AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Go away. You’re gross.

No. Elementary school and Middle school curriculums are being held hostage by admins who do nothing but cater to poor behaving kids and kids who clearly need remedial support in a separate learning environment. The average kid suffers while AAP allows an escape for a lucky few. At least some kids are getting normal education. Not everyone goes to a low FARMs school in McLean or Oakton.

The real solution is principals need to step up. AAP classrooms aren't immune from poor behaving kids. My kid has a kid who can be disruptive in their class, but they get removed from the class and sent home for the rest of the day when it occurs; which sounds completely appropriate to me.

[Anonymous]

Lemon road parents showing their true colors!

[Anonymous]

Also a critical quote:

“When we first opened centers, it was a small number of students, but over the last 20-30 years the number of students found eligible has increased significantly, so the need for bussing them has increased.“

[Anonymous]

I teach AAP and we have difficult kids in our classes who make things unpleasant for us teachers as well as our students. I wish we could kick them out but they go to the office for a brief period then are sent back to keep being disruptive in class. Makes it hard to teach and meet everyone’s needs, and sometimes I question why I am doing this. AAP is not immune to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

The difference is that most kids are not advanced across the board. Allowing them to take the appropriate level for each core class would mean there would be kids in some advanced, some grade-level, and some remedial groups. My own kids were highly advanced in language arts, but needed a lot of help in math. I find it very interesting that AAP kids don't have to be advanced across the board - yet they're all labeled as "AAP," even so. Flexible groupings would remove the fixed label - for everyone.

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

Sorry, we changed classes like this (groupings by strength by subject) when I was in elementary school - in 1985! It’s not new; it certainly could be done, and it would challenge the “2E” kids who aren’t level 4.

[Anonymous]

The current system harms the kids in the upper ranges: the top kids in Gen Ed classes that teach to the bottom, who are told to go online while the teacher has to help the stragglers, and the true GT, who can’t advance because of the bottom AAP kids. The metrics to get into AAP should be a firm test score, eliminate all subjectivity. I’ve seen this in two other school districts and it worked great, where it was truly GT. We also had to drive our kid, sometimes a great distance, but no parents complained because they were true GT and needed to be in these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

The difference is that most kids are not advanced across the board. Allowing them to take the appropriate level for each core class would mean there would be kids in some advanced, some grade-level, and some remedial groups. My own kids were highly advanced in language arts, but needed a lot of help in math. I find it very interesting that AAP kids don't have to be advanced across the board - yet they're all labeled as "AAP," even so. Flexible groupings would remove the fixed label - for everyone.

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

Sorry, we changed classes like this (groupings by strength by subject) when I was in elementary school - in 1985! It’s not new; it certainly could be done, and it would challenge the “2E” kids who aren’t level 4.

Maybe you didn’t get the memo that quite a few things have changed in 40 years.

[Anonymous]

But fLeXiBLe GrOUPinGs

[Anonymous]

Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

+1
Centers are redundant and a huge waste.

But centers are figuring out how to use benchmark with novels. My aap center kid has read at least five full books this year in addition to benchmark.

Exactly. With a capable cohort you can go far beyond the basic required curriculum.

This is incredibly accurate. In 2017, 2019, and 2022, I had amazing groups and we went well beyond the curriculum. In 2023, we couldn’t even complete the curriculum with the AAP class I had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system harms the kids in the upper ranges: the top kids in Gen Ed classes that teach to the bottom, who are told to go online while the teacher has to help the stragglers, and the true GT, who can’t advance because of the bottom AAP kids. The metrics to get into AAP should be a firm test score, eliminate all subjectivity. I’ve seen this in two other school districts and it worked great, where it was truly GT. We also had to drive our kid, sometimes a great distance, but no parents complained because they were true GT and needed to be in these programs.

Amazing that you expect the teacher is teaching to the bottom.

You do know that good teachers differentiate?

Even in a true GT class, you will have a span. But, this current AAP is just silly. Too many get in by protest.

And, third grade is way too early to separate out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

Based on what science? We don’t test students with special education needs every year? Cognitive ability shouldn’t fluctuate that much unless there was something like a language barrier or traumatic event that occurred at the first assessment and would have depressed the scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

Based on what science? We don’t test students with special education needs every year? Cognitive ability shouldn’t fluctuate that much unless there was something like a language barrier or traumatic event that occurred at the first assessment and would have depressed the scores.

There’s no reason to test them, because they’re not gifted. 20-25% of the FCPS elementary population is in AAP. But if they’re getting ones and twos on their report card, then somebody should question if it’s the correct placement for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.