Anonymous wrote:Honors classes were not open enrollment as they are now.

There were no honors classes in the 90s in FCPS. Just regular, GT (in MS and HS), and a handful of AP classs in HS.

How about back in the 70's? We moved into FCPS when I was in the middle of 4th grade. Had a horrible 5th grade teacher, she didn't know how to handle me or what to do with me and I was constantly getting notes home. However, by 6th grade they figured out I was just bored.

I was tested - I remember loving that bc it was something different and I got out of class. I also remember being sent to the principals office and asked a lot of what I now know are IQ test type questions. So I'm not sure what the formal process was back then. Anyhow, I was sent to a GT middle school (and it was called GT back in the day)...........and HATED it! There was exactly one class of GT kids and we stood out. MS is not where you want to be so clearly marked as different.

The system was a mess back then, and IMO with w/ 2 kids in an AAP Center school, it's still a mess now. I wish I knew the answer to fixing what ails FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

Not true. And you're showing your general ignorance of the process as well: If your child doesn't make the pool, you refer--you don't appeal. If your child is still denied when the decisions are made in the spring, then you can appeal.

Also, depending on the year, sometimes a composite score has been needed. Other times, it's been just one score on a subtest.

Please show me your stats for "almost always." I'm going on personal referral experience, for one, in a case which included a score that missed the cutoff by a couple points. I think the GBRS was the factor, but I didn't bother to check it. My plan was always that if the referral didn't work, I would not appeal. I don't pretend to know exactly the kind of kid they're looking for.

I used the term "appeal" rather than "refer" simply to sum up the whole process; if, after referring, the child still isn't admitted, then the parents can appeal (as you said). And like you, I have only personal experience to go on. For instance, at our center school, I know personally of six children who were parent referred. Of them, four were admitted and the other two appealed. And were then admitted. So, six out of six who were not in the initial pool were admitted. It's not difficult to see how easy it is to get your child into AAP if you are a determined (read: pushy) parent.

Anonymous wrote:Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

Not true. And you're showing your general ignorance of the process as well: If your child doesn't make the pool, you refer--you don't appeal. If your child is still denied when the decisions are made in the spring, then you can appeal.

Also, depending on the year, sometimes a composite score has been needed. Other times, it's been just one score on a subtest.

Please show me your stats for "almost always." I'm going on personal referral experience, for one, in a case which included a score that missed the cutoff by a couple points. I think the GBRS was the factor, but I didn't bother to check it. My plan was always that if the referral didn't work, I would not appeal. I don't pretend to know exactly the kind of kid they're looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 90s, admission to GT was only by WISC. A score of 130+ would get you school-based services and a score of 140+ would get you into the center. The experience was vastly different. The center classes were reserved for the highly gifted and it was a tight cohort. The general Ed classes were still great because only those tippy top kids were removed from their base schools. There were definitely fewer centers. I went to the center at Louise Archer, then on to Longfellow, then back to Madison.

This approach was so much saner because as you said, the General Ed classes were still great. Only those kids who actually need a different learning environment should be offered a place in AAP. That way it would actually mean something to everyone.

+1. I don't remember how the testing worked but I was in school-based GT (basically just pull-outs) and my sister went to a center school. I remember very few kids leaving for the center. It was all very matter of fact and there was little fuss made about it in either case.

Anonymous wrote:In the 90s, admission to GT was only by WISC. A score of 130+ would get you school-based services and a score of 140+ would get you into the center. The experience was vastly different. The center classes were reserved for the highly gifted and it was a tight cohort. The general Ed classes were still great because only those tippy top kids were removed from their base schools. There were definitely fewer centers. I went to the center at Louise Archer, then on to Longfellow, then back to Madison.

This approach was so much saner because as you said, the General Ed classes were still great. Only those kids who actually need a different learning environment should be offered a place in AAP. That way it would actually mean something to everyone.

Elementary GT in early '90's was the Otis Lenon, OLSAT, if the child made the cut, then I think recieved an individual WISC. I know DS1 didn't make it in 2nd grade. Soon after that they started redoing it, not doing the Individual testing but used the OLSAT and I think some committee, but no GYBERs as today. DS2 made it into GT in '96. At that time MANY less schools and classes. It was also right before the SOL push so his teachers were able to do really creative units that you would never see today. I doubt if any class today would spend two days in a parent/teacher made plastic bubble that filled the classroom doing space experiments. As for level of content, can't compare but just knowing how fluid the process is now, and how many more students are in AAP makes me wonder.

What would be a better analyses would be how do the percentages, not numbers, compare now days to the '90's as I highly doubt if our children have become that much smarter!

Honors classes were not open enrollment as they are now.

In the 90s, admission to GT was only by WISC. A score of 130+ would get you school-based services and a score of 140+ would get you into the center. The experience was vastly different. The center classes were reserved for the highly gifted and it was a tight cohort. The general Ed classes were still great because only those tippy top kids were removed from their base schools. There were definitely fewer centers. I went to the center at Louise Archer, then on to Longfellow, then back to Madison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

Are you one poster that continually posts this same complaint over and over again?

Are you the one poster who continually (and falsely) likes to make it appear that only one person feels this way? There are tons of people on this forum who make excellent and valid points about AAP. Whether you like to hear them or not.

I guess tons of people on this forum also have exact same writing styles and exact same choice of words. You sound very familiar. That is all.

Oh, wait! I know you.

You're the one

Who typically writes like this.

As if every response

is a haiku.

Hi!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

Are you one poster that continually posts this same complaint over and over again?

Are you the one poster who continually (and falsely) likes to make it appear that only one person feels this way? There are tons of people on this forum who make excellent and valid points about AAP. Whether you like to hear them or not.

I guess tons of people on this forum also have exact same writing styles and exact same choice of words. You sound very familiar. That is all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

Are you one poster that continually posts this same complaint over and over again?

Are you the one poster who continually (and falsely) likes to make it appear that only one person feels this way? There are tons of people on this forum who make excellent and valid points about AAP. Whether you like to hear them or not.

Anonymous wrote:Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

Are you one poster that continually posts this same complaint over and over again?

Well, for starters, the bar is much lower than it used to be. In GT, there was a composite score that had to be reached, making it much more difficult and selective. Nowadays, the appeal process is such that if your child does not make it into the pool (initial cut), parents can simply appeal and almost always get child into AAP. It is no longer a program for just gifted kids, who actually make up a tiny percentage of kids admitted; however, every parent who has a child in AAP says that their child is gifted even if they've just barely made the cutoff. The program is a ridiculous waste of time and money (testing, selection committees, center schools, busing to center schools, etc.) that benefits a very large group of FCPS kids but does nothing for the other large group of kids who remain in Gen Ed.

It sounds like they've made a lot of changes - it used to be that a lot of kids in the gt programs in elementary and middle school went on to the gt English/history combined classes ("World Civ") in high school, along with AP classes. Testing into the programs was via some sort of IQ test primarily I think. How are today's AAP programs different?