14:53 AAP is not for most kids, especially the math piece. From all the discussions I have had about this with kids and teachers up through the grades is that many kids can handle the accelerated math...until they hit late 5th/6th grade and then there are definitely subsets of the AAP group that struggle.

As for the other subjects, it is harder to say.

Hm... mixing the "advanced" and the "gifted' again.

AAP is an Advanced ed program -- and access to it is indeed muddled by tests that mix in aptitude and knowledge, as well as teacher recommendations. Even so-called pure IQ tests are in fact heavily biased by knowledge, so it really is hard to get a true measure of a child's potential intellect. The classroom teacher recommendation is just as problematic as using the IQ tests at this age. K and 1st grade pretty much start from scratch, as they cannot assume kids had any formal education before. Some kids are fine with that, others balk. By 2nd grade, some of the more gifted children are spending their time *maybe* un-learning poor habits they created for themselves, trying to manage the boredom of the earlier grades.

Their classroom referrals are poor, since they have not shown a "compelling ability to learn', and their IQ scores are affected by the diminishing "general knowledge" --- a side efffect of 2-3 years of 7 hours a week of slow work. They fail to get into AAP,and continue to struggle in their GE class. The way things work now, we actually select into the AAP exactly those kids for whom status quo in a GE classroom would work well, and leaving out quite a few of the truly gifted who cannot manage GE. This is an Advanced Academics program, not a Gifted one.

So to me, the AAP track is just a way for the school to manage differentiated learning for advanced kids. We moved away from having special ed classes at the low end, but now have special ed classes at the top end of the achievement scale. Frankly, I am of the opinion that many children would benefit from an advanced track, and that access to that should be quite liberal. In fact, kids should be able to "try out" and decide if it works for them, rather than qualify on a "tenure track" like they do now. The kid who made a jump in 2nd grade may well be the kid who needs to slow down in 5th.

I also believe that it is really important to allow the AAP track to reach into Kindergarten -- as many children come in with advanced skills after 3 or more years of private preschool. Those kids really need differentiated learning as they are actually at risk of learning to hate school.

I could even see this becoming the standard GE, where kids who did not have any preschool / kindergarten exposure would benefit from additional services to bring them up to the same level. AAP is just where school should be for most kids...

On the other hand, the truly gifted do need a program -- though I'm pretty sure the current AAP is not it. They need truly individualized learning, rather than just an advancement of grade, which is AAP right now. Of course, you need to be really selective for such an individualized program, as it does come at a much higher cost. But even those kids would benefit from a mixed classroom in which they establish friendships across all abilities, even though they will be pulled out for 1:few work on special topics.

So my dream recipe:

- Allow younger kids to progress at a much faster pace early on -- essentially putting them on the AAP track from the beginning
- Provide additional support for children who were not in school before K and 1st grade -- or those without literacy skills.
- On a need basis, provide individualized instruction to the truly gifted, in their area of strength. Have a math teacher give them challenging work and spending some 1:1 time supporting their advancement. Have a literacy teacher join in a creative writing program or book club. and so on...

- most importantly, keep the kids integrated. If we start grooming the future leaders in 3rd grade, based on some pretty random criteria, how will they relate to the rest of the population once they reach their position of power?

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, many kids in FCPS spend K-2 unchallenged and bored. I'm not just talking about gifted kids, I'm including those kids who are of average intelligence who are exposed to books, music, basic math concepts, etc. at home.

My DD spent the first month or so of Kindergarten studying - COLORS. I mean, really?

She kept telling me, "Mom, I learned this a long time ago. Why are we doing this again"? I had no good answer for her.

FCPS says that lessons are differentiated based on learning level, but I don't think that's really true. Also, I've seen kids in the library who can read at a higher level be forced to choose picture books like the rest of their class.

I think AAP has been diluted because so many parents are desperate to give their average-slightly above average child more academic challenge than they are getting in general ed. It's not that their kid is brilliant, it's that the general ed. curriculum has been so watered down. If general ed. were what it should be, AAP would remain for the truly exceptional.

Makes more sense for the top 15% to be together and the lower 85% together, than for the top 5% to be together and the lower 95% together. Though neither solution is ideal. Better might be top 5% AAP, next 20% honors, remaining 75% gen ed.

Unfortunately, many kids in FCPS spend K-2 unchallenged and bored. I'm not just talking about gifted kids, I'm including those kids who are of average intelligence who are exposed to books, music, basic math concepts, etc. at home.

My DD spent the first month or so of Kindergarten studying - COLORS. I mean, really?

She kept telling me, "Mom, I learned this a long time ago. Why are we doing this again"? I had no good answer for her.

FCPS says that lessons are differentiated based on learning level, but I don't think that's really true. Also, I've seen kids in the library who can read at a higher level be forced to choose picture books like the rest of their class.

I think AAP has been diluted because so many parents are desperate to give their average-slightly above average child more academic challenge than they are getting in general ed. It's not that their kid is brilliant, it's that the general ed. curriculum has been so watered down. If general ed. were what it should be, AAP would remain for the truly exceptional.

base school is great for every one else's kids but obviously can't meet the needs of my kids....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not understand what the tests measure.

You write,"How moronic is it that we, as a society, identify our gifted students based on what they do/accomplish prior to turning 9?"

The testing is not about "what they do/accomplish prior to turning 9."

The point is a child's aptitude for learning -- not a child's accumulated knowledge or accomplishments at the end of second grade.

The point of advanced academics is not rewarding kids for knowing things at age nine. The point is providing additional challenge and stimulation for kids who have the ability to learn faster and in different, more complex ways.

That's the point of a gifted program. The point of AAP in FCPS is to reward those who do well on the two tests because they were prepped with similar questions prior to the actual test or those who can afford a private tester to give their DCs high WISC scores. Yes, some naturally gifted kids get in, but they are not the majority.

All the obsession with test prep, both in favor of it and against it, seems to live largely on this forum. So does the snarkiness about how only 'naturally gifted' children should have the high privilege of being challenged at school and pushed to do more and exposed to more complex concepts in faster-paced classrooms. Gosh, yes, let's save all that rich educational benefit purely for the "naturally gifted" and not waste it on kids who are only bright, quick, interested and able to learn well.

Unless you're a professional child psychologist or educator specializing in children's intellectual development--how do you know enough to say that "some naturally gifted kids get in but they are not the majority"?

Prepping wasn't on anyone's radar when my kid was in second grade five years ago. No one I knew was prepping kids at all and we didn't know a WISC from a hole in the wall and I don't know today if that was even the test my kid took back then. But the kids who seemed to be, well, smart, the ones who "got it" in class quickly and who could make leaps of thinking that some others didn't, were the kids who got into AAP. So...how did that happen?.....

Maybe the tests actually showed their ability to learn, and not what they already knew?

Glad I'm not going through the AAP application process today. It seems like a nightmare now.

You are lucky your child did this five years ago.

There is no test that can accurately define a childs intelligence. 2nd grade is still young.
Motivation plays a big role, as does ability to concentrate with distractions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13156817

Intelligence also grows with time. A kid might find 2nd grade boring and just not be motivated, but be a very good student in high school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You can always opt out of the madness. No one is forced to play.

I wished more common sense parents would. The base schools have a lot to offer and, believe it or not, CAN meet the needs. (Start throwing the flames now since I'm sure I just threw one myself, I know what's coming)

No argument from me. Base schools do have a lot to offer for many kids. The base school didn't work as well for my kids but for most kids, it's great.

I actually think it would have been better to have stayed in the base school. However, starting 7th, the AAP program does start to make a difference so there I'd have to say the local MS isn't as good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You can always opt out of the madness. No one is forced to play.

I wished more common sense parents would. The base schools have a lot to offer and, believe it or not, CAN meet the needs. (Start throwing the flames now since I'm sure I just threw one myself, I know what's coming)

No argument from me. Base schools do have a lot to offer for many kids. The base school didn't work as well for my kids but for most kids, it's great.

Anonymous wrote:^You can always opt out of the madness. No one is forced to play.

I wished more common sense parents would. The base schools have a lot to offer and, believe it or not, CAN meet the needs. (Start throwing the flames now since I'm sure I just threw one myself, I know what's coming)

^You can always opt out of the madness. No one is forced to play.

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade isn't too young. Other parts of the country, identifying gifted kids for some of these programs start at 4 yrs old. Most notably in NYC, Hunter, Anderson, etc. The IQ cutoff is 130.

Just because other parts of the country do it, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

2nd grade isn't too young. Other parts of the country, identifying gifted kids for some of these programs start at 4 yrs old. Most notably in NYC, Hunter, Anderson, etc. The IQ cutoff is 130.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not understand what the tests measure.

You write,"How moronic is it that we, as a society, identify our gifted students based on what they do/accomplish prior to turning 9?"

The testing is not about "what they do/accomplish prior to turning 9."

The point is a child's aptitude for learning -- not a child's accumulated knowledge or accomplishments at the end of second grade.

The point of advanced academics is not rewarding kids for knowing things at age nine. The point is providing additional challenge and stimulation for kids who have the ability to learn faster and in different, more complex ways.

That's the point of a gifted program. The point of AAP in FCPS is to reward those who do well on the two tests because they were prepped with similar questions prior to the actual test or those who can afford a private tester to give their DCs high WISC scores. Yes, some naturally gifted kids get in, but they are not the majority.

All the obsession with test prep, both in favor of it and against it, seems to live largely on this forum. So does the snarkiness about how only 'naturally gifted' children should have the high privilege of being challenged at school and pushed to do more and exposed to more complex concepts in faster-paced classrooms. Gosh, yes, let's save all that rich educational benefit purely for the "naturally gifted" and not waste it on kids who are only bright, quick, interested and able to learn well.

Unless you're a professional child psychologist or educator specializing in children's intellectual development--how do you know enough to say that "some naturally gifted kids get in but they are not the majority"?

Prepping wasn't on anyone's radar when my kid was in second grade five years ago. No one I knew was prepping kids at all and we didn't know a WISC from a hole in the wall and I don't know today if that was even the test my kid took back then. But the kids who seemed to be, well, smart, the ones who "got it" in class quickly and who could make leaps of thinking that some others didn't, were the kids who got into AAP. So...how did that happen?.....

Maybe the tests actually showed their ability to learn, and not what they already knew?

Glad I'm not going through the AAP application process today. It seems like a nightmare now.