Reply to Program to "make" students gifted

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Program to "make" students gifted"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]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.   [b]Nice try though[/b]. [/quote]
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. [/quote]

What on earth are you talking about?  Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one.  Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the [i]potential[/i] intelligence of second graders is ridiculous.  Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted.  Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.  [/quote]

My child who is highly gifted (147 IQ) and NOT aspergers was clearly advanced as a preschooler and clearly gifted compared to peers by the start of kindergarten.

Second grade is not too young to identify as gifted. It is a very good age to classify kids because the early advanced kids really stand out at that point and the ones who were simplyprecocious or party trick preschoolers start to balance out.

Fortunately, fcps keeps this identification open all the way through seventh grade so kids who don't qualify in second and need more time to simmer have the oppportunity to do so and have their needs met in third-fourth or longer.

Your child is not wasting their time by remaining in gen ed in third. They are being challenged and having their needs met where they are at. If they show a need for more advanced instruction in later grades they can reapply.

You are arguing for fluid classrooms wheee your child is grouped with the most advanced kids in different subjects or units.  Bt if your child is currently not showing a need for any AAP services, not the center, not advanced math, and not pull out level 3 services, what makes you think that this same child will be put into the most advanced groupings if AAPnis eliminated and all these top students move back to your child's school?

If your child is not getting those services with the AAP kids gone, she won't get those services when the AAP kids return.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics