Question for AAP teachers (please just AAP teachers)

[Anonymous]

1.) What percentage of your students do you think truly belong at the AAP center? Are some only gifted in one subject area? Do you have many students who are probably there due to parents being pushy?

2.) Do you see any advantages to making all schools level IV instead?

3.) What are the disadvantages of making all schools Level IV?

4.) Do you see anything in the AAP program that should be included in budget cuts?

[Anonymous]

1.) What percentage of your students do you think truly belong at the AAP center? - Depends how we want to define the role of the center. I think students identified as AAP benefit from being with a group of intellectually similar peers, but I don't believe that meeting this need requires the current Center model in all parts of the county. I'm going to interpret this question as "what percentage of students identified for AAP are truly gifted" and say about 75%.

Are some only gifted in one subject area? Absolutely, or one "area" such as humanities (would cover LA and history) or STEM. I also see students who are quite weak in one subject compared to their abilities in other subjects. FCPS' current model that requires students be in all AAP classes does these students a disservice.

Do you have many students who are probably there due to parents being pushy? Yes. I would be interested to know which students made it in through the pool and which had private testing done -- and how many times. While I don't think it is the majority, I'm sure it does exist.

2.) Do you see any advantages to making all schools level IV instead? In certain parts of the county, yes. It eliminates the "AAP kids have options others don't and that's not fair" issue and saves money on transportation. Some argue that there is cost involved, particularly offering PD for teachers to earn certification to teach AAP, but these classes have been offered for years. Because these classes already exist through the county, you wouldn't be increasing cost, just shifting who is signing up for them. If anything, it becomes something else required of teachers, but we're used to that. Principals who plan well for this type of programmatic change (see models at Cooper and Franklin, for example) would seek out people who are already interested in teaching these classes, so those teachers would likely enjoy the training and might already be on their way to certification.

3.) What are the disadvantages of making all schools Level IV? Some areas of the county do not have the critical mass numbers needed to provide a peer group for advanced learners. I wholly support keeping the center model where this is the case. Also, some centers who currently pull students from their base schools would lose a number of high-achieving students, so test scores would likely decrease. While I do not believe this is a valid reason for not making schools Level IV, these principals would feel the heat and might argue against de-centering for this reason.

4.) Do you see anything in the AAP program that should be included in budget cuts? Transportation in areas of the county where critical mass can be achieved without pulling from other schools.

[Anonymous]

OP here-thank you for you response. It's really interesting to get your perspective. You bring up things I had never thought about.

Couldn't home schools have AAP teacher assigned to a few grade levels much like special-ed teachers. Sometimes the regular teacher might teach the AAP math group, but when that isn't possible, you have the AAP teacher do it? I find the AART position a total waste and that could be eliminated if you had mostly level IV schools with just a few centers in areas where it is essential.

It seems particularly wasteful to have kids gifted in just one category go to a center school when they can just be grouped with other gifted kids in those subjects at the home school. Those kids can also get the support they need in other subjects I'm not talking about GTLD, but just kids who are average in some areas ad gifted in others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: OP here-thank you for you response. It's really interesting to get your perspective. You bring up things I had never thought about.

Couldn't home schools have AAP teacher assigned to a few grade levels much like special-ed teachers. Sometimes the regular teacher might teach the AAP math group, but when that isn't possible, you have the AAP teacher do it? I find the AART position a total waste and that could be eliminated if you had mostly level IV schools with just a few centers in areas where it is essential.

It seems particularly wasteful to have kids gifted in just one category go to a center school when they can just be grouped with other gifted kids in those subjects at the home school. Those kids can also get the support they need in other subjects I'm not talking about GTLD, but just kids who are average in some areas ad gifted in others.

Really like your ideas here! I also wonder about the AART. I know they are heavily involved in the testing but wonder what else they really provide. As with most things in the county/education, unfortunately, it probably looks very different at different schools and is very much based on who is in that role.

Given the climate surrounding the budget, I think the AAP office staff should really start thinking about better ways to serve our gifted students. It is clear that the current model doesn't work for a large number of stakeholders, so instead of risk the program being chopped, where can it be streamlined to still meet the needs of this population while costing less taxpayer money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: OP here-thank you for you response. It's really interesting to get your perspective. You bring up things I had never thought about.

Couldn't home schools have AAP teacher assigned to a few grade levels much like special-ed teachers. Sometimes the regular teacher might teach the AAP math group, but when that isn't possible, you have the AAP teacher do it? I find the AART position a total waste and that could be eliminated if you had mostly level IV schools with just a few centers in areas where it is essential.

It seems particularly wasteful to have kids gifted in just one category go to a center school when they can just be grouped with other gifted kids in those subjects at the home school. Those kids can also get the support they need in other subjects I'm not talking about GTLD, but just kids who are average in some areas ad gifted in others.

Really like your ideas here! I also wonder about the AART. I know they are heavily involved in the testing but wonder what else they really provide. As with most things in the county/education, unfortunately, it probably looks very different at different schools and is very much based on who is in that role.

Given the climate surrounding the budget, I think the AAP office staff should really start thinking about better ways to serve our gifted students. It is clear that the current model doesn't work for a large number of stakeholders, so instead of risk the program being chopped, where can it be streamlined to still meet the needs of this population while costing less taxpayer money?

AART does almost nothing for the level IV identified kids. They spend huge amounts of time doing the screening of 2nd graders, and also do the pull outs and enrichment for levels I-III. So, they are basically providing all the differentiation in levels I-III. So, they add value outside of screening only if you think level I-III kids need extra services.

[Anonymous]

The AART has been a huge benefit for my Level III student. DC started pullouts in first grade. DC didn't qualify for Level IV AAP at third grade, but had relatively high scores (90%, 120 on Nag; 95% CogAt quantitative). The pullouts provide the high achieving Level III GenEd students access to many of the extensions available in Level IV AAP. I know some complain that the pullouts are not valuable, put DC meets with the AART for one hour, four days a week, in a group of seven Level III students.

[Anonymous]

The AART at our school (with Local Level IV) works with the Young scholars students in K-2, in addition to the pull-outs (as posted by PPs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AART has been a huge benefit for my Level III student. DC started pullouts in first grade. DC didn't qualify for Level IV AAP at third grade, but had relatively high scores (90%, 120 on Nag; 95% CogAt quantitative). The pullouts provide the high achieving Level III GenEd students access to many of the extensions available in Level IV AAP. I know some complain that the pullouts are not valuable, put DC meets with the AART for one hour, four days a week, in a group of seven Level III students.

What schools have pull outs four days a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AART has been a huge benefit for my Level III student. DC started pullouts in first grade. DC didn't qualify for Level IV AAP at third grade, but had relatively high scores (90%, 120 on Nag; 95% CogAt quantitative). The pullouts provide the high achieving Level III GenEd students access to many of the extensions available in Level IV AAP. I know some complain that the pullouts are not valuable, put DC meets with the AART for one hour, four days a week, in a group of seven Level III students.

What schools have pull outs four days a week?

Exactly. We were advised to expect 1 hour per week for Level III had we not gone with the center.

[Anonymous]

In my DD's ES (a center), the AART taught second grade math to all of the children. She asked for that role to help her assemble the GBRS.

It worked for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AART has been a huge benefit for my Level III student. DC started pullouts in first grade. DC didn't qualify for Level IV AAP at third grade, but had relatively high scores (90%, 120 on Nag; 95% CogAt quantitative). The pullouts provide the high achieving Level III GenEd students access to many of the extensions available in Level IV AAP. I know some complain that the pullouts are not valuable, put DC meets with the AART for one hour, four days a week, in a group of seven Level III students.

What schools have pull outs four days a week?

Our base school had pullouts four days a week, but the pullouts differed by subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AART has been a huge benefit for my Level III student. DC started pullouts in first grade. DC didn't qualify for Level IV AAP at third grade, but had relatively high scores (90%, 120 on Nag; 95% CogAt quantitative). The pullouts provide the high achieving Level III GenEd students access to many of the extensions available in Level IV AAP. I know some complain that the pullouts are not valuable, put DC meets with the AART for one hour, four days a week, in a group of seven Level III students.

What schools have pull outs four days a week?

Exactly. We were advised to expect 1 hour per week for Level III had we not gone with the center.

It would depend upon the school as some schools have part-time AARTs and other schools have full-time AARTs.

[Anonymous]

Our base school had one hour a MONTH pull-out. I was relieved when the kid moved to the center.

I do think the first respondent made excellent points. Obviously, base schools like ours need a center to funnel the few level IV kids to, but more affluent parts of the county could easily accommodate GT kids in local level IV classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think the first respondent made excellent points. Obviously, base schools like ours need a center to funnel the few level IV kids to, but more affluent parts of the county could easily accommodate GT kids in local level IV classrooms.

+1

It is my understanding the Budget Task Force is considering such a proposal as part of their recommendation to Dr. Garza.

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand how that proposal won't affect boundary changes. The only one I can think of where perhaps a boundary change isn't needed is Colvin Run/Great Falls because that just involves two schools. The other ones though would have to involve boundary changes and boundary changes cost money. I would be ok with eliminating transportation as long as there was still one bus from the base school to the center, not from each house. I think they'd keep this anyway for SACC. Eliminating transportation hurts working parents more than it does parents who have someone to drive their child to these centers that start so late.