Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

Nope. It is an incorrect assumption that ALL or even most Gen Ed students can handle the AAP pace. You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books? These kids may be brilliant in other areas, but an advanced, more rigorous academic curriculum is not what these kids need.

I always wonder how the anti AAP posters on DCUM claim that all the GE/AAP students are the same??? You have no idea what is in these kids files re: test scores, work samples, GBRS, etc. Yeah, they all look the same running around on the playground. A superior IQ isn't always going to obvious. Do you quiz Larlo's friends at playdates and made judgements about what academic levels are appropriate for them? Sure there is a big chunk on the border of qualifying, but the cut off has to be somewhere.

That is very kind of you to speak for these children and it's fortunate that you know so much about them. They are really lucky to have you looking out for them.

Exactly. PP scolds those of us who say (most) GE/AAP kids are the same, or at least similar enough to be in the same classes. But then she makes her sweeping judgment that a "rigorous academic curriculum" (AAP?) is not what those "other" kids need. Guess she knows all about "those" kids, but God forbid we suggest the same thing.

The cutoff should be far higher; then most kids, probably including PP's, wouldn't qualify for what's supposed to be (but is not) a "gifted" program.

Not scolding - asking. Asking, what do you base this claim on exactly? The claim and most GE/AAP are the same? Have you done an analysis of the scores/screening files?

A sweeping judgment??? My "sweeping judgment" was that kids that are struggling with GE don't need an even more advanced curriculum than the one they are already struggling with. Do you really think that is far fetched to say?

I still have yet to see a response as to how on earth you come to the conclusion that all or most kids across the board are "the same" and all have the same academic needs.

No one has said that kids who have trouble with the GE curriculum should be taking an advanced curriculum. I think you're either confused or trying to make others look confused. The fact is, there is a vast segment of GE students who don't have any trouble with that curriculum and would be just fine working with the AAP curricula. The kids who need remedial help, AND the kids who need a full-on gifted program are in the minority.

Not confused at all. PP said that I was making "sweeping judgements" because I said that kids struggling with Gen Ed don't need an advanced curriculum.

Will you kindly quantify (with actual data) "vast segment". You don't have any data. You're just making things up to support your opinion.

And you're not??

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS. It's not a special curriculum for the highly gifted.
It can easily be used in every GenEd class.

What they should have is one center for extremely gifted kids. Kids that are off the charts intelligent that simply cannot function in a regular classroom. Implement a curriculum for them that is truly for highly gifted kids.

The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum.

It's has turned into a circus like competition that simply lowers the learning standards for the rest of the general FCPS community.

My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids.

Nope. It is an incorrect assumption that ALL or even most Gen Ed students can handle the AAP pace. You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books? These kids may be brilliant in other areas, but an advanced, more rigorous academic curriculum is not what these kids need.

I always wonder how the anti AAP posters on DCUM claim that all the GE/AAP students are the same??? You have no idea what is in these kids files re: test scores, work samples, GBRS, etc. Yeah, they all look the same running around on the playground. A superior IQ isn't always going to obvious. Do you quiz Larlo's friends at playdates and made judgements about what academic levels are appropriate for them? Sure there is a big chunk on the border of qualifying, but the cut off has to be somewhere.

That is very kind of you to speak for these children and it's fortunate that you know so much about them. They are really lucky to have you looking out for them.

Exactly. PP scolds those of us who say (most) GE/AAP kids are the same, or at least similar enough to be in the same classes. But then she makes her sweeping judgment that a "rigorous academic curriculum" (AAP?) is not what those "other" kids need. Guess she knows all about "those" kids, but God forbid we suggest the same thing.

The cutoff should be far higher; then most kids, probably including PP's, wouldn't qualify for what's supposed to be (but is not) a "gifted" program.

Not scolding - asking. Asking, what do you base this claim on exactly? The claim and most GE/AAP are the same? Have you done an analysis of the scores/screening files?

A sweeping judgment??? My "sweeping judgment" was that kids that are struggling with GE don't need an even more advanced curriculum than the one they are already struggling with. Do you really think that is far fetched to say?

I still have yet to see a response as to how on earth you come to the conclusion that all or most kids across the board are "the same" and all have the same academic needs.

No one has said that kids who have trouble with the GE curriculum should be taking an advanced curriculum. I think you're either confused or trying to make others look confused. The fact is, there is a vast segment of GE students who don't have any trouble with that curriculum and would be just fine working with the AAP curricula. The kids who need remedial help, AND the kids who need a full-on gifted program are in the minority.

Not confused at all. PP said that I was making "sweeping judgements" because I said that kids struggling with Gen Ed don't need an advanced curriculum.

Will you kindly quantify (with actual data) "vast segment". You don't have any data. You're just making things up to support your opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be what is needed is that FCPS needs to offer differentiation at all levels, but without hurting any parent's feelings or egos. Not sure how to go about that, because no matter the model there will always be the disgruntled.

This. The problem isn't AAP vs GE vs LLIII or whatever. It's the parents whose egos are so fragile tat they cannot cope (stalk DCUM, etc) if they don't believe their kid gets the "prestigious" label.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum. "

"My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

NONE of those say that kids are all the same. You are misconstruing words.

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be what is needed is that FCPS needs to offer differentiation at all levels, but without hurting any parent's feelings or egos. Not sure how to go about that, because no matter the model there will always be the disgruntled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum. "

"My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

NONE of those say that kids are all the same. You are misconstruing words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Seriously?

It is constantly repeated on the AAP forum.

"Virtually identical in ability" search for that quote on this thread.


"It's BS because the curriculum is something that should be used in every single classroom in FCPS."

"The kids in the current AAP would be absolutely fine with the rest of their peers and their peers would do absolutely fine with the current AAP curriculum. "

"My kids are in AAP and honestly it's a crying shame that FCPS doesn't use the AAP curriculum as a standard way of teaching. This program should be available to ALL kids."

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

I'm sorry, where was this even said? You seem to be misreading posts.

Anonymous wrote:Needs should not have to be met in a separate classroom. Most kids aren't that different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. If you want to quantify please provide more detail around:

"You know how many times I've heard parents of Gen Ed kids share that their child is in 4th/5th grade and still can't memorize multiplication tables? Or they can't get them to read books?"

How many times was this? How many kids? Which school(s)? Since you are generalizing GE it'd be interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.

Right! This is anecdotal and all it tells me is that there are certainly some kids that are struggling with the GE curriculum. That's it. I have no idea what the percentage is and I'm not calling for a complete overhaul of the system. It boggles my mind when anti AAP posters come on here and repeatedly say that ALL the kids are the same, when there are test scores, work samples, GBRS, all these pieces of data that differentiated them somehow. The kids in AAP were not randomly selected. FCPS bends over backward to differentiate for all levels (remedial, ESL, Level 2,3,4, etc). But for parents to sit there and just say "there is no difference between Kid A and Kid B" in terms of academic needs - how do you know? There is a whole lengthly, very thorough system that works to identify as many kids as it can and you're saying it is all meaningless - because you said so.

Anonymous wrote:Needs should not have to be met in a separate classroom. Most kids aren't that different.