Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

I thought all ES offer adv math now. You don’t need AAP to do adv math. Your child needs to qualify.

I think that's the PP's point. The qualification for adv Math, or AAP, is school dependent with different norms. I can 100% see their point, but also disagree with standardization county-wide. In your local (high SES) school the general ed is going to include appropriate peers at their same/similar level, so mitigates not being in the AAP classroom, whereas one from a lower SES school will have significant learning gaps and ESOL barriers. Your child has benefitted already for being in the better learning environment/peer group, which is partially the reason their test scores are higher than those in other schools who may have been admitted to AAP. Localized norms account for this to provide some balance.

As for being bored in math? There are just as many kids bored in AAP math - seek outside enrichment like they do. If you're in the high SES school as you claim, you can afford it. If your child continues to excel, re-apply next year.

+1 bolded language.

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

Some schools start Advanced Math in 5th grade, some start in 3rd. Check with your teachers at your school. DS was in Advanced Math starting in 3rd and we ended up enrolling him in RSM because the math was still boring. There are a good number of kids in Advanced Math that find the math slow.

I think LIV should be the top 10-15% of the students at a given school with no Centers. The class should reflect the school and allow the kids who are ahead at their particular school have access to faster paced materials that make sense for their situation. There might be Title 1 schools where the Advanced Group is barely above grade level while there are other schools were the top group is grade levels ahead, meet them where they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

I thought all ES offer adv math now. You don’t need AAP to do adv math. Your child needs to qualify.

I think that's the PP's point. The qualification for adv Math, or AAP, is school dependent with different norms. I can 100% see their point, but also disagree with standardization county-wide. In your local (high SES) school the general ed is going to include appropriate peers at their same/similar level, so mitigates not being in the AAP classroom, whereas one from a lower SES school will have significant learning gaps and ESOL barriers. Your child has benefitted already for being in the better learning environment/peer group, which is partially the reason their test scores are higher than those in other schools who may have been admitted to AAP. Localized norms account for this to provide some balance.

As for being bored in math? There are just as many kids bored in AAP math - seek outside enrichment like they do. If you're in the high SES school as you claim, you can afford it. If your child continues to excel, re-apply next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

Any determined parent with resources can get their kid into AAP.

I mean... the kid has to be at least a little bright, but largely I'd agree.

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

I thought all ES offer adv math now. You don’t need AAP to do adv math. Your child needs to qualify.

Not at all. It should be race blind.

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

That is what AAP level 3 is for and honestly math is really the only subject where acceleration matters.

The difference between AAP history and general ed history is you find out what the third most important cash crop from new hampshire is instead of just the two most important cash crops.

Anonymous wrote:Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

Any determined parent with resources can get their kid into AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS should stop taking the top X% of a school's population. It's unfair to my child that would have easily gotten into AAP at a lower SES school was denied JUST because we're at a school with a high SES/"competitive" and frankly, large Asian, population. I'll admit that I've shared my child's test scores/grades with friends who have kids who got into AAP at other schools (closer in, farther south) and it's flat out not fair to my child that they didn't get into AAP - their test scores are significantly higher, they got all 4s, even their HOPE rating was good.

Local norming makes absolute sense and is the only way to run a program that takes as many kids as AAP does. If they reduced the scope to a more traditional GT program, then local norming wouldn't make sense. But it seems probable your kid wouldn't get in to a 2-5 percent program if they didn't get in to a 10+ percent program.

If you want your kid to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, you can move to a smaller pond. If you want a big pond, learn to accept where your kid is at.

Agree, and local norming has been shown in many studies to be a best practice in gifted education.

There should also be an absolute threshhold above which everyone qualifies. So it's any score above X or the top ten percent

+1
It should be an either or threshold

Hmph. So my kid who is bored out of their mind in math doesn't get accelerated math just because we live in a neighborhood full of high achieving parents? That doesn't seem fair. Why not give all the kids who need accelerated math the accelerated math?

Also you PPs are delusional thinking everyone in AAP is gifted. Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS should stop taking the top X% of a school's population. It's unfair to my child that would have easily gotten into AAP at a lower SES school was denied JUST because we're at a school with a high SES/"competitive" and frankly, large Asian, population. I'll admit that I've shared my child's test scores/grades with friends who have kids who got into AAP at other schools (closer in, farther south) and it's flat out not fair to my child that they didn't get into AAP - their test scores are significantly higher, they got all 4s, even their HOPE rating was good.

Local norming makes absolute sense and is the only way to run a program that takes as many kids as AAP does. If they reduced the scope to a more traditional GT program, then local norming wouldn't make sense. But it seems probable your kid wouldn't get in to a 2-5 percent program if they didn't get in to a 10+ percent program.

If you want your kid to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, you can move to a smaller pond. If you want a big pond, learn to accept where your kid is at.

Agree, and local norming has been shown in many studies to be a best practice in gifted education.

There should also be an absolute threshhold above which everyone qualifies. So it's any score above X or the top ten percent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS should stop taking the top X% of a school's population. It's unfair to my child that would have easily gotten into AAP at a lower SES school was denied JUST because we're at a school with a high SES/"competitive" and frankly, large Asian, population. I'll admit that I've shared my child's test scores/grades with friends who have kids who got into AAP at other schools (closer in, farther south) and it's flat out not fair to my child that they didn't get into AAP - their test scores are significantly higher, they got all 4s, even their HOPE rating was good.

Local norming makes absolute sense and is the only way to run a program that takes as many kids as AAP does. If they reduced the scope to a more traditional GT program, then local norming wouldn't make sense. But it seems probable your kid wouldn't get in to a 2-5 percent program if they didn't get in to a 10+ percent program.

If you want your kid to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, you can move to a smaller pond. If you want a big pond, learn to accept where your kid is at.

Agree, and local norming has been shown in many studies to be a best practice in gifted education.

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS should stop taking the top X% of a school's population. It's unfair to my child that would have easily gotten into AAP at a lower SES school was denied JUST because we're at a school with a high SES/"competitive" and frankly, large Asian, population. I'll admit that I've shared my child's test scores/grades with friends who have kids who got into AAP at other schools (closer in, farther south) and it's flat out not fair to my child that they didn't get into AAP - their test scores are significantly higher, they got all 4s, even their HOPE rating was good.

Local norming makes absolute sense and is the only way to run a program that takes as many kids as AAP does. If they reduced the scope to a more traditional GT program, then local norming wouldn't make sense. But it seems probable your kid wouldn't get in to a 2-5 percent program if they didn't get in to a 10+ percent program.

If you want your kid to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, you can move to a smaller pond. If you want a big pond, learn to accept where your kid is at.