Does AAP create unhelpful elitism and separation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very bright kids can be damaged by not being challenged enough and by not getting an education that addresses their needs.
How do we help those kids while avoiding a lot of the problems such as elitism noted in the thread?

A good start is keeping them in the same school. Different classes, maybe, but the same school.

For the large number of elementary schools that send 5-10 children to a center school, including mine, how do you propose challenging those 5 gifted children?

Are they really that much ahead of the next 10 kids, ability-wise, in each subject? Most AAP kids would be fine with just receiving advanced math and language arts one grade level ahead. For those who aren't, perhaps the best solution is to dispense with strict age level groupings and let them join the advanced math or reading class with a higher grade. FCPS already does this for the kids who are beyond AAP level math.

Also, part of the problem with the elitism and the labeling is that many AAP kids are good students with scores in the 120s. Many gen ed kids are also good students with scores in the 120s. It seems silly to label half of them as gifted and elite, while letting the other half of these bright kids remain bored and unchallenged in gen ed.

They will not have an answer for your gifted kid, because they are too busy playing mother Teresa.

And to the second bolded person, 'YES!', some of those kids are so far away from the next 10 kids. They will read and do math even 2, 3, 4 etc levels ahead, and some will also be able to perform at college level for certain subjects, and putting them with older kids is cruel. Just because you are intellectually advanced does not mean that you are socially advanced. It will be very hard for these kids to relate to each other because they're not at the same maturity level. Would you like your 9 year old daughter going to HS with girls who are talking about sex?

And even if they weren't so far away from the next kid you got to draw the line at some point, because by the time you do next 10 for every next 10, you go to the kids who don't get it no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the large number of elementary schools that send 5-10 children to a center school, including mine, how do you propose challenging those 5 gifted children?

How do you propose challenging the 5 or so actually gifted children stuck in watered down AAP classes with a bunch of non gifted children? If a middle of the road AAP kid can't be challenged or educated alongside bright gen ed kids who barely missed the cut, then how can children who are actually gifted be educated and challenged alongside those middle of the road AAP kids?

Please refer to the title of this thread and pause for self-reflection.

I was being (more than) a bit facetious. Kids who truly can't be challenged and educated in their base schools with subject-by-subject flexible groupings are exceedingly rare. I think the PP is being completely ridiculous if he or she really thinks that the 5-10 kids sent to a center couldn't be educated alongside the next 10 brightest kids in each subject. Some of those gen ed kids are already taking advanced math, and the teachers could arrange and select reading groups such that the top 5 or so kids in the grade are grouped together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very bright kids can be damaged by not being challenged enough and by not getting an education that addresses their needs.
How do we help those kids while avoiding a lot of the problems such as elitism noted in the thread?

A good start is keeping them in the same school. Different classes, maybe, but the same school.

For the large number of elementary schools that send 5-10 children to a center school, including mine, how do you propose challenging those 5 gifted children?

Are they really that much ahead of the next 10 kids, ability-wise, in each subject? Most AAP kids would be fine with just receiving advanced math and language arts one grade level ahead. For those who aren't, perhaps the best solution is to dispense with strict age level groupings and let them join the advanced math or reading class with a higher grade. FCPS already does this for the kids who are beyond AAP level math.

Also, part of the problem with the elitism and the labeling is that many AAP kids are good students with scores in the 120s. Many gen ed kids are also good students with scores in the 120s. It seems silly to label half of them as gifted and elite, while letting the other half of these bright kids remain bored and unchallenged in gen ed.

They will not have an answer for your gifted kid, because they are too busy playing mother Teresa.

And to the second bolded person, 'YES!', some of those kids are so far away from the next 10 kids. They will read and do math even 2, 3, 4 etc levels ahead, and some will also be able to perform at college level for certain subjects, and putting them with older kids is cruel. Just because you are intellectually advanced does not mean that you are socially advanced. It will be very hard for these kids to relate to each other because they're not at the same maturity level. Would you like your 9 year old daughter going to HS with girls who are talking about sex?

And even if they weren't so far away from the next kid you got to draw the line at some point, because by the time you do next 10 for every next 10, you go to the kids who don't get it no matter what.

Getting rid of an elitist AAP program doesn't mean all the super smart 9-year-olds have to go to high school. They could stay in their regular school, you know...with 9-year-olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the large number of elementary schools that send 5-10 children to a center school, including mine, how do you propose challenging those 5 gifted children?

How do you propose challenging the 5 or so actually gifted children stuck in watered down AAP classes with a bunch of non gifted children? If a middle of the road AAP kid can't be challenged or educated alongside bright gen ed kids who barely missed the cut, then how can children who are actually gifted be educated and challenged alongside those middle of the road AAP kids?

Please refer to the title of this thread and pause for self-reflection.

I was being (more than) a bit facetious. Kids who truly can't be challenged and educated in their base schools with subject-by-subject flexible groupings are exceedingly rare. I think the PP is being completely ridiculous if he or she really thinks that the 5-10 kids sent to a center couldn't be educated alongside the next 10 brightest kids in each subject. Some of those gen ed kids are already taking advanced math, and the teachers could arrange and select reading groups such that the top 5 or so kids in the grade are grouped together.

Oops, my bad. Now I see what you were doing there. You and I are in total agreement on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of an elitist AAP program doesn't mean all the super smart 9-year-olds have to go to high school. They could stay in their regular school, you know...with 9-year-olds.

You only call it elitist, because your kid can't get in.

[Anonymous]

I think it was way back at the beginning of this thread where someone said that AAP is not elitist, but that parents are and try to turn it into an elitist program. Throughout this thread, that seems to be the biggest problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very bright kids can be damaged by not being challenged enough and by not getting an education that addresses their needs.
How do we help those kids while avoiding a lot of the problems such as elitism noted in the thread?

A good start is keeping them in the same school. Different classes, maybe, but the same school.

I'm not sure having different classes solves the separatism issue, isn't that still segregating the kids?
I don't know what the right answer is. I didn't know about AAP before I moved here (my kids were 3 and 1 at the time). Like anything, there are pros and cons, and I am just trying to work within the system that's already here. In general, I try to remind myself that free and public is not synonymous with totally perfect for every kid.

Somehow part of the problem may also be SOLs. I think schools use a lot of resources trying to get as many kids to pass those, and perhaps pay less attention to those who are already able to pass, if not put into an AAP type program. I'm not 100% sure, but it's a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of an elitist AAP program doesn't mean all the super smart 9-year-olds have to go to high school. They could stay in their regular school, you know...with 9-year-olds.

You only call it elitist, because your kid can't get in.

THIS is the poster who needs to read the thread title and pause for self-reflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of an elitist AAP program doesn't mean all the super smart 9-year-olds have to go to high school. They could stay in their regular school, you know...with 9-year-olds.

You only call it elitist, because your kid can't get in.

THIS is the poster who needs to read the thread title and pause for self-reflection.

No, I think it's the first quoted poster. Why is AAP elitist? Because PP called it elitist. Not because it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very bright kids can be damaged by not being challenged enough and by not getting an education that addresses their needs.
How do we help those kids while avoiding a lot of the problems such as elitism noted in the thread?

A good start is keeping them in the same school. Different classes, maybe, but the same school.

For the large number of elementary schools that send 5-10 children to a center school, including mine, how do you propose challenging those 5 gifted children?

Are they really that much ahead of the next 10 kids, ability-wise, in each subject? Most AAP kids would be fine with just receiving advanced math and language arts one grade level ahead. For those who aren't, perhaps the best solution is to dispense with strict age level groupings and let them join the advanced math or reading class with a higher grade. FCPS already does this for the kids who are beyond AAP level math.

Also, part of the problem with the elitism and the labeling is that many AAP kids are good students with scores in the 120s. Many gen ed kids are also good students with scores in the 120s. It seems silly to label half of them as gifted and elite, while letting the other half of these bright kids remain bored and unchallenged in gen ed.

They will not have an answer for your gifted kid, because they are too busy playing mother Teresa.

And to the second bolded person, 'YES!', some of those kids are so far away from the next 10 kids. They will read and do math even 2, 3, 4 etc levels ahead, and some will also be able to perform at college level for certain subjects, and putting them with older kids is cruel. Just because you are intellectually advanced does not mean that you are socially advanced. It will be very hard for these kids to relate to each other because they're not at the same maturity level. Would you like your 9 year old daughter going to HS with girls who are talking about sex?

And even if they weren't so far away from the next kid you got to draw the line at some point, because by the time you do next 10 for every next 10, you go to the kids who don't get it no matter what.

So again, your (general you) 120s kid cannot possibly be educated alongside the "non gifted" 120s kids, but those 140s kids are going to be served fine in class with your kid? AAP vs non-AAP is a pretty stark line drawn between (largely) kids of the same ability level. Yes, some kids are highly gifted, but AAP doesn't serve those children very well. For the most part, it all seems to be parents with bright but non-gifted kids grubbing for a label and educational services that their kids don't strictly need.

FWIW, my kid is grade skipped in AAP math. There are no social problems at all, but my kid is bored since the pace is still very slow. My kid also thinks that a few of the gen ed kids who are guests in the class are also better at math than many of the AAP kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure having different classes solves the separatism issue, isn't that still segregating the kids?

No. They would still be mixed for homeroom, specials, lunch, recess, and everything else. The only difference is that the top kids in math would switch to the AAP math classroom during math time. And the top kids in language arts would do likewise during reading and language arts time. Kids don't necessarily attach huge labels to Larla because she doesn't attend AAP language arts class. Kids aren't going to label themselves as "AAP math and AAP language arts" kids, just as they won't self label as "AAP math but not AAP language arts".

In the current system, AAP kids are completely separated into AAP only classrooms and tend to have very little contact at all with the gen ed kids. There also is a strict label of "AAP" and "not AAP."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure having different classes solves the separatism issue, isn't that still segregating the kids?

No. They would still be mixed for homeroom, specials, lunch, recess, and everything else. The only difference is that the top kids in math would switch to the AAP math classroom during math time. And the top kids in language arts would do likewise during reading and language arts time. Kids don't necessarily attach huge labels to Larla because she doesn't attend AAP language arts class. Kids aren't going to label themselves as "AAP math and AAP language arts" kids, just as they won't self label as "AAP math but not AAP language arts".

In the current system, AAP kids are completely separated into AAP only classrooms and tend to have very little contact at all with the gen ed kids. There also is a strict label of "AAP" and "not AAP."

Yes, and the reasoning is to provide a cohort to the students. If it's just some kids going to advanced math, that's not a cohort, or at least not a cohort as is currently being provided. All those posters who say that AAP was great socially for their child because they found their people, that's a cohort.

You may be correct that cohorts provide no value to any gifted student and that schools shouldn't provide that. That's what you're arguing for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, and the reasoning is to provide a cohort to the students. If it's just some kids going to advanced math, that's not a cohort, or at least not a cohort as is currently being provided. All those posters who say that AAP was great socially for their child because they found their people, that's a cohort.

You may be correct that cohorts provide no value to any gifted student and that schools shouldn't provide that. That's what you're arguing for.

Now we're back to the elitism argument. If the argument is that kids "need AAP" to find their cohort, that's saying that AAP kids and non-AAP kids are not peers. It's pretty elitist to feel as if your child cannot possibly find peers among the gen ed kids, and it's also elitist to feel as if a middle-of-the-road AAP kid is different at all from a bright gen ed kid who missed the cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure having different classes solves the separatism issue, isn't that still segregating the kids?

No. They would still be mixed for homeroom, specials, lunch, recess, and everything else. The only difference is that the top kids in math would switch to the AAP math classroom during math time. And the top kids in language arts would do likewise during reading and language arts time. Kids don't necessarily attach huge labels to Larla because she doesn't attend AAP language arts class. Kids aren't going to label themselves as "AAP math and AAP language arts" kids, just as they won't self label as "AAP math but not AAP language arts".

In the current system, AAP kids are completely separated into AAP only classrooms and tend to have very little contact at all with the gen ed kids. There also is a strict label of "AAP" and "not AAP."

Yes, and the reasoning is to provide a cohort to the students. If it's just some kids going to advanced math, that's not a cohort, or at least not a cohort as is currently being provided. All those posters who say that AAP was great socially for their child because they found their people, that's a cohort.

You may be correct that cohorts provide no value to any gifted student and that schools shouldn't provide that. That's what you're arguing for.

So you're saying the cohort isn't based just on their academic ability? They have to be around students who are like them for lunch, recess, etc? (Otherwise, why not have the top kids in math meet for just math and the top language kids meet for just language) You're saying they need a social cohort as well? Then we need to stop testing kids for smarts and just put all the awkward ones together in a separate school? Good idea. Let's run with that....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, and the reasoning is to provide a cohort to the students. If it's just some kids going to advanced math, that's not a cohort, or at least not a cohort as is currently being provided. All those posters who say that AAP was great socially for their child because they found their people, that's a cohort.

You may be correct that cohorts provide no value to any gifted student and that schools shouldn't provide that. That's what you're arguing for.

Now we're back to the elitism argument. If the argument is that kids "need AAP" to find their cohort, that's saying that AAP kids and non-AAP kids are not peers. It's pretty elitist to feel as if your child cannot possibly find peers among the gen ed kids, and it's also elitist to feel as if a middle-of-the-road AAP kid is different at all from a bright gen ed kid who missed the cut.

Exactly. This mindset isn't just "my kid is better at math than yours so needs extra work to challenge him" it's "my kid shouldn't even have to eat lunch with yours."