Anonymous wrote:What many people are calling for is for AAP to be open to any and all students who are capable of doing more challenging work. Right now, there are so many students fully capable of AAP work who don't have access to it. The system needs to be seriously reformed.

The Level II and Level III AAP services need to be substantially beefed up and made consistent from school to school.

There wouldn't be much of a point of having a select program without any admissions criteria. Bear in mind, the teachers and administration also screen the second graders on a day to day basis, and they do get an idea of who is ready (based on a myriad of factors, not just the exams) to do more advanced work and who is not. You can disregard that component of the process if you'd like, but it is a big part of the selection criteria, and for that reason will trump kids in the pool that aren't meeting the daily criteria for a more challenging program.

What many people are calling for is for AAP to be open to any and all students who are capable of doing more challenging work. Right now, there are so many students fully capable of AAP work who don't have access to it. The system needs to be seriously reformed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they came to the May orientation, they could easily have been parent referred. Regardless, it sounds like you are waaay too interested in who and why kids are admitted to AAP.

That's a funny accusation coming from someone who was just directing a lot of vitriol at the parents you speculate pushed their kids into AAP, without any basis as far as I can tell. My assumption/understanding is that the kids were all screened by the same committee and accepted seems pretty reasonable to me. But I suppose your judgment about a program you haven't actually been a part of and children who are not your own is probably superior.

Not sure to whom you are directing your vitriol, but you do realize there are multiple posters here with the same POV, right?

It's hard to tell sometimes when people basically same the same thing over and over. Whether you are one person or several, it's always the same --- my GE child is just as smart, your child wouldn't be in if you hadn't pushed -- it's the same message from the same type of embittered GE parents, obsessing over the entrance requirements and constantly insinuating that most kids in AAP only got there because of pushy parents, not because educators placed them into the program.

But can't you imagine how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot? What if it was your child who wasn't in AAP but was fully capable of doing the work, and all of his/her friends were in the program only because they happened to score just a few points higher on one test? I think if AAP parents would imagine themselves in this situation for once, they wouldn't be so dismissive of the very valid concerns Gen Ed parents have.

I can imagine, and do respect valid concerns, and moreover happen to have a child who qualified and a child that didn't qualify. But for one thing, I respect the fact that different kids need different programs. No, there's no firm dividing line, and I don't believe it's just a matter of a few points higher on one test. If it were, 100% of the kids who score into the pool would be accepted (they aren't, it's a majority maybe 60-70%?) and 0% of the kids who missed by even one point would be accepted. There are multiple criteria and many children who scored "a few points lower" on the CogAt but received very high ratings from their teachers make it in over kids who happened to score a few points higher and were in the pool, but did not have the grades and characteristics judged by the committee to need participation in the program.

Also, if you continue to feel strongly that your child was inappropriately placed, aren't there more constructive ways for you to handle that, rather than just calling for the program to be abolished? I agree there are probably close similarities between kids on the margin, but that doesn't mean there aren't many children who need that program. For that matter, you're pretty much saying YOUR child needs that program -- but then your solution is to dismantle it?! Have you talked to your child's teacher(s) about why they may not think your child is able to handle the program? I understand your frustration if you don't think your child is being adequately challenged -- but I think there are things you can do about that. And though I'm sympathetic to those who believe their children are gifted in a certain area and should get enrichment, and I agree, I don't think the system should be dismantled to favor those kids, as I also know children who really are needing across the board enrichment in early elementary, and I believe it's our schools' job to provide it.

As a Churchill parent, I do see the divide between AAP and GE and would love to see kids be differentiated by subject rather than by the label of AAP. After being in a GT program myself in elementary and middle school and observing "identified" kids, I realize it is the rare child who is equally talented in both math and language arts/writing, so to differentiate by subject would probably be better for all involved. However, this is an AAP crazy town, and not just in Churchill or Cluster 1 as I realized after going to hear the new school superintendent speak-so I think to get rid of it altogether is going to be a multistep, multiyear process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they came to the May orientation, they could easily have been parent referred. Regardless, it sounds like you are waaay too interested in who and why kids are admitted to AAP.

That's a funny accusation coming from someone who was just directing a lot of vitriol at the parents you speculate pushed their kids into AAP, without any basis as far as I can tell. My assumption/understanding is that the kids were all screened by the same committee and accepted seems pretty reasonable to me. But I suppose your judgment about a program you haven't actually been a part of and children who are not your own is probably superior.

Not sure to whom you are directing your vitriol, but you do realize there are multiple posters here with the same POV, right?

It's hard to tell sometimes when people basically same the same thing over and over. Whether you are one person or several, it's always the same --- my GE child is just as smart, your child wouldn't be in if you hadn't pushed -- it's the same message from the same type of embittered GE parents, obsessing over the entrance requirements and constantly insinuating that most kids in AAP only got there because of pushy parents, not because educators placed them into the program.

But can't you imagine how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot? What if it was your child who wasn't in AAP but was fully capable of doing the work, and all of his/her friends were in the program only because they happened to score just a few points higher on one test? I think if AAP parents would imagine themselves in this situation for once, they wouldn't be so dismissive of the very valid concerns Gen Ed parents have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they came to the May orientation, they could easily have been parent referred. Regardless, it sounds like you are waaay too interested in who and why kids are admitted to AAP.

That's a funny accusation coming from someone who was just directing a lot of vitriol at the parents you speculate pushed their kids into AAP, without any basis as far as I can tell. My assumption/understanding is that the kids were all screened by the same committee and accepted seems pretty reasonable to me. But I suppose your judgment about a program you haven't actually been a part of and children who are not your own is probably superior.

Not sure to whom you are directing your vitriol, but you do realize there are multiple posters here with the same POV, right?

It's hard to tell sometimes when people basically same the same thing over and over. Whether you are one person or several, it's always the same --- my GE child is just as smart, your child wouldn't be in if you hadn't pushed -- it's the same message from the same type of embittered GE parents, obsessing over the entrance requirements and constantly insinuating that most kids in AAP only got there because of pushy parents, not because educators placed them into the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they came to the May orientation, they could easily have been parent referred. Regardless, it sounds like you are waaay too interested in who and why kids are admitted to AAP.

That's a funny accusation coming from someone who was just directing a lot of vitriol at the parents you speculate pushed their kids into AAP, without any basis as far as I can tell. My assumption/understanding is that the kids were all screened by the same committee and accepted seems pretty reasonable to me. But I suppose your judgment about a program you haven't actually been a part of and children who are not your own is probably superior.

Not sure to whom you are directing your vitriol, but you do realize there are multiple posters here with the same POV, right?

Anonymous wrote:If they came to the May orientation, they could easily have been parent referred. Regardless, it sounds like you are waaay too interested in who and why kids are admitted to AAP.

That's a funny accusation coming from someone who was just directing a lot of vitriol at the parents you speculate pushed their kids into AAP, without any basis as far as I can tell. My assumption/understanding is that the kids were all screened by the same committee and accepted seems pretty reasonable to me. But I suppose your judgment about a program you haven't actually been a part of and children who are not your own is probably superior.

If they came to the May orientation, they could easily have been parent referred. Regardless, it sounds like you are waaay too interested in who and why kids are admitted to AAP.

It's not that unusual. If you have two or more children in an AAP center, each with dozens of classmates, the vast majority of whom came to the May orientation because they were admitted in the first round, you have a pretty good idea. Not even counting the many families you speak to over the years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cooper's building capacity is 1080, not 894. That is stated in the CIP at page 38. If it is currently configured for fewer students, that's a function of its under-enrollment and can be addressed. The enrollment at Cooper is down 100 students over the past five years to roughly 750 students and projected to continue to decline over the next few years. There is no perfect solution here, but FCPS needs to make better use of its resources and the existing space at Cooper. Ceasing to bus AAP kids from Great Falls to Tysons clearly should be one part of the equation.

Clearly the answer is either greatly reducing AAP or eliminating it altogether. It is AAP that has caused these population discrepancies and busing issues.

What's clear is that you're contorting super hard to find a reason to justify the solution you want. Transportation and logistical issues don't justify or require changes in core educational programs. Separate issues.

Of course they do. You are the one spinning just as hard as you can to try and justify the existence of AAP, the additional busing it requires, and the additional teacher training. AAP is in no way essential, or in any way a "core educational program," as much as you like to pretend it is. AAP is simply an extra, not a gifted program, not a "special education" program, and absolutely not something that FCPS should continue paying for out of its current limited resources.

I don't need to justify the existence of AAP, you're the one trying to upend the existing system. Too bad prevailing educational wisdom and policy as well as the long-standing FCPS structure is stacked against your self-interested, misinformed opinions. Time to get over it and focus on maximizing your own child's education without constantly blaming your troubles on AAP.

"Self-interested" perfectly describes the many parents who have insisted their child be placed in AAP, regardless of child's actual ability. That's why the program has become the bloated monster it currently is. Hopefully FCPS will wise up and do something about that so taxpayers don't continue paying for this wasteful, divisive extra.

Out of the dozens if not hundreds of AAP children I know, I can only think of one that was only admitted after multiple years of trying & multiple appeals. Vast majority were admitted on the first round based on their test scores & teacher recs, no drama & no parent "insisting" their child into the program. I do know some people who were disappointed when their child wasn't admitted even after appeal. But I guess you will see this however it makes you feel better.

My goodness, you are one person and yet you know "hundreds" of AAP children? And exactly how each and every one of them was admitted to AAP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cooper's building capacity is 1080, not 894. That is stated in the CIP at page 38. If it is currently configured for fewer students, that's a function of its under-enrollment and can be addressed. The enrollment at Cooper is down 100 students over the past five years to roughly 750 students and projected to continue to decline over the next few years. There is no perfect solution here, but FCPS needs to make better use of its resources and the existing space at Cooper. Ceasing to bus AAP kids from Great Falls to Tysons clearly should be one part of the equation.

Clearly the answer is either greatly reducing AAP or eliminating it altogether. It is AAP that has caused these population discrepancies and busing issues.

What's clear is that you're contorting super hard to find a reason to justify the solution you want. Transportation and logistical issues don't justify or require changes in core educational programs. Separate issues.

Of course they do. You are the one spinning just as hard as you can to try and justify the existence of AAP, the additional busing it requires, and the additional teacher training. AAP is in no way essential, or in any way a "core educational program," as much as you like to pretend it is. AAP is simply an extra, not a gifted program, not a "special education" program, and absolutely not something that FCPS should continue paying for out of its current limited resources.

I don't need to justify the existence of AAP, you're the one trying to upend the existing system. Too bad prevailing educational wisdom and policy as well as the long-standing FCPS structure is stacked against your self-interested, misinformed opinions. Time to get over it and focus on maximizing your own child's education without constantly blaming your troubles on AAP.

"Self-interested" perfectly describes the many parents who have insisted their child be placed in AAP, regardless of child's actual ability. That's why the program has become the bloated monster it currently is. Hopefully FCPS will wise up and do something about that so taxpayers don't continue paying for this wasteful, divisive extra.

Out of the dozens if not hundreds of AAP children I know, I can only think of one that was only admitted after multiple years of trying & multiple appeals. Vast majority were admitted on the first round based on their test scores & teacher recs, no drama & no parent "insisting" their child into the program. I do know some people who were disappointed when their child wasn't admitted even after appeal. But I guess you will see this however it makes you feel better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cooper's building capacity is 1080, not 894. That is stated in the CIP at page 38. If it is currently configured for fewer students, that's a function of its under-enrollment and can be addressed. The enrollment at Cooper is down 100 students over the past five years to roughly 750 students and projected to continue to decline over the next few years. There is no perfect solution here, but FCPS needs to make better use of its resources and the existing space at Cooper. Ceasing to bus AAP kids from Great Falls to Tysons clearly should be one part of the equation.

Clearly the answer is either greatly reducing AAP or eliminating it altogether. It is AAP that has caused these population discrepancies and busing issues.

What's clear is that you're contorting super hard to find a reason to justify the solution you want. Transportation and logistical issues don't justify or require changes in core educational programs. Separate issues.

Of course they do. You are the one spinning just as hard as you can to try and justify the existence of AAP, the additional busing it requires, and the additional teacher training. AAP is in no way essential, or in any way a "core educational program," as much as you like to pretend it is. AAP is simply an extra, not a gifted program, not a "special education" program, and absolutely not something that FCPS should continue paying for out of its current limited resources.

I don't need to justify the existence of AAP, you're the one trying to upend the existing system. Too bad prevailing educational wisdom and policy as well as the long-standing FCPS structure is stacked against your self-interested, misinformed opinions. Time to get over it and focus on maximizing your own child's education without constantly blaming your troubles on AAP.

"Self-interested" perfectly describes the many parents who have insisted their child be placed in AAP, regardless of child's actual ability. That's why the program has become the bloated monster it currently is. Hopefully FCPS will wise up and do something about that so taxpayers don't continue paying for this wasteful, divisive extra.