Why are there so many non AAP parents coming to the AAP board to derail discussions and complain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If AAP were for the top 1%, wouldn't they need a new curriculum? It doesn't seem like the current curriculum would really cut it.

AAP has not been for the top 1% of students since 1964. It is a total fantasy to think that FCPS is going to drop the program down to 1% or even 5% any time soon. It just is not going to happen.

Advanced Academic Programs (a/k/a AAP, AAP Level 4 Center, Gifted and Talented, or GT) in Fairfax County Public Schools
http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

In 1964, FCPS created a GT Center program for about 1% of the 3rd through 8th grade students. The Center program expanded fairly quickly to include about 5% of 3rd through 8th grade students, who were selected based on ability test scores. In 1993, FCPS began admitting students to the GT Center program based on a combination of test scores, a Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale form, and other information.

[Anonymous]

I think that the person was saying that if AAP went from being the top 15% of FCPS to being the top 1% of FCPS, AAP would need a new curriculum.

[Anonymous]

The OP of this thread seems preoccupied far more with protecting status than academic integrity of the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If AAP were for the top 1%, wouldn't they need a new curriculum? It doesn't seem like the current curriculum would really cut it.

AAP has not been for the top 1% of students since 1964. It is a total fantasy to think that FCPS is going to drop the program down to 1% or even 5% any time soon. It just is not going to happen.

Advanced Academic Programs (a/k/a AAP, AAP Level 4 Center, Gifted and Talented, or GT) in Fairfax County Public Schools
http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

In 1964, FCPS created a GT Center program for about 1% of the 3rd through 8th grade students. The Center program expanded fairly quickly to include about 5% of 3rd through 8th grade students, who were selected based on ability test scores. In 1993, FCPS began admitting students to the GT Center program based on a combination of test scores, a Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale form, and other information.

The expansion was around 1971. It was a much saner time. And, to be honest, most of the kids in the program at that time were just kids who tested well in a range of categories, but blended right back into the general population once they got into high school. No TJHSST and far fewer Tiger Moms back then.

You should have been there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so there's the snowflake person, and the person who has a kid in aap and gen ed. And they make sure to follow, post, and regurgitate on every thread. Or maybe more than once in the same thread.

Hi you two!

Catching up on this thread and have to chime in. I'm wondering why you (PP) assume there are only one or two other people here who disagree with you? You seem pretty insistent that you are right about who is posting here, but the reality is you have no idea who is who, as much as you pretend you do. One could say there are only one or two people here with your viewpoint who keep posting over and over. Pretty arrogant. From my experience, both on DCUM and in "real life," plenty of parents think AAP is overblown and needs to be reduced in size and scope. And they have every right to post on this thread, as well as all others, for that matter. Why don't you express your opinion, move along, and let others do the same.

This was already posted, but I'll repeat it. Discussion and discourse is fine. But assuming because you have a kid in AAP and one in Gen Ed allows you to become an authority and say thst based on your observations other AAP kids in your childs class would be fine in Gen Ed is ridiculous. Repeating if time and again becomes tiresome.

And what if it is the teachers who are saying it? I suppose you'd have a beef with them too. But the truth is plenty of teachers, both AAP and Gen Ed, say the same thing. As do several school board members, members of the Fairfax County Association and even, on occasion, AAP Coordinator Carol Horn. Hearing this repeated by different posters is no more tiresome than a constant refrain of "my kid needs AAP because he/she's bored in Gen Ed."

Amen to that.

AAP child could do fine with Gen Ed curriculum and possibly vice versa. But there is an advantage for an advanced child to be with advanced peers. Children feed off of what their peers are doing, making the peer group just as important as, if not more important than, the curriculum itself. AAP child could aim higher surrounded by like peers. Conversely, Gen Ed child at 80 percentile may be able to shine and get a truer sense of his/her capabilities without constantly being overshadowed by the anomaly 99 percentile child.

The very fact that a 99% child is an anomaly is the reason many of us are saying AAP needs to comprise a much smaller % of FCPS kids in general. These are the kids AAP was designed for; not the run-of-the-mill average/above-average children who make up most of the AAP population and who are indistinguishable from most Gen Ed kids. Taking these kids out of Gen Ed depletes the GE population; and isn't their peer group just as important?

I think that the vast majority of AAP kids have scored in the 98th or 99th percentile of nationally normed tests. All the AAP kids I personally know are in this range. Do you know of any different numbers? There may seem to be a lot of these kids, but our area is skewed with a highly educated and high-achieving population.
To me it is good to have the differentiation to avoid Gen Ed teachers needing to teach to so many different levels. I think that splitting off even the highest-scoring 15 percentile (of FCPS scores, not national) helps everyone.

In the past on this board I had advocated for differentiation according to scores for Gen Ed classes but have been educated by other posters that tracking is now frowned upon because it can look like segregation: Unfortunately a higher percentage in the lower-scoring groups might be from certain minority groups, I was told. So I have accepted that the best compromise found so far is to split off the top scorers (saying something positive about this group and not labeling anyone as the lowest) and then keeping everyone else together. Also posters have said that the lowest-scoring kids don't do as well if they are grouped only with each other.

One of the arguments about the increased AAP population that just drives me crazy is that because this area is "highly educated and high-achieving," it somehow "makes sense" that so many of our kids are qualified for AAP. The only advantages a highly educated/achieving population has in this particular situation is knowledge of the appeals process, how to implement it, and how to pressure school administration if one's child does not get into AAP. Not to mention, access to and knowledge of prepping classes, which should probably be listed first. Other populations without these advantages probably have kids who would score just as well, they simply don't have all of the above support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If AAP were for the top 1%, wouldn't they need a new curriculum? It doesn't seem like the current curriculum would really cut it.

AAP has not been for the top 1% of students since 1964. It is a total fantasy to think that FCPS is going to drop the program down to 1% or even 5% any time soon. It just is not going to happen.

Advanced Academic Programs (a/k/a AAP, AAP Level 4 Center, Gifted and Talented, or GT) in Fairfax County Public Schools
http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

In 1964, FCPS created a GT Center program for about 1% of the 3rd through 8th grade students. The Center program expanded fairly quickly to include about 5% of 3rd through 8th grade students, who were selected based on ability test scores. In 1993, FCPS began admitting students to the GT Center program based on a combination of test scores, a Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale form, and other information.

Tracking may still have existed at that time. (Does anyone know whether it did or not?) It would have been more doable for GT (now AAP) to include 1% or 5% of FCPS students if the remaining 99% or 95% could be further divided into different classrooms according to their ability.

If your child is in the 80-84% of FCPS that barely missed the cutoff for AAP, how would it help them to have everyone except the top 1% of FCPS back in their class? Then they might be in the second highest reading group rather than the highest reading group. The teacher might have to form more different levels, and when teaching to the class as a whole would have to address a greater range of students. So the time spent at just the right level for your child would be less. Will that really be helpful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so there's the snowflake person, and the person who has a kid in aap and gen ed. And they make sure to follow, post, and regurgitate on every thread. Or maybe more than once in the same thread.

Hi you two!

Catching up on this thread and have to chime in. I'm wondering why you (PP) assume there are only one or two other people here who disagree with you? You seem pretty insistent that you are right about who is posting here, but the reality is you have no idea who is who, as much as you pretend you do. One could say there are only one or two people here with your viewpoint who keep posting over and over. Pretty arrogant. From my experience, both on DCUM and in "real life," plenty of parents think AAP is overblown and needs to be reduced in size and scope. And they have every right to post on this thread, as well as all others, for that matter. Why don't you express your opinion, move along, and let others do the same.

This was already posted, but I'll repeat it. Discussion and discourse is fine. But assuming because you have a kid in AAP and one in Gen Ed allows you to become an authority and say thst based on your observations other AAP kids in your childs class would be fine in Gen Ed is ridiculous. Repeating if time and again becomes tiresome.

And what if it is the teachers who are saying it? I suppose you'd have a beef with them too. But the truth is plenty of teachers, both AAP and Gen Ed, say the same thing. As do several school board members, members of the Fairfax County Association and even, on occasion, AAP Coordinator Carol Horn. Hearing this repeated by different posters is no more tiresome than a constant refrain of "my kid needs AAP because he/she's bored in Gen Ed."

Amen to that.

AAP child could do fine with Gen Ed curriculum and possibly vice versa. But there is an advantage for an advanced child to be with advanced peers. Children feed off of what their peers are doing, making the peer group just as important as, if not more important than, the curriculum itself. AAP child could aim higher surrounded by like peers. Conversely, Gen Ed child at 80 percentile may be able to shine and get a truer sense of his/her capabilities without constantly being overshadowed by the anomaly 99 percentile child.

The very fact that a 99% child is an anomaly is the reason many of us are saying AAP needs to comprise a much smaller % of FCPS kids in general. These are the kids AAP was designed for; not the run-of-the-mill average/above-average children who make up most of the AAP population and who are indistinguishable from most Gen Ed kids. Taking these kids out of Gen Ed depletes the GE population; and isn't their peer group just as important?

I think that the vast majority of AAP kids have scored in the 98th or 99th percentile of nationally normed tests. All the AAP kids I personally know are in this range. Do you know of any different numbers? There may seem to be a lot of these kids, but our area is skewed with a highly educated and high-achieving population.
To me it is good to have the differentiation to avoid Gen Ed teachers needing to teach to so many different levels. I think that splitting off even the highest-scoring 15 percentile (of FCPS scores, not national) helps everyone.

In the past on this board I had advocated for differentiation according to scores for Gen Ed classes but have been educated by other posters that tracking is now frowned upon because it can look like segregation: Unfortunately a higher percentage in the lower-scoring groups might be from certain minority groups, I was told. So I have accepted that the best compromise found so far is to split off the top scorers (saying something positive about this group and not labeling anyone as the lowest) and then keeping everyone else together. Also posters have said that the lowest-scoring kids don't do as well if they are grouped only with each other.

One of the arguments about the increased AAP population that just drives me crazy is that because this area is "highly educated and high-achieving," it somehow "makes sense" that so many of our kids are qualified for AAP. The only advantages a highly educated/achieving population has in this particular situation is knowledge of the appeals process, how to implement it, and how to pressure school administration if one's child does not get into AAP. Not to mention, access to and knowledge of prepping classes, which should probably be listed first. Other populations without these advantages probably have kids who would score just as well, they simply don't have all of the above support.

If it is so easy to prep and/or appeal to get into AAP, why doesn't everyone do it? It sounds like everyone who wants to be in can be in, so there should be no complaints. There is no quota to the number accepted, so all who care to qualify can be in.

[Anonymous]

PREPPING - Prepping may get someone into the pool for consideration, but the scores need to be backed up by teacher observation through GBRS. Anyone can refer their child to be in the pool.

APPEALS - I have not heard of anyone being able to pressure school administration to admit their child to AAP. The decision comes from the central selection committee, not the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If AAP were for the top 1%, wouldn't they need a new curriculum? It doesn't seem like the current curriculum would really cut it.

AAP has not been for the top 1% of students since 1964. It is a total fantasy to think that FCPS is going to drop the program down to 1% or even 5% any time soon. It just is not going to happen.

Advanced Academic Programs (a/k/a AAP, AAP Level 4 Center, Gifted and Talented, or GT) in Fairfax County Public Schools
http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

In 1964, FCPS created a GT Center program for about 1% of the 3rd through 8th grade students. The Center program expanded fairly quickly to include about 5% of 3rd through 8th grade students, who were selected based on ability test scores. In 1993, FCPS began admitting students to the GT Center program based on a combination of test scores, a Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale form, and other information.

Tracking may still have existed at that time. (Does anyone know whether it did or not?) It would have been more doable for GT (now AAP) to include 1% or 5% of FCPS students if the remaining 99% or 95% could be further divided into different classrooms according to their ability.

If your child is in the 80-84% of FCPS that barely missed the cutoff for AAP, how would it help them to have everyone except the top 1% of FCPS back in their class? Then they might be in the second highest reading group rather than the highest reading group. The teacher might have to form more different levels, and when teaching to the class as a whole would have to address a greater range of students. So the time spent at just the right level for your child would be less. Will that really be helpful?

Reading level does not necessarily correlate to intelligence. My eldest DC was always in the lowest reading group in K and 1st grade, yet still qualified for AAP. DC was a late reader. Younger has a reading disability and has never read close to grade level, yet still qualifies for AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If AAP were for the top 1%, wouldn't they need a new curriculum? It doesn't seem like the current curriculum would really cut it.

AAP has not been for the top 1% of students since 1964. It is a total fantasy to think that FCPS is going to drop the program down to 1% or even 5% any time soon. It just is not going to happen.

Advanced Academic Programs (a/k/a AAP, AAP Level 4 Center, Gifted and Talented, or GT) in Fairfax County Public Schools
http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

In 1964, FCPS created a GT Center program for about 1% of the 3rd through 8th grade students. The Center program expanded fairly quickly to include about 5% of 3rd through 8th grade students, who were selected based on ability test scores. In 1993, FCPS began admitting students to the GT Center program based on a combination of test scores, a Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale form, and other information.

Tracking may still have existed at that time. (Does anyone know whether it did or not?) It would have been more doable for GT (now AAP) to include 1% or 5% of FCPS students if the remaining 99% or 95% could be further divided into different classrooms according to their ability.

If your child is in the 80-84% of FCPS that barely missed the cutoff for AAP, how would it help them to have everyone except the top 1% of FCPS back in their class? Then they might be in the second highest reading group rather than the highest reading group. The teacher might have to form more different levels, and when teaching to the class as a whole would have to address a greater range of students. So the time spent at just the right level for your child would be less. Will that really be helpful?

Reading level does not necessarily correlate to intelligence. My eldest DC was always in the lowest reading group in K and 1st grade, yet still qualified for AAP. DC was a late reader. Younger has a reading disability and has never read close to grade level, yet still qualifies for AAP.

Good point! So it may be math or what have you where, when all but the tippy top of AAP is hypothetically put back into GE, those who were at the top of GE are in a lower group. And there could be more groups overall and more different levels that the teacher is trying to teach to. I don't understand how this would give a better experience to those currently at the top of GE? They would be at a lower level within their class and have less time being taught at their exact level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PREPPING - Prepping may get someone into the pool for consideration, but the scores need to be backed up by teacher observation through GBRS. Anyone can refer their child to be in the pool.

APPEALS - I have not heard of anyone being able to pressure school administration to admit their child to AAP. The decision comes from the central selection committee, not the school.

Oh good grief, come on over to Colvin Run and see who is getting into AAP. If they can't get in one year, they simply appeal and bingo, they're in the next year. It's not at all difficult to get your child in, if you know what to do and who to talk to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PREPPING - Prepping may get someone into the pool for consideration, but the scores need to be backed up by teacher observation through GBRS. Anyone can refer their child to be in the pool.

APPEALS - I have not heard of anyone being able to pressure school administration to admit their child to AAP. The decision comes from the central selection committee, not the school.

Oh good grief, come on over to Colvin Run and see who is getting into AAP. If they can't get in one year, they simply appeal and bingo, they're in the next year. It's not at all difficult to get your child in, if you know what to do and who to talk to.

If they don't get in one year don't they have to parent refer the following year and go through the selection process again, through the central selection committee? An appeal would be the same year as applying, not the following year, and again directed to the central selection committee. Are you saying that Colvin Run has staff at the school able to make a decision to declare students eligible for level IV AAP services?

[Anonymous]

The top 15% of today's FPCS kids would run circles around the 1964 top 15%.

It's called immigration.

[Anonymous]

My daughter was in the top reading group in her first grade class- 4/6 of those kids are in AAP. I think she was in a much lower group for 2nd. I have to say though that my child was an early decoder, and while I personally think that relates to math abilities which is important for AAP, I don't think it matters at all for actual reading now. Now she is not a strong reader related to the rest of her grade, but is in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP of this thread seems preoccupied far more with protecting status than academic integrity of the program.

Wrong!

The OP of the thread has only posted once, right now, in addition to the original post.

In fact, the original post was a tongue in cheek response to some infighting between the snowflake lady and a few others in an entirely different thread.