Anonymous wrote:
My gifted kid is being served well in AAP. When posters complain about AAP, I'm really not sure if it's due to the variability of FCPS schools or if people have very extreme expectations of what elementary school should be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Thiis is 100% true. AAP is not a "gifted" program - its an advanced program.

Yep. My bright kid is served well in AAP but would be served just as well in a robust gen ed program. My gifted kid isn't being served well, but enjoys being a big fish in a small pond even in AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Thiis is 100% true. AAP is not a "gifted" program - its an advanced program.

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Anonymous wrote:The majority of kids in AAP are bright but not gifted. That's why the majority of AAP parents prefer a system that serves bright kids and not necessarily just gifted kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

Maybe parents need to be responsible for helping their kids relate to other kids. The parents of non gifted socially inept kids need to deal with it themselves. If a gifted child needs speech therapy or OT, they should get it to the same extent as other kids. There shouldn't be a separate classroom for them. They can be with the academically advanced kids and get OT or speech therapy, or whatever else they need that's normally available to special ed kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

Maybe parents need to be responsible for helping their kids relate to other kids. The parents of non gifted socially inept kids need to deal with it themselves. If a gifted child needs speech therapy or OT, they should get it to the same extent as other kids. There shouldn't be a separate classroom for them. They can be with the academically advanced kids and get OT or speech therapy, or whatever else they need that's normally available to special ed kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

If you knew anything at all about gifted kids, you wouldn't be making such a statement. Gifted programs were never intended to be enrichment for kids who are very smart. They exist because gifted children have fairly high drop out rates and are often much less successful as adults than their intelligence would suggest. Many of them have comorbid LDs or mental health issues that make regular classrooms a poor fit. Many become the target of bullies or have massive issues with relating to regular kids. The reason many states have a gifted mandate is not to reward kids for winning the genetic lottery, but rather to address a real need.

Anonymous wrote:

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except AAP is not some specialized program for gifted kids. It’s AAP.

Except AAP is what FCPS uses to meet the gifted mandate set forth by the Virginia DOE. Thus it by definition is intended to serve the needs of gifted kids.

The gifted mandate is worthless. They could and many districts do serve the gifted population with a weekly 1-hr pullout. AAP is designed to meet different needs.

What different needs? I didn't realize that slightly above average, hothoused, UMC kids had any special needs that necessitated removal from a regular classroom. Most of those kids will bloom wherever they're planted. Gifted kids actually have different needs which can't be met in the regular classroom or in a weekly 1 hour pullout. So, what's the point of AAP if it's not to serve the needs of gifted kids rather than the wants of UMC parents?

Gifted kids already won the genetic lottery of being extremely intelligent. We need to reconsider why their needs are superior to the needs on the general student population. There are now so many free resources that parents of gifted kids can avail themselves of now, the schools should be allocating resources to serve the greatest number of kids while still differentiating. FCPS seems to have adopted that model. I agree with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except AAP is not some specialized program for gifted kids. It’s AAP.

Except AAP is what FCPS uses to meet the gifted mandate set forth by the Virginia DOE. Thus it by definition is intended to serve the needs of gifted kids.

The gifted mandate is worthless. They could and many districts do serve the gifted population with a weekly 1-hr pullout. AAP is designed to meet different needs.

What different needs? I didn't realize that slightly above average, hothoused, UMC kids had any special needs that necessitated removal from a regular classroom. Most of those kids will bloom wherever they're planted. Gifted kids actually have different needs which can't be met in the regular classroom or in a weekly 1 hour pullout. So, what's the point of AAP if it's not to serve the needs of gifted kids rather than the wants of UMC parents?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious who is on this committee?

Files are screened by AARTs from all over the county. Every file has at least 2 readers.

From what I've heard, the selection panels are formed from AARTs, AAP teachers, principals, and school counselors. You need 4 of the 6 people on the panel to vote for your child to get in. All of the people on the panels are going to have their own biases about who belongs in AAP or doesn't, so the process won't be completely consistent. Some groups will statistically be more lenient, while others will be more strict.

The teacher comments, work samples, parent questionnaire, and referral form are all important for framing how the committee views your child. If you have low scores but are good at articulating why your child would benefit from AAP, your child will probably get in. If you have high scores but the committee gets the impression that your child is prepped, your child won't get in.