Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Could you define "truly gifted." Could you name a few truly gifted individuals? I have been around students (at all levels, from k through graduate students) all my life. Each student has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to creativity, communication, comprehension, reasoning ... This differentiation between "gifted" and "ordinary" is puzzling to me and inconsistent with my experience. I consider most of our students intelligent and capable, although some are more motivated than others.

Anonymous wrote:Aap does not cost more,mor at least not a significant amount more.

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Anonymous wrote:I posted the comment you refer to. I think the truly gifted are 2 years advanced, but there are too many that also struggle because they are not truly "gifted" The idea of GT is great, but AAP is not GT. If they were really GT there would be maybe 10 kids in our class. However, what you do get in AAP is a mix of gifted and average kids who work hard and none of the lower level remedial students. The teacher is able to teach at a quicker pace and not dumb down the material. It is the ideal educational setting for many parents. This is also why it is so controversial, because of the perceived notion of brain drain.

Anonymous wrote:Too many average kids in AAP. If you dont score in the 98th or 99th percentile, you dont belong in AAP. If you need a tutor to stay on target in AAP, you dont belong. Too many parents are making up for their own shortcomings via their kids. I know kids who scored 100, or average in AAP. GT is gone. TJSST is also becoming watered down. Too many unqualified getting in.Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended 6-7 non-GT classes in Fairfax county over many years in the GT program. Put bluntly, the non-GT classes were terrible. Kids not paying attention, teachers dealing with discipline issues rather than academics, or helping along student who didn't bother to do their homework. Very little writing and analysis expected, and no public speaking opportunities even attempted. I felt like I was at a different school from by regular GT classes.

[list]See FCPS DISCRIMINATION!!! Why do the kids who can perform at A level in their ASSIGNED schools get these opportunities?? This is absolutely discrimination for one child who is smart to be brought down the the above described level while others are given unprecedented opportunities.

I really agree with this. I saw the same as a teacher. I thought it was unfair that some students go wonderful opportunities for learning and enrichment while others languished in disruptive classrooms. The GT program will insist that all these gt identified kids actually have a completely different learning style and that other, "normal" kids cannot benefit from that type of instruction. However, there is really no scientific evidence for this idea, especially the way the programs are actually implemented. It's more of a political justification adhered to for budgetary reasons.

would you explain what you mean byt this?

What I meant was that in the actual implementation of gifted services inside a school, it often becomes less about what kids can benefit from and what the school can afford in time and resources to give them. I know that services vary widely between schools, and I only have detailed knowledge of a handful of school gt programs, however what often happened was this: a very few students were identified as highly gifted (based on test scores and teacher recommendation - but mostly scores) and sent away to a gifted center at a different school. Another bunch of students had parents who went through the parent referral process and got their children sent there as well (in some cases literally harassing the teacher into filling out a positive recommendation for it).

That left a whole bunch of kids with test scores high enough to qualify them for in school gifted services. However, those services could be just about anything. One year, for example, it was a weekly 45 minute lesson with the GT teacher in a trailer. There were only about 4 or 5 students that would go, and they would do all kinds of cool things, from experiments to writing activities, but not a single thing they did was not something that any good student would have enjoyed if they could have had a small class with 4-5 students for an hour a week. Remember, the test scores are on a sliding scale, and the cutoff is kind of arbitrary. So who's to say that the kid sitting in the classroom who missed the service by one point could not benefit? I mean, honestly, what normal kid does not benefit from a very small class with open-ended and challenging activities? But not all kids can have that. Small classes are reserved for the very low and the very high, because that's all that the school system can really afford.

So, while there may be evidence that some kids are truly gifted and need a different learning environment, many gt kids are just good students with pushy parents, and many non-gt students are just kids who missed the score by a few points. At least, that's how it is in some schools. Does that explain it?

Anonymous wrote:

That left a whole bunch of kids with test scores high enough to qualify them for in school gifted services. However, those services could be just about anything. One year, for example, it was a weekly 45 minute lesson with the GT teacher in a trailer. There were only about 4 or 5 students that would go, and they would do all kinds of cool things, from experiments to writing activities, but not a single thing they did was not something that any good student would have enjoyed if they could have had a small class with 4-5 students for an hour a week. Remember, the test scores are on a sliding scale, and the cutoff is kind of arbitrary. So who's to say that the kid sitting in the classroom who missed the service by one point could not benefit? I mean, honestly, what normal kid does not benefit from a very small class with open-ended and challenging activities? But not all kids can have that. Small classes are reserved for the very low and the very high, because that's all that the school system can really afford.

So, while there may be evidence that some kids are truly gifted and need a different learning environment, many gt kids are just good students with pushy parents, and many non-gt students are just kids who missed the score by a few points. At least, that's how it is in some schools. Does that explain it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended 6-7 non-GT classes in Fairfax county over many years in the GT program. Put bluntly, the non-GT classes were terrible. Kids not paying attention, teachers dealing with discipline issues rather than academics, or helping along student who didn't bother to do their homework. Very little writing and analysis expected, and no public speaking opportunities even attempted. I felt like I was at a different school from by regular GT classes.

[list]See FCPS DISCRIMINATION!!! Why do the kids who can perform at A level in their ASSIGNED schools get these opportunities?? This is absolutely discrimination for one child who is smart to be brought down the the above described level while others are given unprecedented opportunities.

I really agree with this. I saw the same as a teacher. I thought it was unfair that some students go wonderful opportunities for learning and enrichment while others languished in disruptive classrooms. The GT program will insist that all these gt identified kids actually have a completely different learning style and that other, "normal" kids cannot benefit from that type of instruction. However, there is really no scientific evidence for this idea, especially the way the programs are actually implemented. It's more of a political justification adhered to for budgetary reasons.

would you explain what you mean byt this?

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the teacher above, though, that there are many students who probably didn't score as well on the stupid tests who would also benefit front eh learning style at the center. Isn't that the point of rolling out the "AAP curriculum" to all of the students like they are doing in McLean?