Program to "make" students gifted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The program in the article is nothing like the system in FCPS. You guys are way off topic.

I think the analogy is better when you compare the program in the article to the test prep industry in Fairfax that many Asian kids attend. Clearly there is an advantage to prepping and scores can increase through exposure, otherwise there wouldn't be a whole industry of test prep. The things taught probably are very different, but the goal is the same. I don't have a problem with either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

Why do they have a varsity and an junior varsity.
Why do some kids play in the concert orchestra
grouping according to ability. This is the real world Pollyanna.

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the h@ll is a test that uses shapes and figures, like the NNAT, biased??

Bunch of whiners claiming victim status. All you have to do is cry raaaaaacist and you get your way

I can't speak to the NNAT, but on the CogAT this year, one of the questions was a picture of a score board, a basketball hoop, and "a box with a line missing from the top and a line sticking down from the bottom". In other words, a football goal, but my daughter had been clueless about what the picture was supposed to be (probably because she has never watched a football game). A soccer goal seems like it would have been a more universal picture. I'm sure you are going to come up with some snarky remark about how I'm bitter she missed a question, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are small things that can skew a test result that have nothing to do with a child's intelligence. I'm not concerned about my daughter, but I am concerned about her classmates whose parents aren't able to provide for them in the same ways that I am for her, and how we as a society can support those families and children so that everyone is able to have a chance at the best outcomes possible. Programs like this seem like an excellent effort to test out a theory and see if it is something that can make a small difference toward that.

How in the world do you know what the questions were?

I know about that particular question because my daughter came home from school and talked about it, because it stumped her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the h@ll is a test that uses shapes and figures, like the NNAT, biased??

Bunch of whiners claiming victim status. All you have to do is cry raaaaaacist and you get your way

I can't speak to the NNAT, but on the CogAT this year, one of the questions was a picture of a score board, a basketball hoop, and "a box with a line missing from the top and a line sticking down from the bottom". In other words, a football goal, but my daughter had been clueless about what the picture was supposed to be (probably because she has never watched a football game). A soccer goal seems like it would have been a more universal picture. I'm sure you are going to come up with some snarky remark about how I'm bitter she missed a question, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are small things that can skew a test result that have nothing to do with a child's intelligence. I'm not concerned about my daughter, but I am concerned about her classmates whose parents aren't able to provide for them in the same ways that I am for her, and how we as a society can support those families and children so that everyone is able to have a chance at the best outcomes possible. Programs like this seem like an excellent effort to test out a theory and see if it is something that can make a small difference toward that.

How in the world do you know what the questions were?

I know about that particular question because my daughter came home from school and talked about it, because it stumped her.

This is a common phenomenon but one that folks are often reluctant to recognize. There's a famous example from the New York City gifted tests that was something like sheep:flock as ship????

The correct answer was regatta, but a high SES is insanely more likely to know the answer to that question than a low SES kid. Much like the answer your daughter got wrong is much easier for kids for whom "American" culture is native.

Of course, we know that giftedness doesn't just occur in "American" kids, or high income kids. But folks on this thread casually talk about why should they pay for parents who don't prepare their children, as if parenting should be the test here, not giftedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

Why do they have a varsity and an junior varsity.
Why do some kids play in the concert orchestra
grouping according to ability. This is the real world Pollyanna.

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

What do you cll the CogAT and teacher/AART recommendations?
Starting even before second grade, some kids move to the front of the class, some lag behind. And as I pointed out above -- if a child does;t get in one year, he or she has another chance the following year, and several more times before 8th grade, if they are motivated enough to seek out this "opportunity to prove themselves."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I did not click on the link, but aren't Lousiana's schools abysmal? How can their IQ criteria be among the highest in the country when their public schools are so poor?

The referenced IQ critieria is two standard deviations above, or 130. If IQ is innate (or mostly innate), then quality of public schools is irrelevant -- if IQ depends partly on education, then this program is designed to improve the education at a public school for the identified students. The article also noted that the GT programs were typically very small and not at all diverse.

130 is not the highest used. It is a fairly standard cut off in the states I have lived in.

Is it that they have few kids qualify for their program because most of the familes of smart kids or families that care about education in Lousiana have their kids in private or Catholic schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

Why do they have a varsity and an junior varsity.
Why do some kids play in the concert orchestra
grouping according to ability. This is the real world Pollyanna.

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

It is not locked in by fcps at age seven.

Your kid can reapply for AAP at ages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & if he was redshirted, 14.

Your kid can be placed into your non center advanced math class starting in third.

Your kid can be evaluated for school based pull out gifted services starting in first grade, even if they do not qualify for centers.

Fcps provides and incredibly expansive, inclusive, and fluid AAP system.
How is can you not master this concept?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

Why do they have a varsity and an junior varsity.
Why do some kids play in the concert orchestra
grouping according to ability. This is the real world Pollyanna.

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

It is not locked in by fcps at age seven.

Your kid can reapply for AAP at ages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & if he was redshirted, 14.

Your kid can be placed into your non center advanced math class starting in third.

Your kid can be evaluated for school based pull out gifted services starting in first grade, even if they do not qualify for centers.

Fcps provides and incredibly expansive, inclusive, and fluid AAP system.
How is can you not master this concept?

So loking at all tye levels of opportunity fcps provides elementary kids for advanced instruction, and the yearly opportunity to reapply for AAP, AND the one time free retest, is your beef with AAP that your kid is not qualifying for any of these levels of enrichment so you resent all of it?

Is that why you keep arguing this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the h@ll is a test that uses shapes and figures, like the NNAT, biased??

Bunch of whiners claiming victim status. All you have to do is cry raaaaaacist and you get your way

I can't speak to the NNAT, but on the CogAT this year, one of the questions was a picture of a score board, a basketball hoop, and "a box with a line missing from the top and a line sticking down from the bottom". In other words, a football goal, but my daughter had been clueless about what the picture was supposed to be (probably because she has never watched a football game). A soccer goal seems like it would have been a more universal picture. I'm sure you are going to come up with some snarky remark about how I'm bitter she missed a question, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are small things that can skew a test result that have nothing to do with a child's intelligence. I'm not concerned about my daughter, but I am concerned about her classmates whose parents aren't able to provide for them in the same ways that I am for her, and how we as a society can support those families and children so that everyone is able to have a chance at the best outcomes possible. Programs like this seem like an excellent effort to test out a theory and see if it is something that can make a small difference toward that.

How in the world do you know what the questions were?

I know about that particular question because my daughter came home from school and talked about it, because it stumped her.

This is a common phenomenon but one that folks are often reluctant to recognize. There's a famous example from the New York City gifted tests that was something like sheep:flock as ship????

The correct answer was regatta, but a high SES is insanely more likely to know the answer to that question than a low SES kid. Much like the answer your daughter got wrong is much easier for kids for whom "American" culture is native.

Of course, we know that giftedness doesn't just occur in "American" kids, or high income kids. But folks on this thread casually talk about why should they pay for parents who don't prepare their children, as if parenting should be the test here, not giftedness.

That example was from the early '70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we're talking about "entitlement," we should be discussing why one group of kids in FCPS is given a choice of schools, while the other group is not.

Where do you want my child receiving special ed services to go? Our neighborhood school does not have the staff to support him. Should our neighborhood school hire specialists to meet his needs? Personally, I think it is less expensive to send him to a school to be with other children with similar needs, and the appropriate staff are in place for all of these children.

No one here is talking about special ed children. We're talking about AAP kids. Please don't equate the two as that only serves to insult kids who actually need special education; which AAP is not.

My son receives both special ed services and AAP services. Are you suggesting he should not receive both of these services?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/continuum/es.shtml

"In order to meet their needs and develop to their potential, these learners require a differentiated curriculum."

Don't be dense. Kids are not stupid. This is "stated" to them every day.

From the FCPS Strategic Plan:

http://www.fcps.edu/news/docs/FCPS%20Strategic%20Plan%202015-20_Final_Revised1a.pdf

FCPS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL 1 STUDENT SUCCESS
OVERARCHING STRATEGY 1
Enhance instructional practices to ensure that all students receive an education in a dynamic environment designed to foster life-long learning and support them in achieving their full potential

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/continuum/es.shtml

"In order to meet their needs and develop to their potential, these learners require a differentiated curriculum."

Don't be dense. Kids are not stupid. This is "stated" to them every day.

So now you're against differentiation? Geez

I'm not against differentiation at all - when it's done in flexible groups that kids can move into and out of as their needs change. No kid needs to be labled as this or that, when the reality is that most kids are a little of both. The segregated AAP classrooms serve no purpose other than to label kids.

but they had to pass tests and have good teacher recommendations to get into those groups. And they are flexible. If you don't get in one year, you can work hard and get in another year.

And in the meantime, an entire year has been wasted. The kids should be allowed - and encouraged - to cycle into more advanced groups whenever they're ready and/or able. In addition, "working hard" doesn't have much to do with who gets in and who doesn't. Plenty of AAP kids are poor students.

[Anonymous]

The "expert" cited in the original article -- the one who claims a 130 cut off is too high -- is a social justice warrior who believes most of the white and asian kids in G/T programs aren't gifted but merely privileged, and that G/T programs should be about correcting past oversights of race not actually serving all gifted children.

If you're on Facebook, the NAGC facebook page is basically one big rant by her, and her calling anyone who asks thoughtful questions "racist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we're talking about "entitlement," we should be discussing why one group of kids in FCPS is given a choice of schools, while the other group is not.

Where do you want my child receiving special ed services to go? Our neighborhood school does not have the staff to support him. Should our neighborhood school hire specialists to meet his needs? Personally, I think it is less expensive to send him to a school to be with other children with similar needs, and the appropriate staff are in place for all of these children.

No one here is talking about special ed children. We're talking about AAP kids. Please don't equate the two as that only serves to insult kids who actually need special education; which AAP is not.

My son receives both special ed services and AAP services. Are you suggesting he should not receive both of these services?

AAP is not a special ed. program. Are their kids in AAP who receive special ed services? Sure. But AAP as a stand alone program is not special ed. Stop trying to equate the two. I'd love to see how the parents on the Special Needs forum would react to that.