Who's to say? The central selection committee, after reviewing test scores, GBRS, work samples, teacher input, parent input, etc. That's who. Again, it is not arbitrary.

And, I don't know about your statement that AAP is not so advanced. The AAP haters don't seem to be able to agree on whether there are a bunch of "bright, but not gifted kids" that don't belong there because it is too challenging...or that it is so NOT challenging, that all or most kids could handle it with ease.

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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

There are several pieces of data and measures involved in identifying eligible kids. An NNAT score, a CoGAT score, GBRS, work samples, maybe a WISC score....its not "an arbitrary line in the sand" as one PP called it. It's not me just making it up. There is not such data or system to support the generalization that "most" or "all" kids need an advanced curriculum. See the difference?

The point is that AAP is not so advanced that "most" kids couldn't do it. Who's to say who "needs" it and who doesn't? See the difference?

Anonymous wrote:That's the fallacy with making it an Advanced program as opposed to a gifted one.

Changing the name of Gifted and Talented Programs

During the course of the GTAC discussions this year, the question was raised about the
name of the program itself. We know that the State of Virginia requires Fairfax County
Public Schools to provide gifted services, but it does not designate the name of those
services. Several choices were discussed and, while some members did not support a
change, the majority of the Committee membership approved of a name change from
Gifted and Talented Services to Advanced Academic Programs. It was felt by the
Committee that this name change emphasizes efforts to put a label on the service being
offered and recognizes the academic nature of the program.

Anonymous wrote:AAP works well for the same reason TJ is the best high school in the nation- despite the fact that, until recently, they had some of the crappiest facilities. It's not the teachers, it's not the research labs. It's the it's the smart, hardworking, creative cohort of kids.

People who think the "AAP curriculum" should be available to all kids are missing the point. There is nothing magical or special about the curriculum itself. AAP works well because they get cohort of kids who can work at an accelerated pace without the need for remediation. When my DC moved from an LLIV program (about 1/2 the kids principal placed) to a TJ feeder ES Center in 5th grade, she suddenly started having very little homework. When I asked her about it, she said, in essence, that they got through a lot more material in class because they weren't wasting time teaching, reteaching, remediating, and waiting for kids to catch up. So, in a program where about 14 of the "on the cusp kids" got principal placed, the entire class was slowed down significantly. This was most evidence in math, where she went in behind the rest of the class, despite being taught "advanced math" in most schools. She's now in 7th, and we are still running into places where she has gaps in math.

Pretty clearly, all kids in FCPS cannot work at an accelerated pace, or the GE classes would be moving as fast as the AAP classes. It's not like the GE teachers are slowing down and remediating just to waste time.

So it's not that all kids can't handle the substance of the curriculum. The core curriculum is the largely the same for AAP and GE. AAP just seems to go "deeper," which appears to mean extra projects and faster. It's that all kids can't handle the acceleration. If you think your kid can, quit bitching on DCUM and reapply for next year. FCPS tries to make this program very inclusive, and there are not a set number of seats. If your kid can't get in, the committee has a reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP works well for the same reason TJ is the best high school in the nation- despite the fact that, until recently, they had some of the crappiest facilities. It's not the teachers, it's not the research labs. It's the it's the smart, hardworking, creative cohort of kids.

People who think the "AAP curriculum" should be available to all kids are missing the point. There is nothing magical or special about the curriculum itself. AAP works well because they get cohort of kids who can work at an accelerated pace without the need for remediation. When my DC moved from an LLIV program (about 1/2 the kids principal placed) to a TJ feeder ES Center in 5th grade, she suddenly started having very little homework. When I asked her about it, she said, in essence, that they got through a lot more material in class because they weren't wasting time teaching, reteaching, remediating, and waiting for kids to catch up. So, in a program where about 14 of the "on the cusp kids" got principal placed, the entire class was slowed down significantly. This was most evidence in math, where she went in behind the rest of the class, despite being taught "advanced math" in most schools. She's now in 7th, and we are still running into places where she has gaps in math.

Pretty clearly, all kids in FCPS cannot work at an accelerated pace, or the GE classes would be moving as fast as the AAP classes. It's not like the GE teachers are slowing down and remediating just to waste time.

So it's not that all kids can't handle the substance of the curriculum. The core curriculum is the largely the same for AAP and GE. AAP just seems to go "deeper," which appears to mean extra projects and faster. It's that all kids can't handle the acceleration. If you think your kid can, quit bitching on DCUM and reapply for next year. FCPS tries to make this program very inclusive, and there are not a set number of seats. If your kid can't get in, the committee has a reason.

If there are gaps in her math knowledge, perhaps she should never have been in "advanced math" in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is...not matter what the cut off is (and there isn't really a "cut off" because the committee doesn't only look at scores - they consider the file as a whole) - but to the extent that the test scores matter or get kids in the pool, no matter where it is, the parents of kids that are in a 10 point range of that are going to argue about overlap.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

Wow. I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to get denser with each post. I've clearly bolded my words for you to attempt reading again: "THERE IS MUCH OVERLAP" is what I said. Not that "there is no difference." And I stand by that. Your "big chunk on the cusp" is the same way of saying "there is much overlap." Geez - stop making up things that people aren't saying.

And it would be so interesting to hear your song and dance if the cutoff were high enough that your own kid wasn't admitted to AAP. "Fragile egos," indeed. Try: this is a public school, funded by all FCPS families, not a private academy for your kid.

The thing is...not matter what the cut off is (and there isn't really a "cut off" because the committee doesn't only look at scores - they consider the file as a whole) - but to the extent that the test scores matter or get kids in the pool, no matter where it is, the parents of kids that are in a 10 point range of that are going to argue about overlap.

Sure. But there would be far fewer parents in a position to argue about overlap if the cut off score was much higher. As it is right now, there are tons of kids on that cut off line.

Anonymous wrote:AAP works well for the same reason TJ is the best high school in the nation- despite the fact that, until recently, they had some of the crappiest facilities. It's not the teachers, it's not the research labs. It's the it's the smart, hardworking, creative cohort of kids.

People who think the "AAP curriculum" should be available to all kids are missing the point. There is nothing magical or special about the curriculum itself. AAP works well because they get cohort of kids who can work at an accelerated pace without the need for remediation. When my DC moved from an LLIV program (about 1/2 the kids principal placed) to a TJ feeder ES Center in 5th grade, she suddenly started having very little homework. When I asked her about it, she said, in essence, that they got through a lot more material in class because they weren't wasting time teaching, reteaching, remediating, and waiting for kids to catch up. So, in a program where about 14 of the "on the cusp kids" got principal placed, the entire class was slowed down significantly. This was most evidence in math, where she went in behind the rest of the class, despite being taught "advanced math" in most schools. She's now in 7th, and we are still running into places where she has gaps in math.

Pretty clearly, all kids in FCPS cannot work at an accelerated pace, or the GE classes would be moving as fast as the AAP classes. It's not like the GE teachers are slowing down and remediating just to waste time.

So it's not that all kids can't handle the substance of the curriculum. The core curriculum is the largely the same for AAP and GE. AAP just seems to go "deeper," which appears to mean extra projects and faster. It's that all kids can't handle the acceleration. If you think your kid can, quit bitching on DCUM and reapply for next year. FCPS tries to make this program very inclusive, and there are not a set number of seats. If your kid can't get in, the committee has a reason.

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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

There are several pieces of data and measures involved in identifying eligible kids. An NNAT score, a CoGAT score, GBRS, work samples, maybe a WISC score....its not "an arbitrary line in the sand" as one PP called it. It's not me just making it up. There is not such data or system to support the generalization that "most" or "all" kids need an advanced curriculum. See the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is...not matter what the cut off is (and there isn't really a "cut off" because the committee doesn't only look at scores - they consider the file as a whole) - but to the extent that the test scores matter or get kids in the pool, no matter where it is, the parents of kids that are in a 10 point range of that are going to argue about overlap.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

Wow. I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to get denser with each post. I've clearly bolded my words for you to attempt reading again: "THERE IS MUCH OVERLAP" is what I said. Not that "there is no difference." And I stand by that. Your "big chunk on the cusp" is the same way of saying "there is much overlap." Geez - stop making up things that people aren't saying.

And it would be so interesting to hear your song and dance if the cutoff were high enough that your own kid wasn't admitted to AAP. "Fragile egos," indeed. Try: this is a public school, funded by all FCPS families, not a private academy for your kid.

The thing is...not matter what the cut off is (and there isn't really a "cut off" because the committee doesn't only look at scores - they consider the file as a whole) - but to the extent that the test scores matter or get kids in the pool, no matter where it is, the parents of kids that are in a 10 point range of that are going to argue about overlap.

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.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is...not matter what the cut off is (and there isn't really a "cut off" because the committee doesn't only look at scores - they consider the file as a whole) - but to the extent that the test scores matter or get kids in the pool, no matter where it is, the parents of kids that are in a 10 point range of that are going to argue about overlap.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

Wow. I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to get denser with each post. I've clearly bolded my words for you to attempt reading again: "THERE IS MUCH OVERLAP" is what I said. Not that "there is no difference." And I stand by that. Your "big chunk on the cusp" is the same way of saying "there is much overlap." Geez - stop making up things that people aren't saying.

And it would be so interesting to hear your song and dance if the cutoff were high enough that your own kid wasn't admitted to AAP. "Fragile egos," indeed. Try: this is a public school, funded by all FCPS families, not a private academy for your kid.

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.

The thing is...not matter what the cut off is (and there isn't really a "cut off" because the committee doesn't only look at scores - they consider the file as a whole) - but to the extent that the test scores matter or get kids in the pool, no matter where it is, the parents of kids that are in a 10 point range of that are going to argue about overlap.

Once again, it is only YOU who is insisting others claim that all kids are the same. No one has made that claim, you simply like to put words in our mouths. What so many of us have been saying, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that there is much overlap between the kids in the top half of GE and those in the lower half of AAP (roughly speaking; of course no one knows how many, etc.). Most rational parents acknowledge this. How can you possibly say there is a vast chasm of difference between, say, the kid with the 132 and the kid with the 129. There just isn't. I picture AAP as a Venn diagram in which there is a small sliver of kids who need remedial help, a small sliver of kids who are so gifted they can't function in a regular classroom, and a HUGE overlapping middle segment in which most kids reside. Are there kids of differing abilities within that middle section? Sure! But those abilities don't differ so much that they can't all exist together, doing the same work. Do I have proof and statistics to back up my "theory"? Nope. But all one has to do is ask parents (of both GE and AAP kids) how they honestly feel about AAP and the division it creates and you'll hear some mighty honest answers.

And finally, you certainly have no evidence or proof that a large proportion of GE kids aren't fully capable of doing AAP work. It's neither neurosurgery nor a gifted program, for crying out loud.

You say I'm putting words in your mouths and then you go on to say that there is no difference between the top of of GE and lower half of AAP. Funny. Another version of the same song.

Yes, there is a big chunk on the cusp, but no matter where the cut off is, there will always be. It only creates division because of fragile egos.

Wow. I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to get denser with each post. I've clearly bolded my words for you to attempt reading again: "THERE IS MUCH OVERLAP" is what I said. Not that "there is no difference." And I stand by that. Your "big chunk on the cusp" is the same way of saying "there is much overlap." Geez - stop making up things that people aren't saying.

And it would be so interesting to hear your song and dance if the cutoff were high enough that your own kid wasn't admitted to AAP. "Fragile egos," indeed. Try: this is a public school, funded by all FCPS families, not a private academy for your kid.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for those of you who are dead set against making AAP the general curriculum for most kids:

How, exactly, would it harm your child if AAP became an open program, used for any child capable of doing the work? Please explain to us why it matters so much that AAP remain a closed/admission only program and why it would affect you or your child in any way if AAP supplanted GE, and a new - far more challenging curriculum - was produced for highly gifted kids.

It'll be interesting to hear your responses, especially from those of you claiming that no one can know what the abilities of all kids are. That goes for you too, right? You certainly don't know the abilities of any child other than yours, right?