Anonymous wrote:I do believe if standards were changed (I'm not going to say "raised" because that suggests a level to which students should aspire) the AAP program could better identify those who have different learning styles and needs. As pp said, good test-takers are getting placed and then struggling. My DC had a few children drop out the first half of the year back in 3rd grade AAP because it was not a good fit.

Raising the bar to 140 won't help to figure out who the profoundly gifted kids are. There are too many kids who have seen sample tests prior to taking the tests that are supposed to test giftedness, and there are others what haven't seen those tests and so the results aren't necessarily a true reflection of who really is profoundly gifted. I really would like to see a study that tracks the academic performance through the years of kids who score well on these tests in K-2. I'm curious how they do in high school relative to other kids. I know a lot of people are against tracking at a young age, but I think having regular and honors classes starting in first grade would be good. I think honors classes allows for a more fluid system where kids who aren't in honors in first grade can be in honors in second grade if they get better at a subject. It also would allow kids to be in honors in some subjects and not others. Also, switching from an honors class to regular from one year to the next creates less of a stigma that switching from AAP back to Gen Ed. I know honors in elementary is a nonstarter, but it really is a more fair system.

I actually think the programs as is work pretty well. The profoundly gifted are challenged, and sometimes they are no who the testing suggests are profoundly gifted.

Reduce the number of admissions will probably not save any money, as the only real cost is transportation, and while there will be fewer kids, they will be transported further.

I do believe if standards were changed (I'm not going to say "raised" because that suggests a level to which students should aspire) the AAP program could better identify those who have different learning styles and needs. As pp said, good test-takers are getting placed and then struggling. My DC had a few children drop out the first half of the year back in 3rd grade AAP because it was not a good fit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:49 The responses were to reply to 13:02. I think people are tired of hearing that AAP costs too much when it really doesn't cost any more than if the kids were at their base schools. Costs really should not be a reason to dislike the program.

Perhaps a reason to dislike the program is one that has been mentioned many times -- AAP is so overblown with average kids who either test well or were prepped for the test. These are not gifted kids who "can't learn" in a regular, Gen. Ed. environment. To pretend that they are is doing everyone a disservice. These kids grow up entitled, thinking they are somehow smarter or more gifted (such an overused word) than the other kids. And the GE kids wind up thinking that they are somehow less than or inferior, when in fact, most of them tested almost as well as those in AAP.

The bar for AAP needs to be raised to perhaps a 140 (or higher) cutoff, allowing those kids who are really and truly gifted to be taught in special classes. All the other kids need to be in Gen. Ed. -- high achievers, low achievers, and the many in the middle who are most often overlooked. It's ridiculous how many average, run-of-the-mill kids are admitted to AAP. Standards need to be much higher.

Nailed it, thanks.

In Virginia, AAP students are "special needs" under VA law. That is why they are provided with "services"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:49 The responses were to reply to 13:02. I think people are tired of hearing that AAP costs too much when it really doesn't cost any more than if the kids were at their base schools. Costs really should not be a reason to dislike the program.

Perhaps a reason to dislike the program is one that has been mentioned many times -- AAP is so overblown with average kids who either test well or were prepped for the test. These are not gifted kids who "can't learn" in a regular, Gen. Ed. environment. To pretend that they are is doing everyone a disservice. These kids grow up entitled, thinking they are somehow smarter or more gifted (such an overused word) than the other kids. And the GE kids wind up thinking that they are somehow less than or inferior, when in fact, most of them tested almost as well as those in AAP.

The bar for AAP needs to be raised to perhaps a 140 (or higher) cutoff, allowing those kids who are really and truly gifted to be taught in special classes. All the other kids need to be in Gen. Ed. -- high achievers, low achievers, and the many in the middle who are most often overlooked. It's ridiculous how many average, run-of-the-mill kids are admitted to AAP. Standards need to be much higher.

There are a multitude of problems with your statements and conclusions:

1) You are making assumptions and treating them like facts. DO GE kids really feel inferior from the system? Do you have evidence to back up the theory?

2) Do you understand the practical implications of raising the bar to 140? they are:

2.1) 1/10 - 1/20th th as many students (assuming a Gaussian distributions of scores); that means instead of 2000 kids per grade, you would have 100-200 kids per grade in the county, and there would have to be transported to central schools in order to maintain critical mass. That would mean third graders travels for an hour to get to school.

2.2) AAP would be more selective than TJ

2.3) Measuring intelligence in 7 yo's is not an exact science. There are gifted students that do not test well (that day at least), and there are student that have been taught how to beat the tests. And the same kid, at 7, can have a variance of about 30 points from one day to the next. Case in point, when I entered the 8th grade, I was tested on the date of enrollment with a standardized test. We had been camping out, as our furniture had not arrived. And my sister was sick. I was distracted. I did not do well on the test, scoring 110, and was placed in the average track. I became a bit of a trouble maker, and was sent off to a private physiologist. The first thing that was done was to test me, and I tested at 148 overall, and 160+ in some areas (e.g., processing speed). Not bragging, just trying to give an example.

3) The implication is the 120 kids are holding back the 140+ kids. I have seen no evidence to support that. In fact, the nature of AAP is the project approach, which means that the really best students can demonstrate the ability. If it were worksheet based, i would agree. Math curriculum routinely has things that are really challenging, where getting one problem right is considered above grade level.

21:39

What are the professional qualifications that allow you to determine whether students (other than your own) are gifted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:49 The responses were to reply to 13:02. I think people are tired of hearing that AAP costs too much when it really doesn't cost any more than if the kids were at their base schools. Costs really should not be a reason to dislike the program.

Perhaps a reason to dislike the program is one that has been mentioned many times -- AAP is so overblown with average kids who either test well or were prepped for the test. These are not gifted kids who "can't learn" in a regular, Gen. Ed. environment. To pretend that they are is doing everyone a disservice. These kids grow up entitled, thinking they are somehow smarter or more gifted (such an overused word) than the other kids. And the GE kids wind up thinking that they are somehow less than or inferior, when in fact, most of them tested almost as well as those in AAP.

The bar for AAP needs to be raised to perhaps a 140 (or higher) cutoff, allowing those kids who are really and truly gifted to be taught in special classes. All the other kids need to be in Gen. Ed. -- high achievers, low achievers, and the many in the middle who are most often overlooked. It's ridiculous how many average, run-of-the-mill kids are admitted to AAP. Standards need to be much higher.

There are many AAP kids who spent their early years in private school until 3rd grade when AAP starts. These private schools teach an accelerated curriculum compared to public, where the kids spend/waste a lot of time going over basic topics, socialization, etc. Thus, these former private school kids are deemed advanced only b/c they've been put through the ringer so early.

Anonymous wrote:13:49 The responses were to reply to 13:02. I think people are tired of hearing that AAP costs too much when it really doesn't cost any more than if the kids were at their base schools. Costs really should not be a reason to dislike the program.

Perhaps a reason to dislike the program is one that has been mentioned many times -- AAP is so overblown with average kids who either test well or were prepped for the test. These are not gifted kids who "can't learn" in a regular, Gen. Ed. environment. To pretend that they are is doing everyone a disservice. These kids grow up entitled, thinking they are somehow smarter or more gifted (such an overused word) than the other kids. And the GE kids wind up thinking that they are somehow less than or inferior, when in fact, most of them tested almost as well as those in AAP.

The bar for AAP needs to be raised to perhaps a 140 (or higher) cutoff, allowing those kids who are really and truly gifted to be taught in special classes. All the other kids need to be in Gen. Ed. -- high achievers, low achievers, and the many in the middle who are most often overlooked. It's ridiculous how many average, run-of-the-mill kids are admitted to AAP. Standards need to be much higher.

Anonymous wrote:13:49 The responses were to reply to 13:02. I think people are tired of hearing that AAP costs too much when it really doesn't cost any more than if the kids were at their base schools. Costs really should not be a reason to dislike the program.

+1

13:49 The responses were to reply to 13:02. I think people are tired of hearing that AAP costs too much when it really doesn't cost any more than if the kids were at their base schools. Costs really should not be a reason to dislike the program.

This discussion is so off-topic! When my DD was in GT (years back), nobody dropped out of GT; however, quite a few kids went to general ed for math. I noticed that the GT curriculum covered more vocab, in addition to math. They also did alot more of projects which I didn't like - time consuming and mostly needed parental help.
Transferring from AAP to general ed could demoralize the child for awhile. If you need to do that, it is better to do it early than late. In the long run, it does not affect much for most kids.

Anonymous wrote:It also seems that the AAP students have a higher student teacher ratio in any AAP classroom bring the cost down further per pupil. It costs more than this to supply additional teaching for most special needs students every day.

Why are people still trying to justify spending on AAP because students with special needs 'get more'? Try walking in the shoes of the parents o those speical needs and see how it feels. Then you may not be so quick to compare.

It also seems that the AAP students have a higher student teacher ratio in any AAP classroom bring the cost down further per pupil. It costs more than this to supply additional teaching for most special needs students every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you being facetious? It's probably more like $10 more than general ed per child to transport them to a center and not all center eligible children need a longer bus route. Probably half of them are actually within the center boundaries or attending a LLIV program.

I was being facetious. It seems ridiculous to make a big deal about $30 per year per child. I'm guessing those who object just don't like the program.

At least one of us who objected didn't like the comparison of special-ed needs and AAP "needs."

+2