Gifted kid - APS, FCPS, or Nysmith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RRMS, I know Greenbriar West and Mosby Woods are very strong. There are other Centers I don’t know about.

DD will be starting at Bull Run Elementary, which feeds into Rocky Run. What I have seen so far, I have liked. There are two AAP classrooms for third grade, and they are going to be team taught. 37 kids and two teachers. There will be no homework. There will be no test prep for SOLs, and parents are welcome to have their kids opt out of SOLs if they want. The only thing the teachers emphasized the parents must do outside of the classroom, is to read. Read themselves, read to the kids, have the kids read to you, to their pets, their siblings, etc. They also suggested that since there is no homework, it opens up family time - to play games, go for walks, do things together and expose kids to things that they cannot learn in a classroom. I hope this isn't all lip service.

So, 18-19 kids per classroom? That's a very small class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, 18-19 kids per classroom? That's a very small class.

When we attended the AAP orientation, the principal said that the goal was to have every child that got into AAP, to choose Bull Run. That would've put it at 50 children total, for third grade AAP. The official split is 20 in DD's classroom, and 17 in the other teacher's classroom. DD's teacher is more experienced with the AAP curriculum, although she's younger, and has FAR less teaching experience than the other teacher does (6 and 24). And there was one child at Open House in the more experienced teacher's classroom that was highly disruptive (I'm not 100% sure that the child is in the class; could be a sibling), so that might be the reason her official classroom size was smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We pulled DS from AAP to Nysmith. His AAP classmates are heavily invested in outside tutoring and prep centers while I do not believe in tutoring to get ahead of the class. As a result his classmates are placed at more advanced math group and he felt bad for himself and asked me if he is stupid despite his really high IQ. I know continuing at AAP will mean that I either need to follow the crowd and look for tutoring for him or I just let him faltered. Smaller class size in Nysmith suits him better and what he is learning is ahead of what he was in AAP. So for us it is a good fit.

How strange. My son is going into 5th grade in an AAP class and I don't know any of his friends who go to "tutoring and prep centers".

You must be living under a rock. Almost ALL Asian/Indian kids in APP are enrolled in a bunch of extra classes for Math, Reading, Science and test preps. They start as soon as Grade 1 for NNAT prep.

My kid went through AAP and TJ and is now in college. We knew a lot of kids who had outside tutoring and "test preps" and a lot who were able to keep up and do well without outside help. The ones who did their own work without help are the ones who are doing great in college and some already in grad school now.

It is not doing a kid any favors to get them dependent on tutoring and outside classes to prep for the school courses. It is best for their academic development to be able to do their own work. Smart kids can handle AAP and TJ without tutoring, unless they have specific learning challenges.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We pulled DS from AAP to Nysmith. His AAP classmates are heavily invested in outside tutoring and prep centers while I do not believe in tutoring to get ahead of the class. As a result his classmates are placed at more advanced math group and he felt bad for himself and asked me if he is stupid despite his really high IQ. I know continuing at AAP will mean that I either need to follow the crowd and look for tutoring for him or I just let him faltered. Smaller class size in Nysmith suits him better and what he is learning is ahead of what he was in AAP. So for us it is a good fit.

How strange. My son is going into 5th grade in an AAP class and I don't know any of his friends who go to "tutoring and prep centers".

You must be living under a rock. Almost ALL Asian/Indian kids in APP are enrolled in a bunch of extra classes for Math, Reading, Science and test preps. They start as soon as Grade 1 for NNAT prep.

My kid went through AAP and TJ and is now in college. We knew a lot of kids who had outside tutoring and "test preps" and a lot who were able to keep up and do well without outside help. The ones who did their own work without help are the ones who are doing great in college and some already in grad school now.

It is not doing a kid any favors to get them dependent on tutoring and outside classes to prep for the school courses. It is best for their academic development to be able to do their own work. Smart kids can handle AAP and TJ without tutoring, unless they have specific learning challenges.

+1

What kind of BS is this? Why do you practice for music and sports then? Your kid shouldn't, be he'll be dependent on the coaches and music instructors.

[Anonymous]

What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

The whole point of a gifted program is to help really bright kids who don't fit in in a regular classroom, the very kids who might be less mature and easily distracted. It is unfortunate that FCPS has moved away from this model, because it worked well for many years.

Not sure what to tell you to do to help your child, except to stay in communication with his/her teacher and hope you get a good teacher who knows how to work with bright kids like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

Your kid should be in AAP, but an AAP that's actually structured for gifted children rather than high achievers. All of the non-gifted, high achievers should return to gen ed. Your kid is the one whose needs can't be met in a regular classroom. All of the high achievers would thrive no matter where they go, and thus don't need a separate program.

[Anonymous]

FCPS all the way. Arlington has a very mellow gifted program with minor stuff like pull outs. You sound way too type A for that. Not sure why you would drop a wad of cash on a private instead of a Fairfax public. The tough part is that Arlington is the vastly superior place in which to live..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi. We have a gifted child and are considering a move to either Arlington County or Fairfax County. We are flexible in terms of where we live, so we could live in Arlington or Fairfax.

Does anyone have any basis to compare the two districts in terms of their gifted program? Or comparing either of their AAPs to Nysmith? We could also afford private school, but would prefer public. However, ultimately we just want the best program for our child whose IQ is in the upper 150s range. We'd like to see a lot of differentiation, but also a healthy peer group dynamic that is not focused on all-out competition.

Thanks for sharing advice or experience you might have with gifted programs in the area.

Arlington does not have an AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

The whole point of a gifted program is to help really bright kids who don't fit in in a regular classroom, the very kids who might be less mature and easily distracted. It is unfortunate that FCPS has moved away from this model, because it worked well for many years.

Not sure what to tell you to do to help your child, except to stay in communication with his/her teacher and hope you get a good teacher who knows how to work with bright kids like yours.

The current thinking is that you want to push bright/gifted kids when they're young, teach them that it's okay to fail, and teach them to work. Otherwise, when they get to the hard stuff in high school, college, grad school or beyond, they'll crash and burn, give up, and be doomed.

It seems you disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

The whole point of a gifted program is to help really bright kids who don't fit in in a regular classroom, the very kids who might be less mature and easily distracted. It is unfortunate that FCPS has moved away from this model, because it worked well for many years.

Not sure what to tell you to do to help your child, except to stay in communication with his/her teacher and hope you get a good teacher who knows how to work with bright kids like yours.

The current thinking is that you want to push bright/gifted kids when they're young, teach them that it's okay to fail, and teach them to work. Otherwise, when they get to the hard stuff in high school, college, grad school or beyond, they'll crash and burn, give up, and be doomed.

It seems you disagree.

Hmm, not sure what I wrote that makes you think that. I made no reference to the specifics of how gifted kids should be taught, just that they should be taught by teachers that understand their needs. Their needs surely do include needing to be pushed, having the opportunity to fail, and learning how to work and I never said otherwise. I was not discussing how gifted kids should be taught, but instead the idea that they need teachers who understand how they can best learn, ideally in a program set up to meet their needs.

If you have worked with gifted children, been a parent to one, or been one yourself, you will understand how the needs of gifted children are different from those of above average kids who "work hard."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

The whole point of a gifted program is to help really bright kids who don't fit in in a regular classroom, the very kids who might be less mature and easily distracted. It is unfortunate that FCPS has moved away from this model, because it worked well for many years.

Not sure what to tell you to do to help your child, except to stay in communication with his/her teacher and hope you get a good teacher who knows how to work with bright kids like yours.

The current thinking is that you want to push bright/gifted kids when they're young, teach them that it's okay to fail, and teach them to work. Otherwise, when they get to the hard stuff in high school, college, grad school or beyond, they'll crash and burn, give up, and be doomed.

It seems you disagree.

Hmm, not sure what I wrote that makes you think that. I made no reference to the specifics of how gifted kids should be taught, just that they should be taught by teachers that understand their needs. Their needs surely do include needing to be pushed, having the opportunity to fail, and learning how to work and I never said otherwise. I was not discussing how gifted kids should be taught, but instead the idea that they need teachers who understand how they can best learn, ideally in a program set up to meet their needs.

If you have worked with gifted children, been a parent to one, or been one yourself, you will understand how the needs of gifted children are different from those of above average kids who "work hard."

I disagree with the idea that gifted kids need to be pushed when young, need to learn to fail, or they're doomed to crash and burn later on in their academic and/or professional career. But that is what I understand the current thinking to be.

I was in a gifted program as a child and my kids are in AAP. If gifted kids are faltering in AAP, I would look more at the particular teacher or the grade/school rather than at AAP in general. I don't think AAP has changed, become a worse GT program than it used to be. That's only my opinion, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I have learned from seeing my highly intelligent kid faltering in AAP is that, at least in this case, maturity, concentration and work ethics are more important than intelligence. AAP may work better for kids that are more mature, self-driven and less distracted. Highly intelligent or not is less relevant.

This is precisely what happens when gifted programs are turned into high achiever programs.

Thanks, PP. So where should my highly intelligent but less mature, easily distracted kid go?

The whole point of a gifted program is to help really bright kids who don't fit in in a regular classroom, the very kids who might be less mature and easily distracted. It is unfortunate that FCPS has moved away from this model, because it worked well for many years.

Not sure what to tell you to do to help your child, except to stay in communication with his/her teacher and hope you get a good teacher who knows how to work with bright kids like yours.

The current thinking is that you want to push bright/gifted kids when they're young, teach them that it's okay to fail, and teach them to work. Otherwise, when they get to the hard stuff in high school, college, grad school or beyond, they'll crash and burn, give up, and be doomed.

It seems you disagree.

Hmm, not sure what I wrote that makes you think that. I made no reference to the specifics of how gifted kids should be taught, just that they should be taught by teachers that understand their needs. Their needs surely do include needing to be pushed, having the opportunity to fail, and learning how to work and I never said otherwise. I was not discussing how gifted kids should be taught, but instead the idea that they need teachers who understand how they can best learn, ideally in a program set up to meet their needs.

If you have worked with gifted children, been a parent to one, or been one yourself, you will understand how the needs of gifted children are different from those of above average kids who "work hard."

I disagree with the idea that gifted kids need to be pushed when young, need to learn to fail, or they're doomed to crash and burn later on in their academic and/or professional career. But that is what I understand the current thinking to be.

I was in a gifted program as a child and my kids are in AAP. If gifted kids are faltering in AAP, I would look more at the particular teacher or the grade/school rather than at AAP in general. I don't think AAP has changed, become a worse GT program than it used to be. That's only my opinion, though.

So, it isn't clear from your post. Do you think it is good for FCPS to include above-average intelligence kids in an expansive AAP or do you think it would be better for FCPS to have available a program focused on the top percentile of kids whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom?