Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disruptive classes in app? Yes! There are too many kids in aap who need meds!

And too many with parents who are in denial about their child's behavior. He's is not disruptive because he's "bored by curriculum that isn't challenging him." He's disruptive because you've never taught him not to be (or he needs to be on meds). Some of those AAP classrooms are out of control.

And many GE classrooms are out of control (especially when there are pushing) , and some HS classrooms are out of control, etc. Some students of all intelligence levels are disruptive. And some teachers at all levels are incompetent. On whole, though 2e kids will do better in an AAP setting. Which is good for that kid, and good for GE classroom, where the teacher really can't manage the kid, and he is a distraction to other students.

And AAP teachers self select, because they have to be AAP certified, or working on it. So someone out there wants to teach AAP kids.

I didn't realize one of the goals of AAP was the take the problem children out of GE so those poor kids can have a better learning environment. My entire outlook on the program has changed.

My original point, which still stands, is that parents cannot be sure their child will get a "better" education in an AAP class, because it's not all about how smart the rest of the kids in the classroom are. The attitudes and behaviors of those classmates also matters.

The original goal of AAP, back when it was a "real" GT program, was to educate kids who wouldn't succeed in a standard classroom. It's still a goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you have 25 - 50% in AAP, the term "gifted" has lost all meaning.

There are NOT 25-50% of fcps kids in AAP centers/level IV.

You need to try to brush up on facts.

No, you need to brush up on your facts. Of the three schools closest to my house: One has 35%, one has 33% and the other has 25%. There are schools with up to 50% kids in AAP. That is a fact.

This is absolutely true.

My child had to attend a center school with 46% AAP kids. They might as well simply make AAP the regular curriculum and give the kids who struggle (there would only be a few) extra help. Far more efficient and equitable. This is a PUBLIC school system, after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you have 25 - 50% in AAP, the term "gifted" has lost all meaning.

There are NOT 25-50% of fcps kids in AAP centers/level IV.

You need to try to brush up on facts.

No, you need to brush up on your facts. Of the three schools closest to my house: One has 35%, one has 33% and the other has 25%. There are schools with up to 50% kids in AAP. That is a fact.

Anonymous wrote:I will report from MoCo, where the gifted program is in fact as small as you suggest (a couple of kids get selected from each elementary tops). Helicoptet parents here also prep their kids way beyond what the schools want them to do. But it is probably a saner system because most everyone who gets left behind in the home school is pretty bright too, and an excellent education isn't reserved only for those called gifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the original concept - where there exists a very small percentage of kids that have a high IQ and at one time were not able to access a curriculum that met their needs. I do believe maybe *AT MOST* and I'm being generous - 5% of FCPS kids have a very high IQ and have exceptionally gifted capabilities. Those kids should have special resources. Fine.

That being said, the situation that has devolved over the past 3 decades is a joke. I am seeing overbearing parents pushing their kids to steal a ticket into the program and I am getting sick of it. Schools have between 25% - 50% gifted students across the board. What is the point of that?

What if we decided to create a special classroom for children gifted in sports? Why not? Time and time again, those gifted in sports become our brilliant leaders of the future? Why not continue to foster those values in the classroom?

What if we decided to create special classrooms for children gifted in beauty? How would society react to that? One could argue that beauty is a major factor to success. Intelligence is not a definitive indicator of success.

Anyone else see how ridiculous and unequal this has all become? If you don't then please help me understand otherwise.

I am most interested in hearing responses from parents of kids who are non-AAP.

Sour grapes?

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.

+1,000,000 Standing ovation.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the original concept - where there exists a very small percentage of kids that have a high IQ and at one time were not able to access a curriculum that met their needs. I do believe maybe *AT MOST* and I'm being generous - 5% of FCPS kids have a very high IQ and have exceptionally gifted capabilities. Those kids should have special resources. Fine.

That being said, the situation that has devolved over the past 3 decades is a joke. I am seeing overbearing parents pushing their kids to steal a ticket into the program and I am getting sick of it. Schools have between 25% - 50% gifted students across the board. What is the point of that?

What if we decided to create a special classroom for children gifted in sports? Why not? Time and time again, those gifted in sports become our brilliant leaders of the future? Why not continue to foster those values in the classroom?

What if we decided to create special classrooms for children gifted in beauty? How would society react to that? One could argue that beauty is a major factor to success. Intelligence is not a definitive indicator of success.

Anyone else see how ridiculous and unequal this has all become? If you don't then please help me understand otherwise.

I am most interested in hearing responses from parents of kids who are non-AAP.

Anonymous wrote:link:

http://www.arlingtonmagazine.com/September-October-2016/Is-My-Child-Gifted/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1#artanc Second page discussing the 3/2016 proposal to start either a gifted center or LLIV programs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will be one of those parents that tutor, push the administration, whatever. My kid needs the best education possible and I'm not convinced he'll get it in his non-aap school.

There is no guarantee he will get it at an AAP school, either. There can be significant behavior/social issues in many of those classrooms that limit learning, particularly in sensitive children. I believe the AAP system in FCPS is thoroughly broken and only benefits parents who want to say their child is in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame it's not just the top 2%. The current % is so disruptive to the whole system.

Top 2% of FCPS is not top 2% nationally. It's why the FCPS CogAT is not nationally normed. For perspective-- about 2% of each FCPS class is admitted to TJ.

Who cares nationally? Locally, it's causing a huge disruption and it's time to revisit the goal of AAP and also the approach. Something got lost along the way.

What has happened locally is that fcps AAP program and TJ have attracted a lot of families with high performing kids away from districts like Arlington & MC, which brings in more NMSFs, higher SATs, more prestige, etc, which attracts more educated, high achieving families which raises property valies which raises tax revenue for fcps.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the original concept - where there exists a very small percentage of kids that have a high IQ and at one time were not able to access a curriculum that met their needs. I do believe maybe *AT MOST* and I'm being generous - 5% of FCPS kids have a very high IQ and have exceptionally gifted capabilities. Those kids should have special resources. Fine.

That being said, the situation that has devolved over the past 3 decades is a joke. I am seeing overbearing parents pushing their kids to steal a ticket into the program and I am getting sick of it. Schools have between 25% - 50% gifted students across the board. What is the point of that?

What if we decided to create a special classroom for children gifted in sports? Why not? Time and time again, those gifted in sports become our brilliant leaders of the future? Why not continue to foster those values in the classroom?

What if we decided to create special classrooms for children gifted in beauty? How would society react to that? One could argue that beauty is a major factor to success. Intelligence is not a definitive indicator of success.

Anyone else see how ridiculous and unequal this has all become? If you don't then please help me understand otherwise.

I am most interested in hearing responses from parents of kids who are non-AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster.

That goal is actually a part of the state mandate for gifted education.

So yes, AAP is for those 2e kids who disrupt class, might seem lime slackers or failures when compared to well behaved people pleaser type students, who have meltdowns and who appear to need a generous dose of ritalin.

Teaching those kids effectively is part of the training for gifted certification.

2E kids, unmediated, disrupt class. Aka ADHD kids. They drain the classroom dynamic big time! Other 2E kids aka non adhd are beneficial in the class room. Note to adhd parents: medicate, please! Your kid is a hinderence to learning for the other 30 kids.

Anonymous wrote:New poster.

That goal is actually a part of the state mandate for gifted education.

So yes, AAP is for those 2e kids who disrupt class, might seem lime slackers or failures when compared to well behaved people pleaser type students, who have meltdowns and who appear to need a generous dose of ritalin.

Teaching those kids effectively is part of the training for gifted certification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame it's not just the top 2%. The current % is so disruptive to the whole system.

If it were only the top 2% of scores, you would still have very large centers in the TJ feeders, slightly smaller than currently centers in the Lake Braddock, West Springfield areas, and no centers in the poorer areas.

Would you need centers though? Maybe embed the program in neighborhood schools. Less transportation issues, etc.

Centers are embedded in neighborhood school. If you want to reduced it to 2% of FCPS, that's about 300-350 kids per grade spread across 200 ESs. How does it work in ESs with 1-2 kids? Even TJ feeders couldn't pull off a full class.

Pull outs or push ins.

So move to Arlington. They do this. And parents hate it, so the board is looking at moving to a system "similar to Fairfax County's AAP program." Grass is not always greener...

http://www.arlingtonmagazine.com/September-October-2016/Is-My-Child-Gifted/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1#artanc Second page discussing the 3/2016 proposal to start either a gifted center or LLIV programs

Link?