Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Partly. Also heavily on teacher recommendation-- how your child performs day in and day out.

+1

It is NOT based solely on a single test score on a single day.

+2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would put your kid on a bus for 3 hours a day to commute to the one center? That's nuts.

Helicopter Mom doesn't need a bus.

I wouldn't put my kid on a bus for 3 hours. I would either work out a carpool with other kids on the commute path. We have a parent that doesn't into work into late in the morning and I can get off early enough to beat traffic.

This proves the point that you, and most people, don't have kids that really need a special ed program on the high end. For those of us who do, we would make the sacrifice for our DC to get the services they need.

AAP is NOT a special ed program. At all.

I think that's her point. The program doesn't address the needs of the highest level.

Yes I agree. The PP should not have to bus her kid for 3 hours so the parents of the parent referred kid should feel better about herself / himself and brag to the neighbors. I have a 2nd grader and think it should be gifted only.

What do the parents of the parent referred kid, who you evidently detest, have to do with anything? PP should have to bus if she believes there is a need for "a special ed program on the high end" to serve children so profoundly gifted, needy and scarce that they could fill only a single school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would put your kid on a bus for 3 hours a day to commute to the one center? That's nuts.

Helicopter Mom doesn't need a bus.

I wouldn't put my kid on a bus for 3 hours. I would either work out a carpool with other kids on the commute path. We have a parent that doesn't into work into late in the morning and I can get off early enough to beat traffic.

This proves the point that you, and most people, don't have kids that really need a special ed program on the high end. For those of us who do, we would make the sacrifice for our DC to get the services they need.

AAP is NOT a special ed program. At all.

I think that's her point. The program doesn't address the needs of the highest level.

Yes I agree. The PP should not have to bus her kid for 3 hours so the parents of the parent referred kid should feel better about herself / himself and brag to the neighbors. I have a 2nd grader and think it should be gifted only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Partly. Also heavily on teacher recommendation-- how your child performs day in and day out.

+1

It is NOT based solely on a single test score on a single day.

My two children didn't qualify based on the test. Their teachers strongly encouraged me to refer them based on what they saw. With the first, I held off and after hearing that from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade teachers, I finally did and she was accepted. it is clearly - to me - not just based on the test score.

+1. DD was not in pool based on her test scores. She placed based on her GBRS and work samples (and we later discovered her test scores were low because of ADHD, which is a different post). 4 years in, she's getting great grades at a very strong Center.

Anonymous wrote:

My two children didn't qualify based on the test. Their teachers strongly encouraged me to refer them based on what they saw. With the first, I held off and after hearing that from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade teachers, I finally did and she was accepted. it is clearly - to me - not just based on the test score.

The selection process is far from objective. signed former teacher who has seen a lot.

Former teacher? Hmmmmmm

My two children didn't qualify based on the test. Their teachers strongly encouraged me to refer them based on what they saw. With the first, I held off and after hearing that from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade teachers, I finally did and she was accepted. it is clearly - to me - not just based on the test score.

The selection process is far from objective. signed former teacher who has seen a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Partly. Also heavily on teacher recommendation-- how your child performs day in and day out.

+1

It is NOT based solely on a single test score on a single day.

My two children didn't qualify based on the test. Their teachers strongly encouraged me to refer them based on what they saw. With the first, I held off and after hearing that from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade teachers, I finally did and she was accepted. it is clearly - to me - not just based on the test score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Partly. Also heavily on teacher recommendation-- how your child performs day in and day out.

+1

It is NOT based solely on a single test score on a single day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Partly. Also heavily on teacher recommendation-- how your child performs day in and day out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Some kids aren't ready in second but might have grown a lot by fourth or fifth. Be grateful fcps gives students a cuance to apply for entry every single year if they want for six straigt years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Right, and that's why entry to AAP is open from 3rd grade through 8th grade, from ages 7-8 years old through 12-13.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

It's based on a test score, from a test given when the child is 7 or 8 years old. Sorry, but I don't think a child's innate intelligence can be judged at that age, and I think it's a huge shame that kids are divided into two groups based, primarily, on the results of these tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non AAP kids have the option to take compacted math, which is the equivalent of AAP level math IF THEY QUALIFY.

What I don't get is all of this crowing about how unfair AAP is to GE students-ALL 2nd graders in FCPS are screened and there is a process to this-if you QUALIFY then you receive the same AAP education as everyone else who qualifies and if you don't qualify you are placed in GE. The classes are differentiated from then on within their own cohort. AAP is simply a larger group differentiation point to begin from from the students who proved they can test well and are identified by the teachers as being suitable for the program.

You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

Putting the kids into these two separate categories is so damaging for those in GE. I've heard my child and others say they must be "stupid" since they're not in AAP, when the reality is so, so different. Labeling them like this has serious repercussions in the way children see themselves. It's so unnecessary when all they need to do is give equal access to all the classes. Those who thrive there will thrive, and those who don't will see they need to go back a level.

Your kids aren't in AAP and your on AAP bulletin boards in your free time? You seem like the kind of person who is so obessesed with righting some AAP wrong that YOU are the one making your kids feel bad-- not the other students at the ES.

What an idiotic statement. This is a forum for adults - or at least I thought it was. Why would I ever discuss this with my children? They're the ones who tell us (their parents) how they feel about school. According to parents of their friends, they hear the same thing. So here I am, discussing this on an adult forum, just as I'm sure you vent about things on other forums and not with your kids. Stop policing which boards I am "allowed" to post on. And learn how to spell.

Maybe YOU'RE right. My kids would pick up on this level of bitterness in a heart beat. But then again, they're the type of smart, perceptive kids you find in an AAP program.

Oh my. No words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?

+1. Travel soccer teams have athletically talented kids (I could have my kids take hours of private lessons a day and they still wouldn't get in), youth orchestras have musically talented kids, and AAP has -- wait for it-- academically talented kids. According to a combination of work samples, teacher recommendations and standardized tests. And if you don't like the standardized tests, you can get an IQ test done and prove the COGAT wrong. So AAP is not just a "superior in their parents minds" thing. It's a designation that kids get after a vote by an objective panel weighs a number of factors. So yes, GE kids have been determined BY FCPS not to be as academically talented as the cutoff for the AAP pool. But, it is also a fact that any team, group or program that is not open admission (or lottery) will select some kids and not others based on talent and performance. Why is this okay in athletics but not academics? I don't accuse parents in my community of a "superiority complex" when they talk about their child making a "cut" team for a high school sport. I usually think, "Larla is a nice kid. Good for her." It takes nothing away for my kids to recognize that other kids are talented-- sometimes in areas where my kids struggle. It's not a zero sum game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize just how many GE students there are who are equally bright as the vast majority of AAP students? And that this large group of kids is perfectly capable of doing AAP work? FCPS needs to simply allow all kids to take the level (in ALL subjects, not just math) that is suitable for them, and leave the labeling out of it.

This is just silly. There are plenty of children in GE (probably most of them) who are bright enough to do anything they want in life. If they were tested for AAP and did not get in, they are not as bright as the vast majority of AAP students.

And there it is, in a nutshell. The classic AAP parent (and child) superiority complex. It's sad that you actually believe this is true. Thank you, FCPS, for creating this divide and fostering this type of mentality.

I wrote that comment and don't have a child in AAP. If not intelligence, what do you think the identification process is based on?