Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But I really doubt those 1 hour programs are having kids take IQ tests to get in either. It's too expensive. They probably are doing a similar thing: an IQ equivalent group test like the Cogat/Naglieri with a 130ish cut-off but some wiggle room.

Many programs seem to have much less wiggle room than AAP. In other systems, it can be very hard to get in with scores below the cutoff without some sort of amazing portfolio. In FCPS, it seems like many kids who are good students with scores in the 120s get accepted into AAP. I'm not yet sure whether the inclusion of many non-gifted high achievers in AAP is a good thing or a bad thing.

This is false. My youngest child was denied this year with a FSIQ of 133.

It seems they were more stringent this year than in past years. Maybe because Horne left.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS helps bright kids but is still too slow for truly gifted children. Both of my AAP kids are profoundly gifted kids. Both are Davidson Young Scholars. Neither are challenged in AAP but it's better than general education in FCPS. DSI has helped us find ways to supplement their education so they're not bored to death.

I'm the poster who mentioned Davidson before but who's happy enough with FCPS AAP. I think above 150 IQ, no public schools are likely to be able to do this--same as at the profound other end of the intellectual spectrum. That's why there are a national programs to help the statistically few students in those situations. I think kids with IQs in the 140s benefit from being in classes with motivated kids in the 120s and vice versa. But I think kids who meet the 132 criteria from a reputable tester on a FSIQ should by default be eligible for AAP (though there may be some reasons why it makes more sense for them not to enroll--e.g., social factors, special services better at the base school ). As for the in-pool/out-pool don't let that make you think the kids who get in must have lower numbers--they might on the group screening tests, but not necessarily on 1 on 1 which are considered far more rigorous, accurate measures.

FCPS helps bright kids but is still too slow for truly gifted children. Both of my AAP kids are profoundly gifted kids. Both are Davidson Young Scholars. Neither are challenged in AAP but it's better than general education in FCPS. DSI has helped us find ways to supplement their education so they're not bored to death.

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in Loudoun County Futura program. Looks like this is similar to the Prince William County program. It is once a week pullout program at a different center. This is not aligned with the curriculum. Kids get to do challenging projects. The Fairfax AAP program is an enrichment program it is not a gifted program. Futura is a gifted program.

My sister just bought a house in Chantilly so her kids can go to AAP. She kept comparing our kids (we both have a 9 year old and a 11 year old). She felt my kids were more advanced in math and doing more in writing and hands on science than my nieces who are in the FUTURA program. I think one of my nieces is truly a gifted child and FUTURA supplementation was very little.

FWIW, in Loudoun County schools (at least a few that I know of), there's classroom differentiation in the regular school in addition to one day a week Futura pullout. So you get accelerated learning in small groups as well as non-curriculum related project based challenges at Futura.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But I really doubt those 1 hour programs are having kids take IQ tests to get in either. It's too expensive. They probably are doing a similar thing: an IQ equivalent group test like the Cogat/Naglieri with a 130ish cut-off but some wiggle room.

Many programs seem to have much less wiggle room than AAP. In other systems, it can be very hard to get in with scores below the cutoff without some sort of amazing portfolio. In FCPS, it seems like many kids who are good students with scores in the 120s get accepted into AAP. I'm not yet sure whether the inclusion of many non-gifted high achievers in AAP is a good thing or a bad thing.

This is false. My youngest child was denied this year with a FSIQ of 133.

DP. It's not false, there are many good students with scores in the 120s who get in--I know quite a few of them because parents at my kids' school are very open about scores. There are also kids with WISC scores of 133 or higher who aren't found eligible, many times because of a low GBRS or because the high FISQ is the result of one very high section score. Some have also suggested that high WISC scores from some private testers are discounted, but I have no personal knowledge of that.

+1. That's my experience as well. Keep in mind that only 10% of FCPS kids are in-pool, but 20% are accepted into AAP. This means that about half of the kids in AAP were not in pool and most likely had scores somewhere in the 120s. My DD had scores in the mid 120s, and she seems to be a very average, middle-of-the-pack AAP student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But I really doubt those 1 hour programs are having kids take IQ tests to get in either. It's too expensive. They probably are doing a similar thing: an IQ equivalent group test like the Cogat/Naglieri with a 130ish cut-off but some wiggle room.

Many programs seem to have much less wiggle room than AAP. In other systems, it can be very hard to get in with scores below the cutoff without some sort of amazing portfolio. In FCPS, it seems like many kids who are good students with scores in the 120s get accepted into AAP. I'm not yet sure whether the inclusion of many non-gifted high achievers in AAP is a good thing or a bad thing.

This is false. My youngest child was denied this year with a FSIQ of 133.

DP. It's not false, there are many good students with scores in the 120s who get in--I know quite a few of them because parents at my kids' school are very open about scores. There are also kids with WISC scores of 133 or higher who aren't found eligible, many times because of a low GBRS or because the high FISQ is the result of one very high section score. Some have also suggested that high WISC scores from some private testers are discounted, but I have no personal knowledge of that.

Anonymous wrote:It is not false. Lots of lower scoring kids get in while higher scoring kids don’t get in. That’s why it is no longer called gifted program . It’s the new holistic approach

"Lots" is an overstatement. And that's not what holistic means in FCPS.

It is not false. Lots of lower scoring kids get in while higher scoring kids don’t get in. That’s why it is no longer called gifted program . It’s the new holistic approach

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But I really doubt those 1 hour programs are having kids take IQ tests to get in either. It's too expensive. They probably are doing a similar thing: an IQ equivalent group test like the Cogat/Naglieri with a 130ish cut-off but some wiggle room.

Many programs seem to have much less wiggle room than AAP. In other systems, it can be very hard to get in with scores below the cutoff without some sort of amazing portfolio. In FCPS, it seems like many kids who are good students with scores in the 120s get accepted into AAP. I'm not yet sure whether the inclusion of many non-gifted high achievers in AAP is a good thing or a bad thing.

This is false. My youngest child was denied this year with a FSIQ of 133.

Anonymous wrote:
But I really doubt those 1 hour programs are having kids take IQ tests to get in either. It's too expensive. They probably are doing a similar thing: an IQ equivalent group test like the Cogat/Naglieri with a 130ish cut-off but some wiggle room.

Many programs seem to have much less wiggle room than AAP. In other systems, it can be very hard to get in with scores below the cutoff without some sort of amazing portfolio. In FCPS, it seems like many kids who are good students with scores in the 120s get accepted into AAP. I'm not yet sure whether the inclusion of many non-gifted high achievers in AAP is a good thing or a bad thing.

In these other schools, is everyone getting the same gen ed curriculum, or do they still offer advanced math and leveled reading groups? If the top group of kids are separated to take math together and language arts together in PWC, then it probably will serve your child as well as AAP.

I would ask about in-classroom and across the grade differentiation in PWC, and not just ask about the gifted program.

Anonymous wrote:FFX AAP is more holistic. It is no longer a gifted program..You only need to score high on aptitude test to get in. Most of the kids in AAP have not taken an IQ test, unless they have appealed and then it is suggested . It is not a gifted program as many gifted kids don’t get in to AAP. Your other option of An hour with gifted kids might be better than all week with non gifted kids in AAP.

But I really doubt those 1 hour programs are having kids take IQ tests to get in either. It's too expensive. They probably are doing a similar thing: an IQ equivalent group test like the Cogat/Naglieri with a 130ish cut-off but some wiggle room.

Sure, in some ways would have loved my child to have a school based program designated for kids with 140+. She would have gone even faster in math and had more creative collaborative projects. But I just don't think it's realistic for large public school districts--and would always be on the chopping block. National programs (e.g. Davidson, CTY) can serve that niche. And I'm not convinced it's best--there have been few places in my life other than my PhD program where that was the case--so I'm glad to have grown up with a bit of a range (I went to a "gifted" private school for 3-8th, then regular good hs). Perfect targeting on ability may not be the best route for the many learning aspects of school (esp. social-emotional). I thought my daughter's needs were met well enough in her FCPS AAP center--she was able to join a small group to accelerate math faster to take Algebra H in 6th, she got feedback on writing that went beyond the assignment (even when it was 20 pages of really bad handwriting). She was identified even though she was one of the squirrely ones who got 2s in citizenship in 1st and 2nd and vacillated between daydreaming and disturbing others. So all the "complaints" about AAP haven't rung true to my experience. Sure I have my quibbles, but overall I think it functioned well enough for my kid in the 145 IQ range. And a heck of a lot better than having to spend all week in non-AAP school with 1 hour of projects. That sounds like a recipe for disaster for her. But YMMV.

AAP is great in that brings the top 20th percentile kids. Otherwise the curriculum isn’t much more advanced than what is in a lot of schools for the kids who receive differentiation in schools without an AAP or magnet program. A traditional pullout is good in that it pulls together gifted kids for fun projects and extracurriculars. For some kids having that label is everything. Growing up there were a few boys who had sloppy writing and bad grades but got to come to gifted because they had high IQs. And they did thrive there. The best program I’ve seen asks for 140+ FSIQ 140+ total achievement and an interview. I would love if my kid could be a part of the self contained class.

FFX AAP is more holistic. It is no longer a gifted program..You only need to score high on aptitude test to get in. Most of the kids in AAP have not taken an IQ test, unless they have appealed and then it is suggested . It is not a gifted program as many gifted kids don’t get in to AAP. Your other option of An hour with gifted kids might be better than all week with non gifted kids in AAP.