Anonymous wrote:So the upshot seems to be that AAP will not meet the needs of a child with a IQ over 150?

It may. It may not. It depends on the teacher. A child with an IQ over 150 will be an outlier in AAP or any other program.

So the upshot seems to be that AAP will not meet the needs of a child with a IQ over 150?

2013 was an anomaly. Don’t use that year of evidence of anything.

Anonymous wrote:DP. Some parents of children with WISC of 150 say that their kids are well served by AAP. Your generalization is not universal.

In 2000, the median HHI of the US was $57k and of Fairfax county was $82k. In 2016, the median HHI of the US was $58k and of Fairfax county in 2016 was $115k.

Yep. A lot of bright, high achievers earn a lot of money. High SES, highly achieving parents tend to also have bright, high achieving kids. If anything, that stat is suggestive that this area increased drastically in bright, high achievers, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there would be that many more kids who are actually gifted.

DP. Some parents of children with WISC of 150 say that their kids are well served by AAP. Your generalization is not universal.

In 2000, the median HHI of the US was $57k and of Fairfax county was $82k. In 2016, the median HHI of the US was $58k and of Fairfax county in 2016 was $115k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP was not created to serve the gifted, contrary to popular belief. AAP serves the high achievers. Like a previous PP said, being gifted and being a high achiever are not synonymous.

It was a gifted program when it was called GT, it is still a gifted program after they changed the name. The program didn't change when they changed the name.

When it was GT, it served about 5% of the students. Now, it serves about 20% who are LIV qualified and another 6-7% who are principal placed in the LIV classrooms.

When it was GT, they put the top 10% of the annual CogAt scores into the pool and accepted some parent referrals (down to about 125 on WISC, if they were big performing). That has not changed. When my eldest went through it, about 30% of his classmates qualified (McLean ES). Now there are just more ESs with the demographics of that ES. Some of the growth is legitimate.

Only 6% of students were in GT in 2000. 19% were in AAP in 2015. FCPS acknowledges that it's casting a much wider net for AAP eligibility than it had in the past. Kids are now qualifying who wouldn't have done so 20 or even 10 years ago. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is an entirely different debate. I'll admit that my DD wouldn't have qualified for AAP in the past, but is doing well in the program now. She's a bright, motivated student, but she's not gifted.

The profile of a typical AAP student is a bright, motivated, high achieving kid with an IQ in the 120s or 130s and working about one year above grade level. A kid with an IQ in the high 150s does not fit the profile of the typical AAP student and would probably not be well served in AAP. I doubt that such a kid would have been well served in the old GT program or pretty much any public or private school system. AAP might be the best fit for such a kid, since many of the teachers would have been trained in how to extend or challenge the very top kids, but that doesn't mean that it would necessarily be a good fit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP was not created to serve the gifted, contrary to popular belief. AAP serves the high achievers. Like a previous PP said, being gifted and being a high achiever are not synonymous.

It was a gifted program when it was called GT, it is still a gifted program after they changed the name. The program didn't change when they changed the name.

When it was GT, it served about 5% of the students. Now, it serves about 20% who are LIV qualified and another 6-7% who are principal placed in the LIV classrooms.

When it was GT, they put the top 10% of the annual CogAt scores into the pool and accepted some parent referrals (down to about 125 on WISC, if they were big performing). That has not changed. When my eldest went through it, about 30% of his classmates qualified (McLean ES). Now there are just more ESs with the demographics of that ES. Some of the growth is legitimate.

Anonymous wrote:It is a little sad that FCPS pays so much attention to helping the special needs of so many other groups outside the mainstream, but it has nothing for the very special needs that gifted children require. As good as FCPS is for other groups, it is most certainly lacking here.

As a parent with a child who needs were outside of the mainstream, I beg to differ. I suggest to talk with the parents of special needs parents at the SEPTA meetings and you will see that your comment is not completely true. They do much better with the easier to ameliorate students, not so much with the others.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone got any suggestions as to where the gifted kids should go if they don’t get in to AAP?

Basis and Nysmith

Anonymous wrote:Anyone got any suggestions as to where the gifted kids should go if they don’t get in to AAP?

Throwing this out there without any background...I pass Edlin School in Reston every day on my commute. Never hear anything about it. An option?

The New School in Fairfax? I know one graduate but doesnt seem to be a big draw, either. I'm solidly in Vienna, land of the AAP craze.

Anyone got any suggestions as to where the gifted kids should go if they don’t get in to AAP?

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/92UNAX5CE5A8/$file/AAP%20Expansion%20Plan%20Final_2_PPT.pdf
Page 18 shows the AAP population explosion from 6% in 2000 to 16.6% in 2013.

http://www.fcag.org/documents/AAP_Class_Size_Analysis.pdf
Shows that 19% were LIV in 2015, with another 7% principal placed in a LIV classroom.

I have no clue what the data is for 2018, but the program seems to be growing each year. Unless you believe that 20% of FCPS students are gifted, then the program includes a lot of non-gifted high achievers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP was not created to serve the gifted, contrary to popular belief. AAP serves the high achievers. Like a previous PP said, being gifted and being a high achiever are not synonymous.

It was a gifted program when it was called GT, it is still a gifted program after they changed the name. The program didn't change when they changed the name.

When it was GT, it served about 5% of the students. Now, it serves about 20% who are LIV qualified and another 6-7% who are principal placed in the LIV classrooms.

PP There is no IQ requirement for AAP. Doesn’t this tell you something?

Anonymous wrote:AAP was not created to serve the gifted, contrary to popular belief. AAP serves the high achievers. Like a previous PP said, being gifted and being a high achiever are not synonymous.

It was a gifted program when it was called GT, it is still a gifted program after they changed the name. The program didn't change when they changed the name.