My advice for the parent letter: use the GBRS categories as your guide and give specific examples of the ways your child has demonstrated those four categories, using the same language they use in those scales. If you can, tie in the additional work samples you submit into the letter. Don't say your child is bored in school and don't blame the teacher for the lower GBRS scores, but if you can explain why your child didn't demonstrate these traits in this year's class as much as she does at home or in other contexts (such as outside activities), that might help. Explain how and why your child needs AAP to thrive and succeed. I think the work samples we submitted were also an important part of the appeal. The year we appealed was a COVID year, so my child had several samples from online classes in creative and poetry writing and advanced math puzzles that we had signed her up for to pass the time. For each work sample, I included a short description of how the sample demonstrated one or more of the GBRS categories as a caption to the work sample.

Anonymous wrote:Current grade: 2
NNAT/CoGAT: 156/141
GBRS (if known): N/A
School or center: Laurel Ridge
In/not in: not in

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

if your kid is learning multiplication in preschool and grasp the concept, then your kid might be the 2-4%. my second grader is doing 4th and 5th grade math and math Olympiad problems, and preschooler learning 2nd and 3rd grade math.

So you're pushing your kids three and four years ahead and want the school to indulge you? If your kid is bored because you're pushed them that far, that's your problem not the school's

preschooler grabbed the second grader's math problems from general ed classes, and naturally knows how to do them, there are kids like to push themselves, and there are kids needs to be pushed. i'm only talking about the kids that like to push themselves. as a parent, the only thing we can do is to provide the resources they need to continue to push themselves.

I've been placing my old differential equations text under my 6 year old's pillow in the hope this knowledge will sink in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

if your kid is learning multiplication in preschool and grasp the concept, then your kid might be the 2-4%. my second grader is doing 4th and 5th grade math and math Olympiad problems, and preschooler learning 2nd and 3rd grade math.

So you're pushing your kids three and four years ahead and want the school to indulge you? If your kid is bored because you're pushed them that far, that's your problem not the school's

preschooler grabbed the second grader's math problems from general ed classes, and naturally knows how to do them, there are kids like to push themselves, and there are kids needs to be pushed. i'm only talking about the kids that like to push themselves. as a parent, the only thing we can do is to provide the resources they need to continue to push themselves.

I've been placing my old differential equations text under my 6 year old's pillow in the hope this knowledge will sink in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

So the super special kids are unable to grasp the simplest behavioral rules and thus should be catered to?

The AAP kids should be smart enough to develop enough self control to not disrupt their classrooms. A certain amount of EQ is important in life and their parents should focus on that as well as their IQs.

So you're arguing that gifted kids with disabilities like ADHD should be ineligible for AAP?

More importantly, they're arguing that disruptive kids should be confined to gen ed. regardless of ability. If this is a burden it should be a shared one since all students deserve an education not just those they deem deserving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

So the super special kids are unable to grasp the simplest behavioral rules and thus should be catered to?

The AAP kids should be smart enough to develop enough self control to not disrupt their classrooms. A certain amount of EQ is important in life and their parents should focus on that as well as their IQs.

So you're arguing that gifted kids with disabilities like ADHD should be ineligible for AAP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

So the super special kids are unable to grasp the simplest behavioral rules and thus should be catered to?

The AAP kids should be smart enough to develop enough self control to not disrupt their classrooms. A certain amount of EQ is important in life and their parents should focus on that as well as their IQs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

if your kid is learning multiplication in preschool and grasp the concept, then your kid might be the 2-4%. my second grader is doing 4th and 5th grade math and math Olympiad problems, and preschooler learning 2nd and 3rd grade math.

So you're pushing your kids three and four years ahead and want the school to indulge you? If your kid is bored because you're pushed them that far, that's your problem not the school's

preschooler grabbed the second grader's math problems from general ed classes, and naturally knows how to do them, there are kids like to push themselves, and there are kids needs to be pushed. i'm only talking about the kids that like to push themselves. as a parent, the only thing we can do is to provide the resources they need to continue to push themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do some parents think test scores should be the most important factor in admissions? People here state that some kids do heavy prep (tutors) or are enrolled in academic extracurriculars which can “inflate” scores. My child did 1 practice test at home. Some of the verbal section questions seem knowledge based rather than measuring purely aptitude. Thus skewing towards kids who prep or are UMC. We are UMC but DC couldn’t identify some of the items on the practice verbal section (picture of a microscope and vocabulary that seemed advanced for a 2nd grader like paleontologist, appliance). DC used process of elimination but that only got down to 2 choices. I didn’t think it fair to prep DC on vocabulary just for the test. DC tested high on quantitative and nonverbal but average on verbal on the CogAT similar to the practice test results. CogAT Cumulative score was 137 which was not in pool for our high SES school. DC got in to LIV.

To me, GBRS is a better reflection of the student than a test. 1st grade and 2nd grade teachers speak highly of DC’s motivation, work, and knowledge acquisition (quickly absorbs and comprehends new concepts). For example, DC took the initiative to write 10 chapters for an in-class book assignment when only 3 were required. I haven’t received the AAP submission packet so I can only assume GBRS was high. I don’t have a child in AAP yet but I assume a child who has a poor GBRS despite high test scores wouldn’t be disciplined or driven enough for AAP.

To be clear, I don’t think my child is “gifted.” Based on the acronym Advanced Academic Program, I assume AAP is meant to be accelerated curriculum and not a Gifted program. I also don’t believe being gifted is an indicator of success. I was identified as gifted as a child (high test results / IQ, was in gifted program in a different state) but am no more successful than my spouse who has a strong work ethic but was not identified gifted.

No one has ever said that having a high IQ is an indicator of success - it can be but it can also be a hindrance. Decades ago, gifted programs were created in schools to 1) foster bright kids and improve the country and 2) engage bright kids and keep them from going off the rails and/or underachieving. Those are still valid reasons today but it isn't in fashion to admit it.

Yes, highly and profoundly gifted children can not bond with general Ed students due to the mental capacity gap, a kid with 150 IQ to a kid in general Ed of 100 IQ is just as different of a normal kid of 100 IQ to a severely mentally impacted kid of 50 IQ. Thus these highly and profoundly gifted kids need to be grouped separately not just for academic advancement but also for emotional and social engagements. They need friends that talk and think on the same level to build deep friendship, not just playmates.

And this is why many of these kids have behavior issues due to not able to fit in with general Ed classes. They are simply being frustrated with the kids and the teacher. Most general education teachers are simply feeding the information, they don’t like the kids to think from another perspective and argue with them…. Profoundly gifted kids are known to argue a lot, they just don’t take the information on the face value.

So the super special kids are unable to grasp the simplest behavioral rules and thus should be catered to?

The AAP kids should be smart enough to develop enough self control to not disrupt their classrooms. A certain amount of EQ is important in life and their parents should focus on that as well as their IQs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

if your kid is learning multiplication in preschool and grasp the concept, then your kid might be the 2-4%. my second grader is doing 4th and 5th grade math and math Olympiad problems, and preschooler learning 2nd and 3rd grade math.

So you're pushing your kids three and four years ahead and want the school to indulge you? If your kid is bored because you're pushed them that far, that's your problem not the school's

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

Unfortunately, that is going to be the way forward, at least with math.

FCPS appears to be doing away with accelerated math in favor of enriched math. Everyone will have the same standard, some will just do harder versions of the same thing.

What are you basing that on?

Its in another thread in the FCPS forum about E3 math. Its on FCPS website.

you mean the proposal that's gone nowhere? Keep on thinking that everyone is out to get you

I mean its literally on their website and already in schools. I dont know why you would say that.

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/mathematics

"Elementary students can access the advanced mathematics curriculum either in an advanced mathematics classroom or in a general education classroom through differentiation. The FCPS instructional sequence provides teachers with the tools needed for differentiation and offers multiple entry points for students to access the advanced mathematics curriculum when they have developed the cognitive skills to be successful. Advanced mathematics extended indicators and above grade level correlated standards will be available for students as early as kindergarten and will build a stronger foundation in mathematics."

Sure seems like they are eliminating advanced math to me /s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

Unfortunately, that is going to be the way forward, at least with math.

FCPS appears to be doing away with accelerated math in favor of enriched math. Everyone will have the same standard, some will just do harder versions of the same thing.

What are you basing that on?

Its in another thread in the FCPS forum about E3 math. Its on FCPS website.

you mean the proposal that's gone nowhere? Keep on thinking that everyone is out to get you

I mean its literally on their website and already in schools. I dont know why you would say that.

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/mathematics

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

Unfortunately, that is going to be the way forward, at least with math.

FCPS appears to be doing away with accelerated math in favor of enriched math. Everyone will have the same standard, some will just do harder versions of the same thing.

What are you basing that on?

Its in another thread in the FCPS forum about E3 math. Its on FCPS website.

you mean the proposal that's gone nowhere? Keep on thinking that everyone is out to get you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History teacher, “blah blah volksgeist blah blah.”
Student reflexively chimes in, “Spirit of the people!”
Teacher, “Oh, you speak German?”
Student, “What? No, that was just a guess based on ‘volkswagon’ and ‘poltergeist.’”
That comment came from a student with a measured IQ of 150.
IQ tests results above 150 are basically a wash; practically, they only mean that a student is surpassingly bright. Interacting with a surpassingly bright person tends to quickly give you an impression that they’re not really on your same wavelength—exactly the same way as interacting with a surpassingly dim person. The bright person may struggle to follow your thoughts and make themselves understood. Very high and very low IQs are both rightly considered “special education” cases because of their specialized learning needs.
The main thing you’d probably notice when talking to (or teaching!) a surpassingly bright person is the way they make connections. You explain waves, and suddenly the whole electromagnetic spectrum makes sense to them. You explain Frankenstein, and suddenly the complex interplay of naturalism and humanism in the 19th Century imagination makes sense to them. They mostly just realize these connections instantly without thinking through them. They don’t necessarily learn facts faster than anyone else, but they understand much faster.
It’s a trip, seriously.
As an educator, there’s no keeping up with them. Teaching them becomes 95% a matter of keeping their attention and creativity engaged. If teaching regulars classes is a bit like dogwalking…
They CAN run, but guidance and prompting helps them get from point A to point B.
Then teaching the severely gifted is like being the caretaker of stallions.
They cannot help but run, and fast…so you care for them, feed them, and throw open the gates. You don’t “lead” them so much as “suggest a direction.”
When the gifted student asks, “Teacher, why are we running?” you say, “There are wonders just over the horizon,” and rumble rumble go the hoofbeats.

It's a public school, if they want a spiral guid for a teacher, they need to look elsewhere. There are 25 other kids in the class an no one has time to indulge the genius

and the gifted program should only reserve for the truly gifted. like for the top 2-4%, that's how most of the public gifted program are directed for in the country.

I'd totally support that, but I'd also expect the gifted program to shrink to a pull out a week once the 20% of kids currently being served no longer have parents pressing for AAP to be what it is. A large program means a large group of parents advocating for that program, a small program means a few parents who can easily be ignored.

yes, the current AAP with 20% of the students can be easily integrated into general education, each grade can have classes with honors and general language art and math. I believe that's how Montgomery County is operated under. Then FCPS can reserve the AAP to only the top 2-4%

I’m on board with that model. IF honors was admissions based and not self-selected like it is in MS and HS. I’m not a fan of pulling my kid out of our base school to go to a center. But unfortunately it’s our only choice.

What's even better is Honors for all model where all students are lifted to a higher level.

How would that practically work with the wide range of aptitudes? There are kids who struggle with addition. And then there are kids like mine who started learning multiplication in preschool (teacher assessed kid as ready). Why should they be learning the same material at the same pace?

if your kid is learning multiplication in preschool and grasp the concept, then your kid might be the 2-4%. my second grader is doing 4th and 5th grade math and math Olympiad problems, and preschooler learning 2nd and 3rd grade math.