Our Center 3rd grade classrooms had 19 children each, compared to the Gen-ed which had ~27. They barely had enough to field 2 classes.

My understanding is that they did NOT add additional students into the AAP class to normalize it because future years IV additions bring the classroom to a size that eventually exceeds the Gen-ed in 6th. So far, this is holding true, as 4th grade has 22/24 students in the classrooms from additional transfers and more base center school additions.

There's a contingent part of me thinking they should open it up to high performers at the lower grades when it's not equal sized, but I honestly wouldn't want my child to be shifted OUT of the classroom at a later grade from a social perspective, so it's likely best this way??

(I'm seriously not trying to be elitist - I'm confident there are higher performing kids in Gen-ed than my child - DC was just luckier I guess...)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I teach AAP and there are several Level 4 students I have that I question how they got in. So even at the center, there are kids who somehow got in with less than scores and struggle academically.

Curious to hear more about what you think about why/how they got in. Inflated test scores? Something else?

Honestly, no one truly knows. It truly is a gamble. But the reality is that center schools are filled with kids who struggle and randomly got in and some Level 3 kids have better scores.

+1. My kids' classes were legitimately held back by kids who were full-time AAP accepted who really, really struggled and for whatever reason didn't put in any extra work to catch up.

Because those kids are only there because their parents want them there. They don't care about excelling in school. This is the vast majority of AAP kids. They're only their because mommy and daddy made them take some practice tests and math enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Speak for yourself. My child is likely not gifted but advanced and bright? Yes. I want them in a class where they can actually learn and not be depressed about the chaos. DC currently does not like school very much because the teachers are "always yelling" and kids misbehave, much of the work is not challenging, environment not conducive to learning..

This is a mid-to-high SES school, fwiw.

Is your child currently in an AAP class? Because newsflash - the AAP classes are also loud and annoying with misbehaving kids. My child got screwed because the principal at her school has an AAP class that is in reality 10 AAP kids and 15 principal placed kids, but somehow he decided that 90% of the class should be girls because that's how he wanted to reward the AAP teachers. So all the other classes are heavily male and really awful. This isn't just one grade either, it's every single AAP class 3rd - 6th grade - at least 75% girls. AAP is a joke. I'm insisting that my child take the IOWA test, by the way, because they belong in Algebra with all the other smart girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My current high school senior daughter was principal placed in aap level 4 in 5th grade. She was in aap level 3 every other year. That 5th grade year she got all 4s and an aap level 4 recommendation from her teacher, but wasn’t put in aap level 4 when we reapplied for 6th grade. So she went back to gen Ed.

She did all honors in middle school which is the same content as aap, but separated for reasons that don’t make sense to me.

Then 13 AP classes and straight As in high school. She does continue to test poorly, which is why she didn’t test into aap originally, which is reflected in her SAT score not being great.

She was rejected from the ivy ED she applied to, but has been accepted to every other college she has heard back from so far.

So yeah, your kid might be exposed to a non-aap level 4 kid like my daughter.

The OP's post reads like she thinks her kid will get the dum-dum cooties from the principal placed kids. Relax, OP, your kid will be ok if they have to mingle with a few principal placed kids who were not officially designated by the great central office committee as being AAP worthy.

People like the OP make me second guess whether AAP would be a good environment for my kid (we have not crossed that bridge yet).

“dum-dum cooties” 😂 This might be my favorite DCUM post ever. I got the same vibe and I find it so funny given how this forum constantly proves how subjective/parent-driven the selection process is. Forcing your kid’s way into LIV, through whatever means possible, doesn’t suddenly and magically make them smarter than the kids whose parents didn’t get a WISC, write a bangin’ appeal letter, develop contrived work samples, etc. your DC will be okay mingling with the (gasp) principal-placed kids.

Anonymous wrote:AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Except those parents who view AAP as a rough sorting mechanism for "kids who don't have too many behavior problems." Those parents would scream bloody murder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I teach AAP and there are several Level 4 students I have that I question how they got in. So even at the center, there are kids who somehow got in with less than scores and struggle academically.

Curious to hear more about what you think about why/how they got in. Inflated test scores? Something else?

Honestly, no one truly knows. It truly is a gamble. But the reality is that center schools are filled with kids who struggle and randomly got in and some Level 3 kids have better scores.

+1. My kids' classes were legitimately held back by kids who were full-time AAP accepted who really, really struggled and for whatever reason didn't put in any extra work to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Speak for yourself. My child is likely not gifted but advanced and bright? Yes. I want them in a class where they can actually learn and not be depressed about the chaos. DC currently does not like school very much because the teachers are "always yelling" and kids misbehave, much of the work is not challenging, environment not conducive to learning..

This is a mid-to-high SES school, fwiw.

Flexible tracking would solve your problem - you don't need a totally separate program. Tracking plus a true GT program would reduce bussing and costs and more kids would get what they actually need - not just what their parents feel like demanding.

What do you mean flexible tracking? Like skipping a grade?

Flexible tracking is grouping kids by level within the base school, but with students moving between levels as appropriate. So you could have an advanced classroom, an on-level classroom, and a remedial classroom and students could move between them as appropriate. The problem is too many parents in the area would raise hell about their kid's proper level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Speak for yourself. My child is likely not gifted but advanced and bright? Yes. I want them in a class where they can actually learn and not be depressed about the chaos. DC currently does not like school very much because the teachers are "always yelling" and kids misbehave, much of the work is not challenging, environment not conducive to learning..

This is a mid-to-high SES school, fwiw.

Flexible tracking would solve your problem - you don't need a totally separate program. Tracking plus a true GT program would reduce bussing and costs and more kids would get what they actually need - not just what their parents feel like demanding.

What do you mean flexible tracking? Like skipping a grade?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Speak for yourself. My child is likely not gifted but advanced and bright? Yes. I want them in a class where they can actually learn and not be depressed about the chaos. DC currently does not like school very much because the teachers are "always yelling" and kids misbehave, much of the work is not challenging, environment not conducive to learning..

This is a mid-to-high SES school, fwiw.

Flexible tracking would solve your problem - you don't need a totally separate program. Tracking plus a true GT program would reduce bussing and costs and more kids would get what they actually need - not just what their parents feel like demanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I teach AAP and there are several Level 4 students I have that I question how they got in. So even at the center, there are kids who somehow got in with less than scores and struggle academically.

Curious to hear more about what you think about why/how they got in. Inflated test scores? Something else?

Honestly, no one truly knows. It truly is a gamble. But the reality is that center schools are filled with kids who struggle and randomly got in and some Level 3 kids have better scores.

DP. When my kid was rejected, I met with the AART. She said that every single year she had 5 or so kids get rejected who had strong packets and absolutely belonged in AAP, and another 5 or so kids get admitted with nothing whatsoever in their packets to suggest AAP placement would be appropriate. The explanation I got was that the AAP selection committee is made up of an assortment of teachers, principals, AARTs, counselors, etc. with a brief training on what to look for and with their own set of beliefs and biases. Some people want to be inclusive and accept everyone. Some think AAP is absurd and reject everyone. Some play guessing games with whether they think your child is prepped. Some really like pretty work samples and will reject kids with sloppy work or accept completely mediocre ones with pretty work. Some are easily swayed by the parent letters and cute anecdotes. For all we know, sometimes the secretary who finalizes the results clicks the wrong button.

My other kid attended the center, and there were undoubtedly LIV kids who didn't belong in AAP. The selection process isn't that scientific or precise.

Anonymous wrote:AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Speak for yourself. My child is likely not gifted but advanced and bright? Yes. I want them in a class where they can actually learn and not be depressed about the chaos. DC currently does not like school very much because the teachers are "always yelling" and kids misbehave, much of the work is not challenging, environment not conducive to learning..

This is a mid-to-high SES school, fwiw.

AAP is just not that advanced. If kids are actually struggling across the board it's a clear sign the program has gotten too broad. I wish they would cut back to a truer GT program. It seems like it would better serve everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I teach AAP and there are several Level 4 students I have that I question how they got in. So even at the center, there are kids who somehow got in with less than scores and struggle academically.

Curious to hear more about what you think about why/how they got in. Inflated test scores? Something else?

Honestly, no one truly knows. It truly is a gamble. But the reality is that center schools are filled with kids who struggle and randomly got in and some Level 3 kids have better scores.

Our base school is a center and the teacher basically told me this as well. I was asking about class composition out of curiosity because I found the way they assigned the two classes to be bizarre when looking at the class rosters. My child's class is all kids from the base school and half are principal placed kids. She said she can't really tell the difference between the level 3 and level 4 kids. The level 3 kids are all high performers, just maybe the parents didn't know or think to parent refer. The other AAP class has kids mainly coming from the other schools and she said the range of ability in that class was much more varied and a bigger challenge for that (more experienced) teacher to deal with. She is a younger teacher so maybe she wasn't supposed to go into such detail but she was clearly happy to have her cohort of kids with less variation... I imagine it's much easier for her...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I teach AAP and there are several Level 4 students I have that I question how they got in. So even at the center, there are kids who somehow got in with less than scores and struggle academically.

Curious to hear more about what you think about why/how they got in. Inflated test scores? Something else?

Honestly, no one truly knows. It truly is a gamble. But the reality is that center schools are filled with kids who struggle and randomly got in and some Level 3 kids have better scores.

Anonymous wrote:I teach AAP and there are several Level 4 students I have that I question how they got in. So even at the center, there are kids who somehow got in with less than scores and struggle academically.

Curious to hear more about what you think about why/how they got in. Inflated test scores? Something else?