Anonymous wrote:
To me, “functioning” means getting by. It means going to class and being fine. Not functioning means being actively disruptive in class or not attending class at all, experiencing mental health problems at the school (maybe due to significant bullying), etc.

Where on the functioning vs. not functioning spectrum would you place a kid who is mildly bullied, doesn't fit in with the other kids, and as a result doesn't really have any friends? It's not an uncommon situation for highly gifted kids placed in regular schools.

Speaking from experience: my kids are in AAP. Neither have taken after school tutoring. Neither were test prepped. Both learn really quickly. Both have always been ahead of everyone their age. It is a given that they will do well.

Both of us (parents) have postgraduate degrees. Ivy league education. Good jobs.

Here's my observation: parents I know have had their kids in math programs (Kumon, Russian School, Singapore Math, etc.) and they talk about the investment: their expectation is that their kids will be in the APP program.

Other parents I know don't think highly of the AAP program. Their kids aren't in the program.

Here I am. In a forum I heard about that is constantly bashing the APP program, the kids in the program, the parents, and some of the schools.

What I find comical is the anger and disdain from some of these posters. So much energy and colorful language. I guess those parents would have benefited from a good education...

I don't have a dog in this fight, but thought I'd share my experience. My 4 kids went through FCPS, k-12. I had two get into AAP in elementary and two who did not. I stressed a lot at the time about the 2 who did not, but now I wish I had not cared so much.

Here's what you should know. It really doesn't matter much. All my kids took Algebra in 8th grade (2 took honors and 2 regular). All started French 1 in 8th grade. Guess what - those are the only 2 middle school classes that count for college and ANYONE can take them in 8th grade, whether or not they were in AAP. Colleges do not know or care in your kid was in AAP.
Once your kid is in high school, they can take ANY CLASS they want.
Two of my kids got into UVA, (one had been AAP, one not). Two got into William and Mary, (one had been AAP and one not).

Life is short. Enjoy your kids while they are young and home. You will miss them when they move away. Try not to freak out too much about AAP. If you have a smart and motivated kid, they will rise to the top in high school and be ok. Just my two cents. Have a great day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My sister and I both had IQ tests when we entered a kindergarten magnet program. I tested at 147, and she tested at 153 (we only found out much later, when we were going through old stuff). We both went to strong private schools after finding public school too easy, but neither of us graduated college early. At my high school, there were absolutely kids there who were smarter than me, and yet they did well in a mainstream (if very selective) private school.

My point is that I think people assume that very high IQ kids can’t function in a regular school environment. That’s mostly not true. “Gifted” does not exclusively mean John Nash or Albert Einstein. Those types of people are savants. They are exceptionally rare.

You contradicted yourself. You said that you and your sister couldn't function in public school, but then insisted that high IQ kids can function in a regular school environment. Of course high IQ kids can function in selective privates or real gifted programs. This is different from modern "gifted" programs that seem to take everyone and then offer at best a mildly accelerated curriculum.

I’m responding to posters here who seem to think gifted kids are exclusively the kids being homeschooled or graduating from college at aged 14.

Even a selective private school is still a relatively “regular” school environment.

And let me be clear about my sister and me: We could function in public school; we just weren’t challenged. It wouldn’t have killed us to stay in public school.

What does it mean, to function but not be challenged? What kind of functioning are you talking about? A getting by one, or one that was productive and fulfilling?

To me, “functioning” means getting by. It means going to class and being fine. Not functioning means being actively disruptive in class or not attending class at all, experiencing mental health problems at the school (maybe due to significant bullying), etc.

Simply functioning at school is not a standard most parents want for their kids, but it’s a situation where long-term damage would probably not be done to the kid. They’d just be bored.

Contrast that with thriving and being challenged. My parents chose to send us to private school because they wanted us to thrive. My point is that, for us at least, that was a choice; it wasn’t out of necessity.

Anonymous wrote:State law requires local school districts to provide for the educational needs of gifted children. FCPS are doing a poor job of it. I agree people are hating on gifted kids, but it's because they don't believe they are gifted, but rather their parents gamed the AAP process. I think that is the problem. And truly gifted kids are forgotten.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/

When kids have genius IQs and they are not getting into AAP since the holistic approach didn’t work for them....FCPS is not doing their fair share for providing education for these kids. They need to have AAP for the above average and then they need to have a gifted program for the top 2% percent who are actually gifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My sister and I both had IQ tests when we entered a kindergarten magnet program. I tested at 147, and she tested at 153 (we only found out much later, when we were going through old stuff). We both went to strong private schools after finding public school too easy, but neither of us graduated college early. At my high school, there were absolutely kids there who were smarter than me, and yet they did well in a mainstream (if very selective) private school.

My point is that I think people assume that very high IQ kids can’t function in a regular school environment. That’s mostly not true. “Gifted” does not exclusively mean John Nash or Albert Einstein. Those types of people are savants. They are exceptionally rare.

You contradicted yourself. You said that you and your sister couldn't function in public school, but then insisted that high IQ kids can function in a regular school environment. Of course high IQ kids can function in selective privates or real gifted programs. This is different from modern "gifted" programs that seem to take everyone and then offer at best a mildly accelerated curriculum.

I’m responding to posters here who seem to think gifted kids are exclusively the kids being homeschooled or graduating from college at aged 14.

Even a selective private school is still a relatively “regular” school environment.

And let me be clear about my sister and me: We could function in public school; we just weren’t challenged. It wouldn’t have killed us to stay in public school.

What does it mean, to function but not be challenged? What kind of functioning are you talking about? A getting by one, or one that was productive and fulfilling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My sister and I both had IQ tests when we entered a kindergarten magnet program. I tested at 147, and she tested at 153 (we only found out much later, when we were going through old stuff). We both went to strong private schools after finding public school too easy, but neither of us graduated college early. At my high school, there were absolutely kids there who were smarter than me, and yet they did well in a mainstream (if very selective) private school.

My point is that I think people assume that very high IQ kids can’t function in a regular school environment. That’s mostly not true. “Gifted” does not exclusively mean John Nash or Albert Einstein. Those types of people are savants. They are exceptionally rare.

You contradicted yourself. You said that you and your sister couldn't function in public school, but then insisted that high IQ kids can function in a regular school environment. Of course high IQ kids can function in selective privates or real gifted programs. This is different from modern "gifted" programs that seem to take everyone and then offer at best a mildly accelerated curriculum.

I’m responding to posters here who seem to think gifted kids are exclusively the kids being homeschooled or graduating from college at aged 14.

Even a selective private school is still a relatively “regular” school environment.

And let me be clear about my sister and me: We could function in public school; we just weren’t challenged. It wouldn’t have killed us to stay in public school.

Anonymous wrote:If you are

1. A parent of a pretty sharp child (dont like to call them gifted) you want AAP.

2. A parent of a parent of a bright child but are not sure if your child would get into AAP you want to abolish AAP. But once they get in, you are all for AAP.

3. A parent of a bright child and you hoped would get into AAP but did not, you are bitter and want to abolish AAP.

A parent of 3 kids who had been in all three situations. Enjoy.

No need to discuss this with rationales. Just say, I am #1 or #2 or #3.

#4 You don't want to be with the poors, you want AAP.

So, what’s your point? And how does it relate to the topic? Entitlement to hate??

Einstein was a crummy communicator, a genius nevertheless, who has redefined physics in a whole new way.

If you had actually met genius, you’d understand. Being in a PhD doesn’t mean what you think.

The people I was referencing received perfect SATs, before prep classes were available, and were years advanced in math and science in school. One started Cal Tech at 14. They all have struggled professionally. Einstein is seen as a genius now but struggled to be accepted for a long time for a variety of reasons. The reality is that many people who are gifted, to include the geniuses, would do well to develop strong people skills and learn to work with people are are not naturally gifted. Most people are not going to appreciate being talked down to or treated in a manner that is deemed condescending. I would guess that the vast majority of people in my PhD program fell into the 99th percentile that is considered to be gifted. I have not bothered with an IQ test, other then the ones that were given to me when I was tested for learning disabilities. I would doubt that I fall into the gifted category.

Gifted, as someone pointed out, is anyone with an IQ in the 99th percentile. I know plenty of people who fall into that category. Many are very successful. Some are leaders and some are not. Their successes come from their intelligence but also their willingness to work hard and good people skills. Being Gifted or a genius does not equate with being a leader or successful. Understanding that is not "hating" it is being realistic and looking at the world as it is.

Schools should be providing material and classes that challenge kids, including kids who are gifted. I would agree that it is easier to to leave the gifted kids to work on their own but I would say that is the case for any kid who is advanced. Most people understand the need to provide services for kids who are behind, due to special needs, or struggling for other reasons. It is far easier to ignore the needs of kids who are above grade level, for whatever reason. Those kids are on grade level, anything else is gravy. Schools do not receive any bonus points or extras for having kids who are advanced but they get in trouble for having too many kids who are behind so that is their focus. Many parents will accept sacrificing some class time to help kids who are behind but see programs for kids who are advanced as being an unnecessary drain. It is a shame because we should be developing a system that meets the needs of all kids. We would be far better off if we appreciated and celebrated the needs of all kids, to include the advanced/gifted/geniuses.

Anonymous wrote:
My sister and I both had IQ tests when we entered a kindergarten magnet program. I tested at 147, and she tested at 153 (we only found out much later, when we were going through old stuff). We both went to strong private schools after finding public school too easy, but neither of us graduated college early. At my high school, there were absolutely kids there who were smarter than me, and yet they did well in a mainstream (if very selective) private school.

My point is that I think people assume that very high IQ kids can’t function in a regular school environment. That’s mostly not true. “Gifted” does not exclusively mean John Nash or Albert Einstein. Those types of people are savants. They are exceptionally rare.

You contradicted yourself. You said that you and your sister couldn't function in public school, but then insisted that high IQ kids can function in a regular school environment. Of course high IQ kids can function in selective privates or real gifted programs. This is different from modern "gifted" programs that seem to take everyone and then offer at best a mildly accelerated curriculum.

I feel like people are mixing up “gifted” and “savant.”

Someone who tests in the top 2%, for example (about 132+) is gifted. No two ways about it. But that person could very well do fine in a good public school or strong private school.

When you’re talking about someone who can graduate college at 14, you’re talking about someone who has an IQ that is probably above 160 (aka is generally considered unmeasurable, as the test tops out at 160).

My sister and I both had IQ tests when we entered a kindergarten magnet program. I tested at 147, and she tested at 153 (we only found out much later, when we were going through old stuff). We both went to strong private schools after finding public school too easy, but neither of us graduated college early. At my high school, there were absolutely kids there who were smarter than me, and yet they did well in a mainstream (if very selective) private school.

My point is that I think people assume that very high IQ kids can’t function in a regular school environment. That’s mostly not true. “Gifted” does not exclusively mean John Nash or Albert Einstein. Those types of people are savants. They are exceptionally rare.

Anonymous wrote:I think we have to redefine what it means to be successful. Yes, gifted people definitely generate all the best technological and medical innovations. The person studying how cancer cells respond to a new type of treatment or how to create a new wifi standard is not "a well rounded individual." I mean, they MAY be, but it would just be by accident because being well rounded is simply not something that helps you engage in advanced technical research. However, a lot of those people also don't make that much money. I went to a private school that was basically 50/50 split between truly gifted kids and well rounded kids. There are definitely more high end achievements from the gifted kids, but they are mostly making around 100k as research scientists, math professors, etc. The well rounded kids went into business, finance, law and are making more money. So if your metric of success is innovating for the future of the world, yes gifted kids are more successful. If your metric is having a comfortable life and making money, well rounded kids *tend* to be more successful

Sorry, I didn't mean to say "redefine what it means to be successful," I meant simply "define what it means." There are numerous definitions of success. For some people it is just finding someone you love to spend the rest of your life with. I don't think anyone is debating gifted kids are incredibly successful at the things that require giftedness.

I think we have to redefine what it means to be successful. Yes, gifted people definitely generate all the best technological and medical innovations. The person studying how cancer cells respond to a new type of treatment or how to create a new wifi standard is not "a well rounded individual." I mean, they MAY be, but it would just be by accident because being well rounded is simply not something that helps you engage in advanced technical research. However, a lot of those people also don't make that much money. I went to a private school that was basically 50/50 split between truly gifted kids and well rounded kids. There are definitely more high end achievements from the gifted kids, but they are mostly making around 100k as research scientists, math professors, etc. The well rounded kids went into business, finance, law and are making more money. So if your metric of success is innovating for the future of the world, yes gifted kids are more successful. If your metric is having a comfortable life and making money, well rounded kids *tend* to be more successful

In the past, before there were pseudo-gifted programs everywhere, the truly gifted were just radically accelerated through school. Many started college at age 14. I wonder if that would be a better solution than putting kids into watered down gifted programs, acting like their needs are being met, and effectively holding them back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t know who’s going to turn the wheel forward, OP. Maybe it’s someone has been identified as academically gifted, and maybe it isn’t.

I have a “genius” IQ and while I am living a perfectly nice life, I haven’t changed the world. I certainly know people with much less intellectual horsepower who have had a much bigger impact.

Gifted kids deserve a good education, but that’s because all kids do, not because they’re more important than other kids.

You want to play semantics. All the people who have had a meaningful impact on society have been geniuses in their respective areas. Not all geniuses will do something impactful, but you can’t if you don’t have the genius in you.

I never said that gifted kids are more important. On the contrary, I said that they deserve their fair chance and should not be sacrificed. If two more kids should receive services do one gifted one can, than so be it. Don’t sacrifice the gifted because you’re not exactly sure who the gifted are.

Sacrificed?

Maybe parents of profoundly-gifted kids should focus on EQ...

Why??!! So your kids can get their free and appropriate education? Maybe you should focus on your own EQ so you can better understand all the people.

The leaders of the world tend to be people who are smart, maybe gifted but who knows, and have good to great social skills.

The gifted people I know all have sucky people skills and struggle to hold jobs because of that. If they had better EQ and social skills, they would do far better in the work place. Instead they have spent their lives grumbling about how they are smarter then their bosses, who are idiots, and wonder why they cannot hold a job. They have insanely impressive resumes, based on their education and knowledge in their fields, but they cannot work with other people. Mine is a small sample of the population but it is not exactly an unusual story.

I also know gifted people who are very much in the middle of the pack at work. They get along fine with people but they are not motivated to move up their profession. They are happy where they are and are not interested in advancement. I know gifted people who do not understand why you have to jump through hoops to achieve certain goals. Half the people in my PhD program dropped out, not unusual, because they are not interested in doing the small things that you have to do to earn the degree. It had nothing to do with intelligence but a lack of perseverance and persistence.

Gifted people have different personalities and different strengths and weaknesses like everyone.

So, what’s your point? And how does it relate to the topic? Entitlement to hate??

Einstein was a crummy communicator, a genius nevertheless, who has redefined physics in a whole new way.

If you had actually met genius, you’d understand. Being in a PhD doesn’t mean what you think.