Anonymous wrote:When my own kids went through the schools both here and elsewhere, there was lots of differentiation in the regular classroom and GT/AAP centers enrolled about 10% of the school population. There was probably overlap among the top students in the regular classes and the GT classes (because no identification process is 100% perfect), but the regular schools provided pullout GT classes and had different level groupings for math and language arts. The regular schools that I know of still provide these services.

Why has the percentage gone from 10% to the 16% or even 18% that some have cited?

Can't say this as a fact because I don't know when the NNAT was added as a way to get into the pool, but it would seem that if CogAt was the only way to enter the pool before and now you have another way, that would increase the pool and the number of kids admitted. Can someone who knows when the NNAT was added chime in?

When my own kids went through the schools both here and elsewhere, there was lots of differentiation in the regular classroom and GT/AAP centers enrolled about 10% of the school population. There was probably overlap among the top students in the regular classes and the GT classes (because no identification process is 100% perfect), but the regular schools provided pullout GT classes and had different level groupings for math and language arts. The regular schools that I know of still provide these services.

Why has the percentage gone from 10% to the 16% or even 18% that some have cited?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Second graders are too young to know anything about "waiting for the right environment."
AAP is not about "trying your best" or "working hard for a good result." AAP is not a prize given for a good effort. It is simply about providing suitable classroom teaching for elementary school children. For the kid who needs it, it can make all the difference in the world.

Teacher here: the problem is that most kids don't "need" it. No one other than parents think they "need" it. Yes, they may qualify, but they don't need it.

I don't think the current AAP program is set up for those who "need" it. It just seems like a program for kids who can do well working at a faster pace. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I think there is misperception, especially on this board, that there is some special way of teaching in AAP that works better for kids who "need" it. It's basically a classroom working at a faster pace. So basically any child who has done really well academically in k-2 would be able to do fine in the current program. It is not a "gifted" program. It is more like an elementary school program with all honors classes.

In which case it should be open to all kids who can handle it. I say this as a parent whose oldest went through the program when it was still called GT (and not so many years ago) and whose younger kids went happily through our neighborhood school. Do you really think all kids who can work at an advanced pace or even the most qualified kids are currently in AAP? I've seen scores on this board-- both test and GBRS -- that wouldn't have come close to getting kids into the program just a few years ago, now routinely pushed by parents (and accepted by the screening committee apparently) as good enough because the kids are hard workers or bored. I don't think this matters at the elementary school level, but it definitely does bright kids an injustice in middle school. There, AAP kids get classes that prep them for high school and similarly intelligent kids who weren't pushed onto the fast track at 8, are stuck in classes like "Honors English" where there can be no required reading and assignments like writing a short story are deemed too advanced for them, but not their AAP (and often solely math-talented) peers. This isn't just inequitable, it's not good for the kids. And here I mean both AAP and general ed, since they'll all be together in those 9th grade honors classes excepting the miniscule % that go to TJ.

Yes, I have strong feelings about this, but I also have experience seeing kids (and not just mine) go through both systems. It's been my impression that many of the folks who worry about this the most are parents of younger children and don't fully understand how all this plays out. The system should not be set up so that some kids get special attention to the detriment of others who are at least as capable. If you go back to AAP centers as only for the truly gifted who do learn differently, that's one thing, but the current system is not only poor educational policy, it's unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Second graders are too young to know anything about "waiting for the right environment."
AAP is not about "trying your best" or "working hard for a good result." AAP is not a prize given for a good effort. It is simply about providing suitable classroom teaching for elementary school children. For the kid who needs it, it can make all the difference in the world.

Teacher here: the problem is that most kids don't "need" it. No one other than parents think they "need" it. Yes, they may qualify, but they don't need it.

I agree with you and that is the case under the current system. But there are kids out there who truly need what AAP is meant to be, and those are the kids who will lose out when AAP is discontinued because the identification system is seen as becoming unreliable. And that is regrettable.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the current AAP program is set up for those who "need" it. It just seems like a program for kids who can do well working at a faster pace. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I think there is misperception, especially on this board, that there is some special way of teaching in AAP that works better for kids who "need" it. It's basically a classroom working at a faster pace. So basically any child who has done really well academically in k-2 would be able to do fine in the current program. It is not a "gifted" program. It is more like an elementary school program with all honors classes.

You are right about the current perception, which is at least in part due to the sense that the current identification procedures are not entirely reliable. I can tell you that that about 10 years ago parents were being told that GT(as it was called at that time) was for "students whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom." And, at least at that time, that is the function the program was serving, at least in the area of Fairfax County that I saw at that time. It was truly a worthwhile program that served the needs of kids who could have fallen through the cracks in a regular classroom. There are still kids out there who need what this program can offer.

PP, if that's right, then I think centers are no longer necessary, except for the profoundly gifted. I have a child in a center who would do fine in the base school if the program was accelerated like it is at the center. There are a few kids at the center who do really "need" a center, but it's not the 16% that is there now. PErhaps they should have local level IV for everyone except the PG and send them to centers. I guess the problem is that everyone on here would decide their kid is PG.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Second graders are too young to know anything about "waiting for the right environment."
AAP is not about "trying your best" or "working hard for a good result." AAP is not a prize given for a good effort. It is simply about providing suitable classroom teaching for elementary school children. For the kid who needs it, it can make all the difference in the world.

Teacher here: the problem is that most kids don't "need" it. No one other than parents think they "need" it. Yes, they may qualify, but they don't need it.

I don't think the current AAP program is set up for those who "need" it. It just seems like a program for kids who can do well working at a faster pace. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I think there is misperception, especially on this board, that there is some special way of teaching in AAP that works better for kids who "need" it. It's basically a classroom working at a faster pace. So basically any child who has done really well academically in k-2 would be able to do fine in the current program. It is not a "gifted" program. It is more like an elementary school program with all honors classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Second graders are too young to know anything about "waiting for the right environment."
AAP is not about "trying your best" or "working hard for a good result." AAP is not a prize given for a good effort. It is simply about providing suitable classroom teaching for elementary school children. For the kid who needs it, it can make all the difference in the world.

Teacher here: the problem is that most kids don't "need" it. No one other than parents think they "need" it. Yes, they may qualify, but they don't need it.

I agree with you and that is the case under the current system. But there are kids out there who truly need what AAP is meant to be, and those are the kids who will lose out when AAP is discontinued because the identification system is seen as becoming unreliable. And that is regrettable.

Anonymous wrote:Second graders are too young to know anything about "waiting for the right environment."
AAP is not about "trying your best" or "working hard for a good result." AAP is not a prize given for a good effort. It is simply about providing suitable classroom teaching for elementary school children. For the kid who needs it, it can make all the difference in the world.

Teacher here: the problem is that most kids don't "need" it. No one other than parents think they "need" it. Yes, they may qualify, but they don't need it.

Second graders are too young to know anything about "waiting for the right environment."
AAP is not about "trying your best" or "working hard for a good result." AAP is not a prize given for a good effort. It is simply about providing suitable classroom teaching for elementary school children. For the kid who needs it, it can make all the difference in the world.

Above: GBRS 9 is about average.

Anonymous wrote:I don't necessarily agree. I'm not in the same boat where I would say my dc is bored, but I don't think it's a deal breaker either -- meaning, it doesn't seem illogical that a really gifted child couldn't be bored if the material is too easy. Sometimes they might just need a spark to get going, and change things around or make things more challenging for themselves on their own. Every child blossoms at a different rate, but that doesn't mean a child isn't gifted just bc he or she hasn't blossomed that one part yet. If a child is truly gifted (not just advanced academically), then the right environment is important to help that thrive and grow. Just saying - I don't think it's completely illogical. Just 2 cents, I know.

Not to mean anything offensive, but it can be seen the other way around. Some "gifted" kids may blossom later, but may never blossom at all. FCPS AAP program is to provide advanced service to the kids that capable and willing for it. If the kids are waiting for the "right environment" before trying their best, who to say AAP is the"right environment", not TJ or Yale or something never coming? If I'm a teacher, I would rather recommend AAP service for an "above average" kid that works hard and shows great results, than some "gifted" kids waiting for the "right environment" . As for the AAP central committee, they can say yes to kids with single high score and so-so GBRS, or say no to kids with single high score and low GBRS. They are not obligated to any single score.

As for the OP, GBRS is about average, not necessary low. If it's less than 8, I would be worried.

My money is on the teacher (22:18). In general, the teacher can tell whether your snowflake is making global connections or thinking outside the box. A kid who isn't applying himself in first grade . . . a whole different ball of wax.

I don't necessarily agree. I'm not in the same boat where I would say my dc is bored, but I don't think it's a deal breaker either -- meaning, it doesn't seem illogical that a really gifted child couldn't be bored if the material is too easy. Sometimes they might just need a spark to get going, and change things around or make things more challenging for themselves on their own. Every child blossoms at a different rate, but that doesn't mean a child isn't gifted just bc he or she hasn't blossomed that one part yet. If a child is truly gifted (not just advanced academically), then the right environment is important to help that thrive and grow. Just saying - I don't think it's completely illogical. Just 2 cents, I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well... apparently the child IS bored as he says he is bored, yet he scored in the 99th percentile. And his teacher says that he just doesn't see the point of putting a lot of effort into it.... yet, give him a math test/problem and he is often able to answer faster (and more correctly) than his older sibling in 3rd grade adv. math. So, yes, you can call it bored or not engaged or just poor attention in class... but that's what he shows during the school day despite reading above grade level and having superior test scores.

I hate when parents claim kids are bored in class.

Gifted children are never bored in class. Because gifted children are constantly investigating and inquiring and picking things up and looking at them from different angles (metaphorically speaking). Being bored in class is actually a marker of non-giftedness.

You tell 'em, sista!!!!!! Soooo true!

This.

My ds has never complained of boredom in school...even when he was being taught letters two years after he learned to read. In his mind, there is always something else to discover or some other way to look at something. He has always managed to find a way to tweak assignments to make them more challenging. This was actually mentioned in his GBRS.

My experience as well with students. My experience with parents is that they tell me their children are bored as a defense to not doing well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well... apparently the child IS bored as he says he is bored, yet he scored in the 99th percentile. And his teacher says that he just doesn't see the point of putting a lot of effort into it.... yet, give him a math test/problem and he is often able to answer faster (and more correctly) than his older sibling in 3rd grade adv. math. So, yes, you can call it bored or not engaged or just poor attention in class... but that's what he shows during the school day despite reading above grade level and having superior test scores.

I hate when parents claim kids are bored in class.

Gifted children are never bored in class. Because gifted children are constantly investigating and inquiring and picking things up and looking at them from different angles (metaphorically speaking). Being bored in class is actually a marker of non-giftedness.

You tell 'em, sista!!!!!! Soooo true!

This.

My ds has never complained of boredom in school...even when he was being taught letters two years after he learned to read. In his mind, there is always something else to discover or some other way to look at something. He has always managed to find a way to tweak assignments to make them more challenging. This was actually mentioned in his GBRS.