Dear AAP Parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no disability law that states being advanced is a disability. Therefore aap is not a law or mandate. I am starting to think the aap parents are dumb as a box of rock turds.

-aap identified child's parent who thinks centers are stupid

Gifted education is a mandated program.

Yes and it can be given as pull-outs from the child's base school. There is no mandate for AAP and centers.

There are economies of scale by grouping kids together.

Do have any evidence that FCPS has saved money through this economy of scale by grouping kids together? Are you saying it would be MORE expensive to leave them at their base schools and have the AART do pull-outs with them?

It would be more expensive because the AART would be taking children out of class verses now where they stay all day with a classroom teacher.

Explain how this is more expensive.

The AART has a salary, she doesn't get paid on a per kid out of class basis. She is already taking kids out for Level II and Level III services. Are you saying Level II and Level III cost more than the AAP Program?

Kids get pulled out all the time, whether it's for enrichment or remediation.

Your economy of scale justification is a fail.

You also need to keep in mind that some of the kids in AAP (probably majority) could benefit from enrichment, but a small percentage need more than just enrichment. They actually learn differently and greatly benefit from a different styles of teaching, so I'm not sure an AART teacher could provide this.

But isn't it also true that some (most?) of the kids in Gen Ed could also benefit from enrichment? Why aren't they offered the same enrichment that the AAP kids are? All kids benefit from an enriching curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no disability law that states being advanced is a disability. Therefore aap is not a law or mandate. I am starting to think the aap parents are dumb as a box of rock turds.

-aap identified child's parent who thinks centers are stupid

Gifted education is a mandated program.

Yes and it can be given as pull-outs from the child's base school. There is no mandate for AAP and centers.

There are economies of scale by grouping kids together.

Do have any evidence that FCPS has saved money through this economy of scale by grouping kids together? Are you saying it would be MORE expensive to leave them at their base schools and have the AART do pull-outs with them?

It would be more expensive because the AART would be taking children out of class verses now where they stay all day with a classroom teacher.

Explain how this is more expensive.

The AART has a salary, she doesn't get paid on a per kid out of class basis. She is already taking kids out for Level II and Level III services. Are you saying Level II and Level III cost more than the AAP Program?

Kids get pulled out all the time, whether it's for enrichment or remediation.

Your economy of scale justification is a fail.

You also need to keep in mind that some of the kids in AAP (probably majority) could benefit from enrichment, but a small percentage need more than just enrichment. They actually learn differently and greatly benefit from a different styles of teaching, so I'm not sure an AART teacher could provide this.

But isn't it also true that some (most?) of the kids in Gen Ed could also benefit from enrichment? Why aren't they offered the same enrichment that the AAP kids are? All kids benefit from an enriching curriculum.

They are in our school. There are differentiated reading and math groups in general ed for level 2 enrichment. Kids even switch classes for these. Then there is a pullout for level 3 students twice a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no disability law that states being advanced is a disability. Therefore aap is not a law or mandate. I am starting to think the aap parents are dumb as a box of rock turds.

-aap identified child's parent who thinks centers are stupid

Gifted education is a mandated program.

Yes and it can be given as pull-outs from the child's base school. There is no mandate for AAP and centers.

There are economies of scale by grouping kids together.

Do have any evidence that FCPS has saved money through this economy of scale by grouping kids together? Are you saying it would be MORE expensive to leave them at their base schools and have the AART do pull-outs with them?

It would be more expensive because the AART would be taking children out of class verses now where they stay all day with a classroom teacher.

Explain how this is more expensive.

The AART has a salary, she doesn't get paid on a per kid out of class basis. She is already taking kids out for Level II and Level III services. Are you saying Level II and Level III cost more than the AAP Program?

Kids get pulled out all the time, whether it's for enrichment or remediation.

Your economy of scale justification is a fail.

You would need a lot more AARTs. Right now they have full time jobs without doing all these extra pull outs. I think you should ask a teacher if it's easier to teach a class of 30 students with similar abilities or 30 kids with very different abilities.

+1

The difference in cost is transportation. It would be interesting to see what the cost difference is between bussing students to centers compared to the transportation cost if these same kids went to their base school. (Some of the kids would still be bussed to the base school and others would be walkers.)

The transportation cost would definitely be less. My kids are walkers to their base school but going to the center our kids would get bus service.

Also, why make it extra work for the AART. Just pull out all the kids with enrichment needs at the same time.

Even better, implement the Level IV curriculum across the board and just pull out the very few (and likely this wouldn't even be needed in every school) that are extremely gifted. The ones that absolutely cannot learn anything at all in the implemented Level IV across the board gen ed. classes.

Problem solved.

Absolute common sense and I would wholeheartedly support this. LLIV should simply be the Gen Ed curriculum, with remedial help for kids who are at the very lowest end, and extra advanced work for the highly gifted - which, as you say, would wind up being very few kids in need of such pullouts. Come on, FCPS - this isn't difficult!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are private travel teams anything like a publicly funded school system?

Exactly. Thank you.

Already explained.

Explained poorly, because it was pointed out that travel teams are not publicly funded. If they were, you can bet there would be an outcry, but since travel sports are privately funded, they are perfectly within their rights to pick and choose who plays on their teams. Not like a publicly funded school system in the least.

TJ is publicly funded, to, as is UVA, Virginia Tech, William and Mary, etc. None of those have open admissions...

I think you're really stretching here. We're talking about a publicly funded elementary school system, in which all kids should have equal access to enrichment, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no disability law that states being advanced is a disability. Therefore aap is not a law or mandate. I am starting to think the aap parents are dumb as a box of rock turds.

-aap identified child's parent who thinks centers are stupid

Gifted education is a mandated program.

Yes and it can be given as pull-outs from the child's base school. There is no mandate for AAP and centers.

There are economies of scale by grouping kids together.

Do have any evidence that FCPS has saved money through this economy of scale by grouping kids together? Are you saying it would be MORE expensive to leave them at their base schools and have the AART do pull-outs with them?

It would be more expensive because the AART would be taking children out of class verses now where they stay all day with a classroom teacher.

Explain how this is more expensive.

The AART has a salary, she doesn't get paid on a per kid out of class basis. She is already taking kids out for Level II and Level III services. Are you saying Level II and Level III cost more than the AAP Program?

Kids get pulled out all the time, whether it's for enrichment or remediation.

Your economy of scale justification is a fail.

You also need to keep in mind that some of the kids in AAP (probably majority) could benefit from enrichment, but a small percentage need more than just enrichment. They actually learn differently and greatly benefit from a different styles of teaching, so I'm not sure an AART teacher could provide this.

But isn't it also true that some (most?) of the kids in Gen Ed could also benefit from enrichment? Why aren't they offered the same enrichment that the AAP kids are? All kids benefit from an enriching curriculum.

They are in our school. There are differentiated reading and math groups in general ed for level 2 enrichment. Kids even switch classes for these. Then there is a pullout for level 3 students twice a week.

Which begs the question: why not just implement AAP across the board, with pullouts only for remedial and extremely advanced learners? That would eliminate all the Level 2, 3, and 4 nonsensical labeling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are private travel teams anything like a publicly funded school system?

Exactly. Thank you.

Already explained.

Explained poorly, because it was pointed out that travel teams are not publicly funded. If they were, you can bet there would be an outcry, but since travel sports are privately funded, they are perfectly within their rights to pick and choose who plays on their teams. Not like a publicly funded school system in the least.

TJ is publicly funded, to, as is UVA, Virginia Tech, William and Mary, etc. None of those have open admissions...

I think you're really stretching here. We're talking about a publicly funded elementary school system, in which all kids should have equal access to enrichment, period.

Not sure what happened there - should read, "publicly funded elementary school system."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fairness doesn't mean giving every child the same thing, it means giving them what they need." Rick Lavoie

I don't really think it's "fair" for my kid to sit in class twiddling her thumbs because she's figured out how to solve for the unknown in algebra while the rest of the class is still working on adding 3 digit numbers.

Honestly, I can't figure out why the non-AAP parents are so jealous. From my experience with my DC, AAP has meant math a year ahead and getting additional work on the other subjects with a little CML thrown in. Although I think non- AAP students are also given the opportunity to do CML. I regret sticking with LLIV, because my kid is still bored and twiddling her thumbs in class.

I'm totally mystified why other parents think it's unreasonable for me to expect the schools to meet my child's educational needs and provide instruction that challenges her and allows her to learn.

And, seriously, kids who learn quickly and easily should suffer through being bored and ignored in class unless their parents can afford $30,000+ in tuition for private school?

And I'm totally mystified as to why parents think it's unreasonable to open AAP up to any student capable of doing the work. This has nothing to do with jealousy, and everything to do with a public school system spending more money, time, and attention on some kids than on others. It's an issue of inequity.

There is no reason to do away with advanced academics; they should simply be open and available to anyone interested and able. This goes for language arts, science, and social studies, as thankfully qualified Gen Ed kids are already included in AAP math. It's really not a stretch to then open up the other subjects as well. Not all AAP kids are actually advanced in all subjects either, by the way. Making AAP accessible to all would allow everyone to cycle into and out of the appropriate class, as needed. This is not a difficult concept.

PP here with highly gifted DD and not highly gifted DS. I would oppose this and vote for eliminating AAP and only having special accommodations for those in the top few percent. My DD would get lost in this type of instruction just as she did in gen ed. I do think they could make the gen ed curriculum more challenging, but I would prefer to have the top 3% receive the special ed they need and the rest of the curriculum increased for gen ed where needed.

How would you feel about that?

I'm the PP and I think that's a great idea - as long as they only offered the exceptionally gifted kids services, not the masses who currently populate AAP. And I absolutely agree that Gen Ed needs to be more challenging as well.

I'm on board!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are private travel teams anything like a publicly funded school system?

Exactly. Thank you.

Already explained.

Explained poorly, because it was pointed out that travel teams are not publicly funded. If they were, you can bet there would be an outcry, but since travel sports are privately funded, they are perfectly within their rights to pick and choose who plays on their teams. Not like a publicly funded school system in the least.

TJ is publicly funded, to, as is UVA, Virginia Tech, William and Mary, etc. None of those have open admissions...

I think you're really stretching here. We're talking about a publicly funded elementary school system, in which all kids should have equal access to enrichment, period.

You're missing the point. Some kids need MORE than just enrichment. I'm whole-heartedly agreeing that all AAP kids are not highly gifted. I'm the PP that has a highly gifted kid and smart, hard working kid. Highly gifted kid needs more than just enrichment and pull-outs. My smart, hard working kid could use enrichment. My highly gifted kid needs more. There is a difference and I think she deserves accommodations that will challenge and educate her just as you'd like your child challenged and educated. So, why can't they have a smaller number of center schools with gifted classes only for the highly gifted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mix all the kids, offer advanced classes to any child who is able to do the work, and regular classes for all others. FCPS won't really know who can do what until they let all the kids try. Of course, current AAP parents will just hate that, as they're the ones who crave the labeling and separateness that AAP creates. But FCPS has catered to them for far too long. Time for the pendulum to swing back to reality.

Why do you put AAP parents together into one giant group of narcissists and make such blanket statements? I have one in AAP and one in GenEd - FWIW I've never craved labeling and separateness, I just want what's best for both of my kids.

Unfortunately, narcissistic is a great word to describe parents who insist that one "peer group" is markedly different (or 'better') than the other. It's nice to know not all AAP parents feel this way, but too many of them do, as evidenced by the many posts to that effect here on DCUM.

I've never met an AAP parent who views the social siloing as a pro for AAP centers. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I don't think that's a primary objective. Here's my take. I've heard from gen ed parents of kids who are at the top of the gen ed spectrum (many Level II or III AAP) that in this day of SOL madness the more advanced kids in a gen ed classroom get the shaft. This isn't a criticism of teachers. But let's face it--today teachers are evaluated based on how the lower-performing students do on SOLs. They just aren't going to pay as much attention to a kid who is sure to pass the SOL. In AAP classrooms, teachers don't worry about that.

I do not know if what I am reporting about the dynamic of gen ed is entirely accurate. But I've heard it from a number of people. In any event, I don't think social segregation is an argument many people make in defense of AAP, and I personally would not agree with that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mix all the kids, offer advanced classes to any child who is able to do the work, and regular classes for all others. FCPS won't really know who can do what until they let all the kids try. Of course, current AAP parents will just hate that, as they're the ones who crave the labeling and separateness that AAP creates. But FCPS has catered to them for far too long. Time for the pendulum to swing back to reality.

Why do you put AAP parents together into one giant group of narcissists and make such blanket statements? I have one in AAP and one in GenEd - FWIW I've never craved labeling and separateness, I just want what's best for both of my kids.

Unfortunately, narcissistic is a great word to describe parents who insist that one "peer group" is markedly different (or 'better') than the other. It's nice to know not all AAP parents feel this way, but too many of them do, as evidenced by the many posts to that effect here on DCUM.

I think obnoxious people unfortunately get drawn to sites like this where they can post anonymously, so the sample on this site isn't representative. Most AAP parents do not look down on gen ed students.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you are asking for the same setup that Montgomery County has for their highly gifted centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no disability law that states being advanced is a disability. Therefore aap is not a law or mandate. I am starting to think the aap parents are dumb as a box of rock turds.

-aap identified child's parent who thinks centers are stupid

Gifted education is a mandated program.

Yes and it can be given as pull-outs from the child's base school. There is no mandate for AAP and centers.

There are economies of scale by grouping kids together.

Do have any evidence that FCPS has saved money through this economy of scale by grouping kids together? Are you saying it would be MORE expensive to leave them at their base schools and have the AART do pull-outs with them?

It would be more expensive because the AART would be taking children out of class verses now where they stay all day with a classroom teacher.

Explain how this is more expensive.

The AART has a salary, she doesn't get paid on a per kid out of class basis. She is already taking kids out for Level II and Level III services. Are you saying Level II and Level III cost more than the AAP Program?

Kids get pulled out all the time, whether it's for enrichment or remediation.

Your economy of scale justification is a fail.

You also need to keep in mind that some of the kids in AAP (probably majority) could benefit from enrichment, but a small percentage need more than just enrichment. They actually learn differently and greatly benefit from a different styles of teaching, so I'm not sure an AART teacher could provide this.

But isn't it also true that some (most?) of the kids in Gen Ed could also benefit from enrichment? Why aren't they offered the same enrichment that the AAP kids are? All kids benefit from an enriching curriculum.

They are in our school. There are differentiated reading and math groups in general ed for level 2 enrichment. Kids even switch classes for these. Then there is a pullout for level 3 students twice a week.

Which begs the question: why not just implement AAP across the board, with pullouts only for remedial and extremely advanced learners? That would eliminate all the Level 2, 3, and 4 nonsensical labeling.

I guess it depends on the school. Teachers can only teach well to so many different levels. Either way level 4 is not very expensive for the county to implement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the highest votes for budget cuts is elimination of aap centers. Hopefully this happens the tax payer public has voted.

https://fcps.uservoice.com/forums/302115-what-are-your-ideas-for-balancing-the-potential-1/filters/top

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Not the PP, but I can't imagine what you find funny about this. Voters are trying to tell the school board what matters to them. AAP is not one of those things for most people.

That is extremely narrow-minded view. In that case, let's just cut special needs, music, arts, etc. since none of that matter to a lot of people as well.

Special-needs programs are for kids with special needs. AAP doesn't qualify. It is simply an enrichment program, which could easily be implemented in all classes. Music and art benefit all kids - not just a certain contingent.

If the enrichment offered by our public school system doesn't meet with your approval, there's always private school or homeschooling.

This simply isn't true. Special needs covers both the upper and lower bounds of kids intellectual and educational needs.

For kids that are highly gifted, they need something different than what is provided in the general classroom. If they chose to do away with the centers, I'd be fine with that as long as the base schools have teachers and curriculums to support kids that are truly gifted.

The problem IMO is that they don't have enough kids in each school to support having them pulled out for every academic class for special instruction. This would isolate them even more socially.

Having these kids together provides an opportunity to see that there are other kids like them which provides a social acceptance and acknowledgement of their abilities that they don't receive otherwise. They have plenty of other time in their day to socialize with kids of different abilities outside of the academic instruction time.

If you have a kid that excels in a sport and plays on a travel team, do you feel the same way about the travel team as you do AAP? If my kid isn't as good as your kid why should your kid get higher level instruction and mine does not. My kid could learn more skills by being around you kid - that's not fair. Your kid should be forced to play that sport with kids of much lower ability during the whole season and never be allowed to play on a team with kids of their high skill level because you'll make my kid feel bad.

If my kid excels intellectually (very high IQ; 1:10,000 kids) why don't they need a different curriculum outside of the gen ed curriculum? Your highly skilled sports kid would get bored and quit their sport if forced to play with kids that were of average skill.

Please have some sympathy for parents with kids like mine (which I know are not ALL kids in APP). The truly gifted kids know who the other highly gifted kids are and who the high achiever kids are in AAP right away, but this doesn't mean they don't want to play or work with any other kids. They just know who to go to when they want to talk about subjects that their other classmates won't be interested in or understand. Adults are the same way, so you can't judge gifted kids for this behavior.

+1
Thank you, you did a wonderful job explaining some concept that I have trouble put into words.
The gifted children aren't simple as being smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the highest votes for budget cuts is elimination of aap centers. Hopefully this happens the tax payer public has voted.

https://fcps.uservoice.com/forums/302115-what-are-your-ideas-for-balancing-the-potential-1/filters/top

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Not the PP, but I can't imagine what you find funny about this. Voters are trying to tell the school board what matters to them. AAP is not one of those things for most people.

That is extremely narrow-minded view. In that case, let's just cut special needs, music, arts, etc. since none of that matter to a lot of people as well.

Special-needs programs are for kids with special needs. AAP doesn't qualify. It is simply an enrichment program, which could easily be implemented in all classes. Music and art benefit all kids - not just a certain contingent.

If the enrichment offered by our public school system doesn't meet with your approval, there's always private school or homeschooling.

This simply isn't true. Special needs covers both the upper and lower bounds of kids intellectual and educational needs.

For kids that are highly gifted, they need something different than what is provided in the general classroom. If they chose to do away with the centers, I'd be fine with that as long as the base schools have teachers and curriculums to support kids that are truly gifted.

The problem IMO is that they don't have enough kids in each school to support having them pulled out for every academic class for special instruction. This would isolate them even more socially.

Having these kids together provides an opportunity to see that there are other kids like them which provides a social acceptance and acknowledgement of their abilities that they don't receive otherwise. They have plenty of other time in their day to socialize with kids of different abilities outside of the academic instruction time.

If you have a kid that excels in a sport and plays on a travel team, do you feel the same way about the travel team as you do AAP? If my kid isn't as good as your kid why should your kid get higher level instruction and mine does not. My kid could learn more skills by being around you kid - that's not fair. Your kid should be forced to play that sport with kids of much lower ability during the whole season and never be allowed to play on a team with kids of their high skill level because you'll make my kid feel bad.

If my kid excels intellectually (very high IQ; 1:10,000 kids) why don't they need a different curriculum outside of the gen ed curriculum? Your highly skilled sports kid would get bored and quit their sport if forced to play with kids that were of average skill.

Please have some sympathy for parents with kids like mine (which I know are not ALL kids in APP). The truly gifted kids know who the other highly gifted kids are and who the high achiever kids are in AAP right away, but this doesn't mean they don't want to play or work with any other kids. They just know who to go to when they want to talk about subjects that their other classmates won't be interested in or understand. Adults are the same way, so you can't judge gifted kids for this behavior.

+1
Thank you, you did a wonderful job explaining some concept that I have trouble put into words.
The gifted children aren't simple as being smart.

If your being honest with yourself, you know that very few of those kids in AAP are "highly gifted".

We're also talking about public/government school, not private sports leagues where parents pay thousands of $$$$ more than rec parents for their child to play on a travel team. A travel team on which they must try out every single year to qualify.

For children like your kid, I would say definitely treat the giftedness as a special need. The Sp.Ed. Kids are mainstreamed as much as possible and provided with pull out lessons as well as the Sp.Ed. Teacher coming into the main classroom and working with small groups or one on one.

There is no need to quarantine the extremely gifted from the rest of the school, the same way we would not quarantine any other Sp.Ed child from the classroom.

[Anonymous]

^^Ooooooo -- can't have the 150 IQ kid with ADHD infecting the Rest Of The School. Ewwww!