Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "Stuck" in GE refers to being unable to cycle into and out of advanced courses in a child's stronger subjects, as needed.

This is a great issue to bring up with your school's principal, as your child should have access to Level II AAP at the base school between grades K-6 and Level III AAP between grades 3 - 6

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/level2.shtml

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/level3.shtml

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've missed the entire point, which is that AAP is not a gifted program. The curriculum is simply advanced by one year - something most kids could certainly do if given the opportunity. PP even suggested starting this in the 1st grade, so that ALL kids are ahead.

Certainly, not all kids are going to reach the same heights. But that goes for kids within AAP as well. Some kids are going to excel above and beyond any others - and that has nothing to do with being in AAP.

I can tell your mind is made up. But for anyone else listening, the AAP curriculum is not simply the same curriculum advanced by one year. At least not from our experience. If that's all there was to it, there would not be so many people howling about not being part of it. This is just the kind of misinformed belief one would expect to follow the constant hater drumbeat that AAP is "not a gifted program."

Well, from our experience, this is exactly what AAP is. The curriculum was no more challenging than that of the next grade up. I know that AAP parents love to tell themselves, their kids, and anyone who will listen that AAP is a gifted program, but it ceased being that over a decade ago when FCPS decided to include far more kids than they used to. Nothing wrong with an advanced curriculum, but it's very misleading to call it a "gifted" curriculum. Because it's simply advanced, many of us are arguing that it should be open to any child capable of doing the work. No need for a faux-gifted label in the first place.

Anonymous wrote: "Stuck" in GE refers to being unable to cycle into and out of advanced courses in a child's stronger subjects, as needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, you don't make sense. No way could my DCs friend since KG complete ALG HN in 7th or 8th grade. The child has on paper a very equal life: white, umc, a SAHM, both parents are educated, but the friend is barely passing any of the gen Ed classes in middle school. My DC is straight As in AAP. There's a very good reason for offering gen Ed. There's a very good reason for offering AAP. There's a very good reason for offering honors. Kids are not all the same intellectually.

Keeping this logic, it's why we have JV and Varsity sports. Your logic is every kid deserves a Varsity letter. What?

So because your daughter has one friend who is having trouble in school, you assume that EVERY child not in AAP would be unable to handle the curriculum? Respectfully, give me a break. You do know there are plenty of kids in AAP who do poorly, are struggling, have tutors, etc., right? The point is to let the kids and parents decide which level is right for them, perhaps with teacher input - but leave the decision up to the families. If it doesn't work out, they could always switch to the next level. Why pigeonhole one entire group of kids into taking classes deemed the "right" level for them, without anyone really knowing what they're capable of?

We all have anecdotes, and I certainly know of AAP kids like the ones I just described. Not everyone belongs in AAP, just as not everyone belongs stuck in GE. Thankfully, by high school all this nonsense ends and the kids and parents can make the right choices for themselves.

"Stuck in GE"

Your attitude is the root of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it. A thread about whether more minorities should be in AAP turns into a thread of mostly non-minorities, I'm guessing, saying how the program should be restructured so that their kids will still benefit.

I agree with earlier posters who believe FCPS is bad at identifying giftedness and low SES and minority kids, while many more white and Asian families than probably should be are able to game their kids into the program.

Anonymous wrote:

You've missed the entire point, which is that AAP is not a gifted program. The curriculum is simply advanced by one year - something most kids could certainly do if given the opportunity. PP even suggested starting this in the 1st grade, so that ALL kids are ahead.

Certainly, not all kids are going to reach the same heights. But that goes for kids within AAP as well. Some kids are going to excel above and beyond any others - and that has nothing to do with being in AAP.

I can tell your mind is made up. But for anyone else listening, the AAP curriculum is not simply the same curriculum advanced by one year. At least not from our experience. If that's all there was to it, there would not be so many people howling about not being part of it. This is just the kind of misinformed belief one would expect to follow the constant hater drumbeat that AAP is "not a gifted program."

Anonymous wrote:
How did a discussion about under represented minories become yet another thread about white people complaining about asian kids prepping their way into AAP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it. A thread about whether more minorities should be in AAP turns into a thread of mostly non-minorities, I'm guessing, saying how the program should be restructured so that their kids will still benefit.

I agree with earlier posters who believe FCPS is bad at identifying giftedness and low SES and minority kids, while many more white and Asian families than probably should be are able to game their kids into the program.

Have you seen the other thread, where someone suggested asking the kids whether or not they had been test prepped? Simply taking this step would eliminate part of the gaming.

What about the kids who are pleasers and wojld generally answer this question the way he or she thinks the teacher wants it answered?