of us wonder as well and why the concept of AAP centers has been so criticized. And yes, once middle and high school roll around, things absolutely do even out as the kids can choose which class levels they want to take. I've had two go through high school so far and can absolutely attest that elementary school AAP has no bearing on high school success, whatsoever.

It sounds like all you can attest to is that kids who didn't attend AAP centers can succeed, and few would argue to the contrary.

+1

Most anyone can succeed in high school if they put in the effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

But math aptitude/performance is only one aspect of the AAP screening. It is possible to be not great at math and get into AAP and it is also possible to have high math aptitude / grades and not get into AAP (low GBRS, lower scores on other sub tests). And then supposedly Advanced Math should be available for the Gen Ed students but in some schools it is and some schools it really is not. And if differentiated math is really the main feature of AAP then while all the noise about "kids who think differently"?

I also wonder why the schools really need a separate AAP program. DS is a level III student in a center school. The school "levels" the math classes thoughout AAP and Gen Ed. DS is in the highest math group and doesn't have a problem with it. Some of the AAP students are in the on-grade-level math class. Those students are labeled AAP and DS is labeled Gen Ed. I don't understand why they need separate base classes. Why don't the school's just level the classes as needed. Isn't this what is going to happen in middle and high school?

Exactly. This is what so many of us wonder as well and why the concept of AAP centers has been so criticized. And yes, once middle and high school roll around, things absolutely do even out as the kids can choose which class levels they want to take. I've had two go through high school so far and can absolutely attest that elementary school AAP has no bearing on high school success, whatsoever.

It sounds like all you can attest to is that kids who didn't attend AAP centers can succeed, and few would argue to the contrary.

+1

Most anyone can succeed in high school if they put in the effort.

+2

AAP in elementary/middle school is an entirely separate matter from success in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our child is at a center school, in AAP. Other than math, I think the program is not that great. The math IS compacted and moves extremely quickly. My child is doing fine in math but for the first time she has to actually work to learn the material. Homework is 5 minutes of math, but then every few weeks there is a comprehensive test and that is where she has to do the work to learn it. I think that most kids WOULD have trouble with the speed of math if not in AAP. Before I get jumped on, I said "most" - some could certainly do it, but to be able to go soooo slowwwww in math for years and then be whizzing through it would be difficult for many kids.

But math aptitude/performance is only one aspect of the AAP screening. It is possible to be not great at math and get into AAP and it is also possible to have high math aptitude / grades and not get into AAP (low GBRS, lower scores on other sub tests). And then supposedly Advanced Math should be available for the Gen Ed students but in some schools it is and some schools it really is not. And if differentiated math is really the main feature of AAP then while all the noise about "kids who think differently"?

I also wonder why the schools really need a separate AAP program. DS is a level III student in a center school. The school "levels" the math classes thoughout AAP and Gen Ed. DS is in the highest math group and doesn't have a problem with it. Some of the AAP students are in the on-grade-level math class. Those students are labeled AAP and DS is labeled Gen Ed. I don't understand why they need separate base classes. Why don't the school's just level the classes as needed. Isn't this what is going to happen in middle and high school?

Exactly. This is what so many of us wonder as well and why the concept of AAP centers has been so criticized. And yes, once middle and high school roll around, things absolutely do even out as the kids can choose which class levels they want to take. I've had two go through high school so far and can absolutely attest that elementary school AAP has no bearing on high school success, whatsoever.

It sounds like all you can attest to is that kids who didn't attend AAP centers can succeed, and few would argue to the contrary.

+1

Most anyone can succeed in high school if they put in the effort.

+2

AAP in elementary/middle school is an entirely separate matter from success in high school.

I know of 2 sisters - one was in AAP and struggled, the other in Gen Ed and did well. The Gen Ed sister ended up going to a more prestigious college, doing really well there, and overall is a more confident person. AAP is not for everyone and it doesn't determine your future success.

[Anonymous]

The odd thing to me is those who claim "there is no difference" == there are a couple of explanations:

(1) The AAP program you're referencing is poorly implemented and functions like a gen. ed. program. (solution = improve the execution of the AAP program);

(2) The gen. ed. program you're referencing is so good that it functions like the AAP program. (great for you! The rest of us aren't that lucky!)

(3) You don't like the idea that some kids get a better education than other kids (solution = push more AAP curriculum into the gen. ed. program)

(4) You don't have direct first hand experience with both programs so you aren't aware of the differences.

I don't know which situation it is, but you are simply wrong that there is no difference. Is that difference significant enough to change outcomes by the end of HS?? I don't know. Apparently when it comes to accelerated math -- there is measurable evidence that it does change outcomes for kids who are exposed to adv. math in ES. It seems logical that similar reasoning would apply to language arts too -- but we don't have evidence of that.

I know for a fact, that my AAP kid is learning more about stems, prefixes, and suffixes that he is able to apply to words he doesn't know and then understand them. My non-AAP kid hasn't had that training, although she is equally or more capable in verbal ability. I know there is a difference. It is not conjecture or supposition. It is a fact that AAP is harder/more advanced than Gen. Ed. == and it's not just the math.

If you really are in a position to compare the two curricula and you don't see a difference, then you may be getting an advanced education for your kids in gen. ed. -- you should be grateful for that! Don't try to take AAP away from kids where there IS a significant difference. Spend your time trying to improve gen. ed. so that it has more features of AAP in it (with options for those who would not do well under an aap style curriculum).

[Anonymous]

My non-AAP third grader has put together and presented several presentations this year. Am I understanding correctly that that is not the norm for non-AAP schools? DC is in immersion and has even done at least one in the target language!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The odd thing to me is those who claim "there is no difference" == there are a couple of explanations:

(1) The AAP program you're referencing is poorly implemented and functions like a gen. ed. program. (solution = improve the execution of the AAP program);

(2) The gen. ed. program you're referencing is so good that it functions like the AAP program. (great for you! The rest of us aren't that lucky!)

(3) You don't like the idea that some kids get a better education than other kids (solution = push more AAP curriculum into the gen. ed. program)

(4) You don't have direct first hand experience with both programs so you aren't aware of the differences.

I don't know which situation it is, but you are simply wrong that there is no difference. Is that difference significant enough to change outcomes by the end of HS?? I don't know. Apparently when it comes to accelerated math -- there is measurable evidence that it does change outcomes for kids who are exposed to adv. math in ES. It seems logical that similar reasoning would apply to language arts too -- but we don't have evidence of that.

I know for a fact, that my AAP kid is learning more about stems, prefixes, and suffixes that he is able to apply to words he doesn't know and then understand them. My non-AAP kid hasn't had that training, although she is equally or more capable in verbal ability. I know there is a difference. It is not conjecture or supposition. It is a fact that AAP is harder/more advanced than Gen. Ed. == and it's not just the math.

If you really are in a position to compare the two curricula and you don't see a difference, then you may be getting an advanced education for your kids in gen. ed. -- you should be grateful for that! Don't try to take AAP away from kids where there IS a significant difference. Spend your time trying to improve gen. ed. so that it has more features of AAP in it (with options for those who would not do well under an aap style curriculum).

Regarding the bolded, you must not have a high schooler yet. I've had two so far - one who was previously Gen Ed and one who was in AAP. There has been no difference in their high school success. One is very gifted at foreign languages and has excelled there (the former Gen Ed student). The other is a huge history buff and has excelled in those classes. Neither is particularly interested in math. How a student does once in high school is completely up to that student, and not contingent on prior AAP participation. So in our experience, and in that of my kids' peers, there has been no difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The odd thing to me is those who claim "there is no difference" == there are a couple of explanations:

(1) The AAP program you're referencing is poorly implemented and functions like a gen. ed. program. (solution = improve the execution of the AAP program);

(2) The gen. ed. program you're referencing is so good that it functions like the AAP program. (great for you! The rest of us aren't that lucky!)

(3) You don't like the idea that some kids get a better education than other kids (solution = push more AAP curriculum into the gen. ed. program)

(4) You don't have direct first hand experience with both programs so you aren't aware of the differences.

I don't know which situation it is, but you are simply wrong that there is no difference. Is that difference significant enough to change outcomes by the end of HS?? I don't know. Apparently when it comes to accelerated math -- there is measurable evidence that it does change outcomes for kids who are exposed to adv. math in ES. It seems logical that similar reasoning would apply to language arts too -- but we don't have evidence of that.

I know for a fact, that my AAP kid is learning more about stems, prefixes, and suffixes that he is able to apply to words he doesn't know and then understand them. My non-AAP kid hasn't had that training, although she is equally or more capable in verbal ability. I know there is a difference. It is not conjecture or supposition. It is a fact that AAP is harder/more advanced than Gen. Ed. == and it's not just the math.

If you really are in a position to compare the two curricula and you don't see a difference, then you may be getting an advanced education for your kids in gen. ed. -- you should be grateful for that! Don't try to take AAP away from kids where there IS a significant difference. Spend your time trying to improve gen. ed. so that it has more features of AAP in it (with options for those who would not do well under an aap style curriculum).

Regarding the bolded, you must not have a high schooler yet. I've had two so far - one who was previously Gen Ed and one who was in AAP. There has been no difference in their high school success. One is very gifted at foreign languages and has excelled there (the former Gen Ed student). The other is a huge history buff and has excelled in those classes. Neither is particularly interested in math. How a student does once in high school is completely up to that student, and not contingent on prior AAP participation. So in our experience, and in that of my kids' peers, there has been no difference.

Great example of meeting kids where they are!

[Anonymous]

The question isn't whether some kids who don't have AAP can succeed in HS. The question is whether many more kids would have greater success in HS if they had been given the AAP curriculum.

All these anecdotes of "I know a kid who wasn't in AAP and ended up in Harvard..." are beside the point. I, too, know a child who didn't get into AAP and then went to TJHS and Cornell. The question is how many more kids would succeed in AP classes or SATs or whatever IF they had been given AAP access. We have some data on that with the math classes -- they DO show that kids exposed to adv. math lessons achieve more than kids who aren't exposed to adv. math and that continues through HS.

We simply don't have the data on other subjects. Anecdotes are not dispositive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question isn't whether some kids who don't have AAP can succeed in HS. The question is whether many more kids would have greater success in HS if they had been given the AAP curriculum.

All these anecdotes of "I know a kid who wasn't in AAP and ended up in Harvard..." are beside the point. I, too, know a child who didn't get into AAP and then went to TJHS and Cornell. The question is how many more kids would succeed in AP classes or SATs or whatever IF they had been given AAP access. We have some data on that with the math classes -- they DO show that kids exposed to adv. math lessons achieve more than kids who aren't exposed to adv. math and that continues through HS.

We simply don't have the data on other subjects. Anecdotes are not dispositive.

Or, how successful would current AAP students be in HS if they did not have AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question isn't whether some kids who don't have AAP can succeed in HS. The question is whether many more kids would have greater success in HS if they had been given the AAP curriculum.

All these anecdotes of "I know a kid who wasn't in AAP and ended up in Harvard..." are beside the point. I, too, know a child who didn't get into AAP and then went to TJHS and Cornell. The question is how many more kids would succeed in AP classes or SATs or whatever IF they had been given AAP access. We have some data on that with the math classes -- they DO show that kids exposed to adv. math lessons achieve more than kids who aren't exposed to adv. math and that continues through HS.

We simply don't have the data on other subjects. Anecdotes are not dispositive.

This is true. I'm one of the PPs with an anecdote (actually, I have many) about how Gen Ed and AAP kids wind up doing equally well once in high school, given the same type of kids - good students, etc. I guess my point was that so many younger parents, who haven't yet had kids go through high school, insist that their kids be in AAP or else they "won't succeed" later. I find it kind of pathetic that these parents actually think AAP is what will give their kids that "edge" over kids who were in Gen Ed. It's because of this rampant mythologizing about AAP - which is really just a slightly accelerated curriculum - that so many parents obsess over getting their kids into the program in the first place. And it's that obsession which has made the entire subject of AAP so very, very tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question isn't whether some kids who don't have AAP can succeed in HS. The question is whether many more kids would have greater success in HS if they had been given the AAP curriculum.

All these anecdotes of "I know a kid who wasn't in AAP and ended up in Harvard..." are beside the point. I, too, know a child who didn't get into AAP and then went to TJHS and Cornell. The question is how many more kids would succeed in AP classes or SATs or whatever IF they had been given AAP access. We have some data on that with the math classes -- they DO show that kids exposed to adv. math lessons achieve more than kids who aren't exposed to adv. math and that continues through HS.

We simply don't have the data on other subjects. Anecdotes are not dispositive.

This is true. I'm one of the PPs with an anecdote (actually, I have many) about how Gen Ed and AAP kids wind up doing equally well once in high school, given the same type of kids - good students, etc. I guess my point was that so many younger parents, who haven't yet had kids go through high school, insist that their kids be in AAP or else they "won't succeed" later. I find it kind of pathetic that these parents actually think AAP is what will give their kids that "edge" over kids who were in Gen Ed. It's because of this rampant mythologizing about AAP - which is really just a slightly accelerated curriculum - that so many parents obsess over getting their kids into the program in the first place. And it's that obsession which has made the entire subject of AAP so very, very tiresome.

Well my DC aren't in high school yet so when they are I'll come back here and you can say "I told you so". Until then, my kids are having a great experience and are excited about school. Maybe they would have felt that way in GE, maybe not. But I'm happy about AAP for our family.