Prepping for entry into AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If we are going to change to a standard program, then why not just eliminate honors, AP, IB, academy classes, immersion, etc., and have One Program For All? This makes far more sense than all the cray complications.

Is this serious? Just have every kid in every class doing exactly the same thing?

PP was clearly joking. People on this board seem to think through their solutions only to the point their own desires are met. There is doubtful little discussed here that hasn't already been considered by FCPS. In the end, to quote another comparison, the current AAP system is the worst form of advance/gifted education, except for all the others.

Exactly. FCPS' approach to meeting the needs of gifted learners is used as a model across the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, it's the person who posts over and over in an attempt to conflate test prep with studying and hard work.

No, it's the person who posts over and over in an attempt to conflate test prep with not belonging and not "smart enough".

Lots of kids study and work hard and never do test prep. I know plenty of high-achieving students who haven't done test prep for AAP or TJ. And let's face it, a smart kid who works hard is going to go farther than a less intelligent kid who works just as hard, whether test prep is involved or not.

This is where I think the conversation needs to focus. There are high-achievers because they have an average to above average intelligence and work hard - these kids can do well in a traditional classroom with differentiation. There are high-achievers that are highly intelligent that may or may not learn well in a traditional classroom. And then, there are highly intelligent to genius and above which do not do well in a traditional classroom.

The 3rd set of kids NEED a special needs classroom/curriculum, the 2nd set may or may not need a different classroom setting and the 1st set DO NOT NEED a different classroom/curriculum. I do think the bar could be set a little higher across the gen ed curriculum for many students, but that's where differentiation comes in. A special needs gifted class/curriculum is not needed.

I wish they would go back to the actual gifted classes and not open AAP to every high achiever or kid pushed by their parents.

So you must be against Local Level IV as well, right?

No, why would I be? Isn't that a form of differentiation?

I have one kid that is smart and a high-achiever. He likes to do well in school, he likes to get "gold stars" for doing good work and following directions. I have another that has a very high IQ but isn't motivated by the next "gold star." She NEEDS a different type of classroom and curriculum. He does not, yet parents of kids just like my son are tripping over themselves to get their kid in aap.

Maybe they need to up the bar in the gen ed class, but they need to have a gifted program for kids that are truly beyond the norm of smart. They have different needs. It's one of those "you would know it if you saw it" kind of things. Most kids in this area are smart, high achievers, and have a supportive learning environment in their homes but that doesn't make them gifted or in need of a special classroom or curriculum.

I can tell you pretty easily who the highly gifted kids are and who the smart, high-achievers are in the app class. Some teachers are great with our DD and others still prefer the high achievers in their classroom because they are easier. I just wished they would return the program to an actual gifted-only program so kids like my DD's would get more of what they really need. I also wish they would raised the bar in the gen ed classroom or at least offer more consistent differentiation within the gen ed classroom so parents wouldn't be so pushy to get their kids into what should be a special needs classroom.

[Anonymous]

There is one thing that is certain, like death; there are kids who test prep and others who lie. This observation is as old as education itself. We all know the students who try to psych out their peers by feigning studying for tests and exams. All matriculating at TJ boost a longstanding pattern of working hard and prepping for tests and exams. Those in denials are simply liars like their parents who model similar behavior. Liars.

[Anonymous]

I would tend to agree. I enjoy these slimy folk squirming behind their 1000 + definitions of test prep, working hard, preparation, reading, math worksheets vs. MCQ vs. problem solving. On the other hands, successful athletes don't engage in this type of chicanery. The most gifted athletes understand the importance of test prep to their ultimate performance. Test prep has nothing to do with giftedness!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, it's the person who posts over and over in an attempt to conflate test prep with studying and hard work.

No, it's the person who posts over and over in an attempt to conflate test prep with not belonging and not "smart enough".

Lots of kids study and work hard and never do test prep. I know plenty of high-achieving students who haven't done test prep for AAP or TJ. And let's face it, a smart kid who works hard is going to go farther than a less intelligent kid who works just as hard, whether test prep is involved or not.

This is where I think the conversation needs to focus. There are high-achievers because they have an average to above average intelligence and work hard - these kids can do well in a traditional classroom with differentiation. There are high-achievers that are highly intelligent that may or may not learn well in a traditional classroom. And then, there are highly intelligent to genius and above which do not do well in a traditional classroom.

The 3rd set of kids NEED a special needs classroom/curriculum, the 2nd set may or may not need a different classroom setting and the 1st set DO NOT NEED a different classroom/curriculum. I do think the bar could be set a little higher across the gen ed curriculum for many students, but that's where differentiation comes in. A special needs gifted class/curriculum is not needed.

I wish they would go back to the actual gifted classes and not open AAP to every high achiever or kid pushed by their parents.

So you must be against Local Level IV as well, right?

No, why would I be? Isn't that a form of differentiation?

I have one kid that is smart and a high-achiever. He likes to do well in school, he likes to get "gold stars" for doing good work and following directions. I have another that has a very high IQ but isn't motivated by the next "gold star." She NEEDS a different type of classroom and curriculum. He does not, yet parents of kids just like my son are tripping over themselves to get their kid in aap.

Maybe they need to up the bar in the gen ed class, but they need to have a gifted program for kids that are truly beyond the norm of smart. They have different needs. It's one of those "you would know it if you saw it" kind of things. Most kids in this area are smart, high achievers, and have a supportive learning environment in their homes but that doesn't make them gifted or in need of a special classroom or curriculum.

I can tell you pretty easily who the highly gifted kids are and who the smart, high-achievers are in the app class. Some teachers are great with our DD and others still prefer the high achievers in their classroom because they are easier. I just wished they would return the program to an actual gifted-only program so kids like my DD's would get more of what they really need. I also wish they would raised the bar in the gen ed classroom or at least offer more consistent differentiation within the gen ed classroom so parents wouldn't be so pushy to get their kids into what should be a special needs classroom.

From what I understand, Local Level IV, like Center Level IV, is indeed a “different type of classroom and curriculum”. It’s not a Gen Ed classroom and so is distinguished from Level II or III, which allegedly differentiate curriculum among differently abled students within a Gen Ed class. Under your regime, there would likely be little need for Local Level IV because the pool of Level IV candidates would be drastically reduced to your DD and others like her.

However, a binary view based solely on the personalities of your own kids won't do for the rest of us. My AAP kid is unlike either of yours. She behaves, loves those gold stars and learns fine in a regular classroom. She also spent much of second grade waiting for classmates to catch up. Does she “need” Level IV? That’s such a mushy word. As a new third grader, she is certainly getting a lot out of AAP, more than anything our base school could promise via Level III. It’s been a good fit socially too. So I’d say yes, she does need AAP to reach her potential, just not in the same way as your DD.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with prepping.

[Anonymous]

it sounds like it's all about prepping ... in the way some folk seem to discount

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If we are going to change to a standard program, then why not just eliminate honors, AP, IB, academy classes, immersion, etc., and have One Program For All? This makes far more sense than all the cray complications.

Is this serious? Just have every kid in every class doing exactly the same thing?

PP was clearly joking. People on this board seem to think through their solutions only to the point their own desires are met. There is doubtful little discussed here that hasn't already been considered by FCPS. In the end, to quote another comparison, the current AAP system is the worst form of advance/gifted education, except for all the others.

Exactly. FCPS' approach to meeting the needs of gifted learners is used as a model across the country.

I really can't imagine why. It's no longer a gifted program, for starters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would tend to agree. I enjoy these slimy folk squirming behind their 1000 + definitions of test prep, working hard, preparation, reading, math worksheets vs. MCQ vs. problem solving. On the other hands, successful athletes don't engage in this type of chicanery. The most gifted athletes understand the importance of test prep to their ultimate performance. Test prep has nothing to do with giftedness!!

Faulty analogy. The most gifted athletes understand the importance of preparation. Test prep as people are talking about it here, is a different thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would tend to agree. I enjoy these slimy folk squirming behind their 1000 + definitions of test prep, working hard, preparation, reading, math worksheets vs. MCQ vs. problem solving. On the other hands, successful athletes don't engage in this type of chicanery. The most gifted athletes understand the importance of test prep to their ultimate performance. Test prep has nothing to do with giftedness!!

Faulty analogy. The most gifted athletes understand the importance of preparation. Test prep as people are talking about it here, is a different thing.

NP here. It's the same thing, and a good analogy. What does "as people talking about it here" mean. Many of the posters disagree it's different. A couple high volume posters have some sort of nuance that makes "prep" different than preparation or studying somehow.

You are certainly not a successful athlete if you think there is not a lot of hard work and preparation involved.

[Anonymous]

Google the words "test prep" to understand what people are talking about when they use the phrase. It is a pretty specific way of studying that is different from general hard work and study. You'll note from your Google search that it is focused on specific standardized tests.

You could use the phrase "test prep" in a broader fashion if you choose, but the average person will think of the type of items that show up when you google the term. When people ask for recommendations for test prep on here, they are usually asking for the type that focuses on learning about the types of questions and the formats of specific tests. They want to know how to get a high score on a test.

[Anonymous]

Test prep is studying to do well on a particular test. Everyone knows that and pretending otherwise is disingenous.

Since these are ability tests, not achievement tests, teaching your children how to take the test ahead of time is cheating and distorts their scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test prep is studying to do well on a particular test. Everyone knows that and pretending otherwise is disingenous.

Since these are ability tests, not achievement tests, teaching your children how to take the test ahead of time is cheating and distorts their scores.

Isn't SAT ability test not achievement test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prep is studying to do well on a particular test. Everyone knows that and pretending otherwise is disingenous.

Since these are ability tests, not achievement tests, teaching your children how to take the test ahead of time is cheating and distorts their scores.

Isn't SAT ability test not achievement test?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prep is studying to do well on a particular test. Everyone knows that and pretending otherwise is disingenous.

Since these are ability tests, not achievement tests, teaching your children how to take the test ahead of time is cheating and distorts their scores.

Isn't SAT ability test not achievement test?

No.

Really? http://www.actstudent.org/faq/actsat.html Quoting: "The ACT is an achievement test, measuring what a student has learned in school. The SAT is more of an aptitude test, testing reasoning and verbal abilities.: Guess the testing companies have it wrong, too. Now, do you still think it is wrong to prep for the SATs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prep is studying to do well on a particular test. Everyone knows that and pretending otherwise is disingenous.

Since these are ability tests, not achievement tests, teaching your children how to take the test ahead of time is cheating and distorts their scores.

Isn't SAT ability test not achievement test?

No.

Really? http://www.actstudent.org/faq/actsat.html Quoting: "The ACT is an achievement test, measuring what a student has learned in school. The SAT is more of an aptitude test, testing reasoning and verbal abilities.: Guess the testing companies have it wrong, too. Now, do you still think it is wrong to prep for the SATs?

Well, that's what the ACT people say, but the SAT people say this:

The SAT is a globally recognized college admission test that lets you show colleges what you know and how well you can apply that knowledge. It tests your knowledge of reading, writing and math — subjects that are taught every day in high school classrooms.

I'd say the SAT people know more about the SAT than the ACT people do.