Anonymous wrote:I have always wondered how FCPS is able to have self-contained classes for this population. I would think it goes against the whole idea of LRE.

My understanding, which could be totally wrong, is that gifted programs were created earlier in time, before LRE. I've seen some people say that gifted programs were created by teachers to engage the more troublesome students, to keep them interested and out of trouble. Sort of as a defense mechanism from the shenanigans bored bright children can get into. That may not be accurate, it may be that the research showing a cohort is important was the original driver of gifted programs. Segregating gifted students for some amount of time (a few hours, one day a week, or a majority of the week in FCPS) is well established, but may begin to change now that LRE is the new goal. The two ideas, a cohort and LRE, seem to be in conflict.

I have always wondered how FCPS is able to have self-contained classes for this population. I would think it goes against the whole idea of LRE.

From davidsongifted.org:

Ability grouping -- Ability grouping involves gathering gifted learners together for programming. Even in schools geared for gifted learners, ability grouping is utilized. Ability grouping sometimes is rejected as contrary to mainstreaming and the idea of "least restrictive environment." However, ability grouping does not restrict any individual based on disability and, in fact, provides a less restrictive environment for high-achievers. Some also argue that removing high-achievers deprives more average students of role models. This is not supported by research, which indicates that students tend to select role models with abilities similar to their own. Ability grouping provides more appropriate role models for gifted students, and fosters an environment where learning and performance are valued.

I have always wondered how FCPS is able to have self-contained classes for this population. I would think it goes against the whole idea of LRE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

They aren't labeled "gifted." Based on test scores, grades and teacher recommendations about 15% of the FCPS students are deemed academically academically. This really seems to gall you, but it seems about right to me.

*advanced

NP here. Virginia authorizes a "gifted" program, not one segregating kids because at the moment they happen to be advanced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

They aren't labeled "gifted." Based on test scores, grades and teacher recommendations about 15% of the FCPS students are deemed academically academically. This really seems to gall you, but it seems about right to me.

*advanced

NP here. Virginia authorizes a "gifted" program, not one segregating kids because at the moment they happen to be advanced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

They aren't labeled "gifted." Based on test scores, grades and teacher recommendations about 15% of the FCPS students are deemed academically academically. This really seems to gall you, but it seems about right to me.

*advanced

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

They aren't labeled "gifted." Based on test scores, grades and teacher recommendations about 15% of the FCPS students are deemed academically academically. This really seems to gall you, but it seems about right to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "expert" cited in the original article -- the one who claims a 130 cut off is too high -- is a social justice warrior who believes most of the white and asian kids in G/T programs aren't gifted but merely privileged, and that G/T programs should be about correcting past oversights of race not actually serving all gifted children.

If you're on Facebook, the NAGC facebook page is basically one big rant by her, and her calling anyone who asks thoughtful questions "racist."

Wow, you're right. Very disappointed that NAGC endorses one group of gifted over another.

And, I'm still not convinced that APTITUDE tests are biased. The NNAT is shapes, for goodness sake.

When tests are prepped for as happens in many cases with NNAT and CogAT, they no longer measure aptitude.

Yeah, yeah. So you're saying these tests DO measure the aptitude of the kids who aren't prepped, including those who aren't prepped due to lower SES. So, back to the article, the answer seems to be to provide prep to them.

Except that kids from lower SES often haven't had the benefit of developmental support outside of school that those from higher SES have. Kids don't all walk into kindergarten on the same playing field, that's the whole point. There are so many factors that play into a child's ability to perform beyond their inherent abilities. I'm grateful for all of the programs that attempt to help break down these barriers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "expert" cited in the original article -- the one who claims a 130 cut off is too high -- is a social justice warrior who believes most of the white and asian kids in G/T programs aren't gifted but merely privileged, and that G/T programs should be about correcting past oversights of race not actually serving all gifted children.

If you're on Facebook, the NAGC facebook page is basically one big rant by her, and her calling anyone who asks thoughtful questions "racist."

Wow, you're right. Very disappointed that NAGC endorses one group of gifted over another.

And, I'm still not convinced that APTITUDE tests are biased. The NNAT is shapes, for goodness sake.

When tests are prepped for as happens in many cases with NNAT and CogAT, they no longer measure aptitude.

Yeah, yeah. So you're saying these tests DO measure the aptitude of the kids who aren't prepped, including those who aren't prepped due to lower SES. So, back to the article, the answer seems to be to provide prep to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "expert" cited in the original article -- the one who claims a 130 cut off is too high -- is a social justice warrior who believes most of the white and asian kids in G/T programs aren't gifted but merely privileged, and that G/T programs should be about correcting past oversights of race not actually serving all gifted children.

If you're on Facebook, the NAGC facebook page is basically one big rant by her, and her calling anyone who asks thoughtful questions "racist."

Wow, you're right. Very disappointed that NAGC endorses one group of gifted over another.

And, I'm still not convinced that APTITUDE tests are biased. The NNAT is shapes, for goodness sake.

When tests are prepped for as happens in many cases with NNAT and CogAT, they no longer measure aptitude.

Anonymous wrote:The "expert" cited in the original article -- the one who claims a 130 cut off is too high -- is a social justice warrior who believes most of the white and asian kids in G/T programs aren't gifted but merely privileged, and that G/T programs should be about correcting past oversights of race not actually serving all gifted children.

If you're on Facebook, the NAGC facebook page is basically one big rant by her, and her calling anyone who asks thoughtful questions "racist."

Wow, you're right. Very disappointed that NAGC endorses one group of gifted over another.

And, I'm still not convinced that APTITUDE tests are biased. The NNAT is shapes, for goodness sake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

Do you start or end every post with meaningless clichés? You present yourself as some sort of expert on elementary education but speak only in empty-headed conclusions. Clearly, the folks running the show disagree with you. But go on ranting like a petulant teen who's got it all figured out.

Actually, I think the PP made a good point. You're the one who seems to be ranting like a petulant teen. Anyone who knows anything about gifted education knows that the current theory is that giftedness shows itself in different ways and can be developed. That's why measuring potential as opposed to achievement (which at age 7-8 mostly correlates with family income) is so critical. Why not do a little research on your own before you come back here slinging insults?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

My child who is highly gifted (147 IQ) and NOT aspergers was clearly advanced as a preschooler and clearly gifted compared to peers by the start of kindergarten.

Second grade is not too young to identify as gifted. It is a very good age to classify kids because the early advanced kids really stand out at that point and the ones who were simplyprecocious or party trick preschoolers start to balance out.

Fortunately, fcps keeps this identification open all the way through seventh grade so kids who don't qualify in second and need more time to simmer have the oppportunity to do so and have their needs met in third-fourth or longer.

Your child is not wasting their time by remaining in gen ed in third. They are being challenged and having their needs met where they are at. If they show a need for more advanced instruction in later grades they can reapply.

You are arguing for fluid classrooms wheee your child is grouped with the most advanced kids in different subjects or units. Bt if your child is currently not showing a need for any AAP services, not the center, not advanced math, and not pull out level 3 services, what makes you think that this same child will be put into the most advanced groupings if AAPnis eliminated and all these top students move back to your child's school?

If your child is not getting those services with the AAP kids gone, she won't get those services when the AAP kids return.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.

Do you start or end every post with meaningless clichés? You present yourself as some sort of expert on elementary education but speak only in empty-headed conclusions. Clearly, the folks running the show disagree with you. But go on ranting like a petulant teen who's got it all figured out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we're talking about "entitlement," we should be discussing why one group of kids in FCPS is given a choice of schools, while the other group is not.

Where do you want my child receiving special ed services to go? Our neighborhood school does not have the staff to support him. Should our neighborhood school hire specialists to meet his needs? Personally, I think it is less expensive to send him to a school to be with other children with similar needs, and the appropriate staff are in place for all of these children.

No one here is talking about special ed children. We're talking about AAP kids. Please don't equate the two as that only serves to insult kids who actually need special education; which AAP is not.

My son receives both special ed services and AAP services. Are you suggesting he should not receive both of these services?

AAP is not a special ed. program. Are their kids in AAP who receive special ed services? Sure. But AAP as a stand alone program is not special ed. Stop trying to equate the two. I'd love to see how the parents on the Special Needs forum would react to that.

I am a frequent poster on the Special Needs forum as my son and daughter both receive special ed services, although my daughter does not receive AAP services. What you are suggesting is that my son should not have a "choice" of schools. I disagree with you. I believe other parents would also disagree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

No one knows what a child's innate abilities are until they've actually been given an opportunity to prove themselves. You can't possibly compare intelligence or academic potential to athletic ability, especially at the age of seven. And especially when kids trying out for sports teams are given the chance to demonstrate what they're capable of. Also, you're talking about high school aged kids. We're talking about second graders. Huge difference and the situations aren't at all comparable. Nice try though.

In what way do you feel it was a "nice try"? Sounds like the opposite. Maybe instead of trying to be sarcastic you can try being specific. You imply that students are not given the chance to demonstrate their qualification for AAP. Yet you provide no explanation as to why tests like the NNAT and CogAT have zero value. You also provide no explanation why the opinions of teachers who observe student performance every day can provide no indication of intelligence of academic potential. You're basically dismissing PP's analogy by ignoring an entire system already in place to determine innate abilities. Not a nice try.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, the point of my post was to "basically dismiss" the PP's analogy because it was such a poor one. Trying to compare high school JV and varsity teams, or orchestra seats - all of which are based on actual achievement and ability - to the potential intelligence of second graders is ridiculous. Second graders are far too young to be labeled "gifted" or not gifted. Kids in high school are often far different people than they were as 7 yr. olds.