Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these kids will end up in the same honors classes in middle school. As a former "gifted and talented" child I'm not sure we do these kids any favors by segregating them in ES and telling them they're special.

The special part no, but it would be nice if they could have a more advanced curriculum without base school parents having a fit their kid isn't getting advanced instruction. If people would stop being so triggered by advanced instruction then it would be easier to integrate into base schools.

This. I think you'll find most kids out there just want their either high achieving or intellectually gifted (or both in some cases) kid adequately challenged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

not PP, but I think the PP wants their LIV kids treated like princes and princesses, rather than being indistinguishable with the peasants (level III and below).

NP. The PP would be disappointed with our center, where kids are principal placed in grades where there is space for them and (gasp) do just as well or better than kids who were found eligible by the committee.

What are some of your considerations for choosing center or local (If siblings at local school is not a factor)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

The difference between LLIV and LLIII kids can be as little as a single question on a test, or a different person preparing a packet.

Or as great as knowing 2 digit multiplication tables v. knowing 1 digit addition.

Pfft, that's weak sauce.

Sorry, but both of those would be closer to L0. True LIV would require explaining how the multiplication algorithm works via the distributive property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

The difference between LLIV and LLIII kids can be as little as a single question on a test, or a different person preparing a packet.

Or as great as knowing 2 digit multiplication tables v. knowing 1 digit addition.

This makes no sense since adv math is open to all and there are Level 4 kids who are not strong in math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

I am PP who is a teacher. My class is 75 percent Level 4 students. The rest are high achieving students. I teach the Level 4 curriculum to all the kids. In fact, some of my Level 3 students perform better than my Level 4. There is no difference. Now if my school was using the cluster model, then yes that would be different. But filling a Level 4 class with other high achieving kids is not different. I have had Level 4 kids who I have questioned how they got in based on average performance and guess what? Those students could have chosen to go to the center. So this idea that every Level 4 kid who chooses to go to a center is strong academically is false. The reality in my 7 years of teaching AAP is that most of these kids are not all around gifted. They have strengths and weaknesses like everyone. Some are just good students but not necessarily gifted. So when you walk in my room you will not be able to figure out who is Level 4 or 3 and honestly it doesn’t matter.

It really does depend on the schools.

Of our three children, we sent two to the center ES and one to the local ES. That worked well and we were happy with both programs and both schools.

For middle school, one went to the center MS and two to the local level 4 program at their base MS. We found the local program to be far superior to the center for middle school. We wish all three kids had gone to the local school, but we didn't know at the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

The difference between LLIV and LLIII kids can be as little as a single question on a test, or a different person preparing a packet.

Or as great as knowing 2 digit multiplication tables v. knowing 1 digit addition.

? Kids designated LIII are above grade level. For the most part, LIII kids are the strong students that the school supported for AAP, but the kids got rejected or were just below the pool cutoff and didn’t apply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

The difference between LLIV and LLIII kids can be as little as a single question on a test, or a different person preparing a packet.

Or as great as knowing 2 digit multiplication tables v. knowing 1 digit addition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

The difference between LLIV and LLIII kids can be as little as a single question on a test, or a different person preparing a packet.

Anonymous wrote:All these kids will end up in the same honors classes in middle school. As a former "gifted and talented" child I'm not sure we do these kids any favors by segregating them in ES and telling them they're special.

The special part no, but it would be nice if they could have a more advanced curriculum without base school parents having a fit their kid isn't getting advanced instruction. If people would stop being so triggered by advanced instruction then it would be easier to integrate into base schools.

All these kids will end up in the same honors classes in middle school. As a former "gifted and talented" child I'm not sure we do these kids any favors by segregating them in ES and telling them they're special.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

Because there is a difference, which teachers know. Some prefer to teach gen ed and some prefer AAP (and some may not have a preference) - either choice is fine but it's not accurate to say there is no difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is a great option if the local program is strong.

The thing is, how can the base school program be as strong if it's mostly kids who didn't qualify for LIV, in order to fill up a class? It stands to reason that the teacher will have to teach to the ability of the class. Our school has 10 Level II/III kids for every 1 Level IV, so it's bound to be a Level II/III dominant classroom. And this is the best case scenario since some schools use the cluster model where all the LIV qualified kids are dispersed among the classrooms.

For the most part, LIII and LIV kids are indistinguishable.

Says who? This is not my experience.

Teacher here. Are you a teacher? Cause I can tell you if you walk into my room you won’t know who is Level 4 vs Level 3.

This is the reason to send to the center school.

How is this a reason? She is stating the kids are interchangeable and that there is no difference.

not PP, but I think the PP wants their LIV kids treated like princes and princesses, rather than being indistinguishable with the peasants (level III and below).

Exactly. And it sums up why we didn't send our kids to a center (with thanks to the teacher PP who pointed out that they're indistinguishable).

Does anyone have any insight into Keene Mill's center school versus West Springfield Elementary local level?