The entire AAP program should be eliminated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

If your argument is advanced/gifted students should be kept in gen ed to help the gen ed kids you have a terrible argument.
I do not think it is “incredibly indulgent” to offer advanced classes for advanced students. Shouldn’t every kid get to actually learn? And not just be help for other kids or left on their own?

Yes. But Gen Ed kids don't get to take advanced tracking courses. Why shouldn't a disadvantaged kid who is great at math and science be denied exposure to higher level content? Why exclude?

How does getting rid of AAP get your disadvantaged kid who is great and math and science exposure to higher content?
How does getting rid of AAP allow access to whatever advanced tracking courses to gen ed? There either won’t be any more adv track or it will fill with the kids who would have been in AAP.

I don’t think the existing system is perfect but better to keep it and improve it than ditch it completely. Make LIII more robust and consistent. Make it ao kids don’t retain LIV permanently, etc.

There will be whatever they create. How about

AAP Math
AAP Science
AAP Language Arts?

Reminds me of this stuff in high school called AP courses. It's a class by class basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

If your argument is advanced/gifted students should be kept in gen ed to help the gen ed kids you have a terrible argument.
I do not think it is “incredibly indulgent” to offer advanced classes for advanced students. Shouldn’t every kid get to actually learn? And not just be help for other kids or left on their own?

Yes. But Gen Ed kids don't get to take advanced tracking courses. Why shouldn't a disadvantaged kid who is great at math and science be denied exposure to higher level content? Why exclude?

How does getting rid of AAP get your disadvantaged kid who is great and math and science exposure to higher content?
How does getting rid of AAP allow access to whatever advanced tracking courses to gen ed? There either won’t be any more adv track or it will fill with the kids who would have been in AAP.

I don’t think the existing system is perfect but better to keep it and improve it than ditch it completely. Make LIII more robust and consistent. Make it ao kids don’t retain LIV permanently, etc.

There will be whatever they create. How about

AAP Math
AAP Science
AAP Language Arts?

Reminds me of this stuff in high school called AP courses. It's a class by class basis.

We're talking about elementary school here. These are still little kids.

This is all parent drama and not what kids need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the posters calling the charter school PP a troll - my kids are in an online charter school in VA and the curriculum is far superior to FCPS AAP. Much deeper math instruction, actual grammar and punctuation, much better science and social studies.

General Ed will provide more depth as they rush through everything in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s private school on the public’s dime. And then those parents have the gall to pretend they support public school.

Er, no, that's not what it is at all.

Do you know anything about private school?

Oh public gifted magnets, for that matter. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should be changed so it's not pay to play anymore where the elitist moms of not so special kids can buy their way in bringing the teacher cupcakes, test prep courses, appeals, principal placement, etc. It's all very unfair to other kids who deserve those spots but don't have mammies working the system.

I think the solution is leveled classes based on ability year to year. If you can't keep up, you drop down a level. If it's too easy, you move up. Without having to obtain admission to an elitist program.

I agree with most of this, except the part about appeals. I hear people say this all the time but the few people I know who got into AAP on appeal are very smart--easily top quarter in their AAP class. At least for my 6th grader's class, the standard way to appeal was to get a WISC and a WISC is going to be so much more accurate than the group tests administered at school. It catches a lot of the ADHD kids who just can't focus in a group test. It is unfortunate that wealthy/UMC parents will have more access, but it does not mean these people do not belong in AAP.

Personally, I think just shrinking it down and making it much harder to get in it the answer. Then increase the opportunities for differentiation in the classroom. People would not be fussed about being in gen ed if AAP only included the top 5%.

[Anonymous]

I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

I don't know that McAuliffe will get rid of the GT mandate.

But FCPS has already set in place the end of center schools by rolling out local level IV in every elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

I don't know that McAuliffe will get rid of the GT mandate.

But FCPS has already set in place the end of center schools by rolling out local level IV in every elementary school.

Can you explain more about that? Our base school has not historically had level IV but they’re offering it starting next year. Is every school offering it starting next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

I don't know that McAuliffe will get rid of the GT mandate.

But FCPS has already set in place the end of center schools by rolling out local level IV in every elementary school.

Can you explain more about that? Our base school has not historically had level IV but they’re offering it starting next year. Is every school offering it starting next year?

A year ago, they started a 3 year roll out of local level IV in every elementary school. After next school year, every elementary school will have local level IV. They've made no announcement about center schools or redistricting. It'll probably take a couple more years to shake out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

I don't know that McAuliffe will get rid of the GT mandate.

But FCPS has already set in place the end of center schools by rolling out local level IV in every elementary school.

They should because center schools have higher test scores and it’s misleading when people are investigating which schools to sent their kids. Of course a center will look better on paper than a non-center.
An example is McNair Upper, the worst administration you could possibly expect and on paper the school looks good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

I don't know that McAuliffe will get rid of the GT mandate.

But FCPS has already set in place the end of center schools by rolling out local level IV in every elementary school.

Can you explain more about that? Our base school has not historically had level IV but they’re offering it starting next year. Is every school offering it starting next year?

A year ago, they started a 3 year roll out of local level IV in every elementary school. After next school year, every elementary school will have local level IV. They've made no announcement about center schools or redistricting. It'll probably take a couple more years to shake out.

I think it is a good thing. The Centers are not needed and are misused by families who want to leave the school that they moved into. If every school has LLIV, then the LIV kids have a classroom where their needs are met. We reduce bussing costs and increase access to kids at their schools.

I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of a few Centers for the truly gifted, kids who are in the 1%. Kids who are deemed advanced by their Teachers can be given a WiSC and if they are ahead and their test scores are high enough, move to a Gifted and Talented center. But it should only be for kids who are ahead in class and gifted. Maybe one program per pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the AAP will be eliminated anyway if McAuliffe wins?

I don't know that McAuliffe will get rid of the GT mandate.

But FCPS has already set in place the end of center schools by rolling out local level IV in every elementary school.

Can you explain more about that? Our base school has not historically had level IV but they’re offering it starting next year. Is every school offering it starting next year?

A year ago, they started a 3 year roll out of local level IV in every elementary school. After next school year, every elementary school will have local level IV. They've made no announcement about center schools or redistricting. It'll probably take a couple more years to shake out.

I think it is a good thing. The Centers are not needed and are misused by families who want to leave the school that they moved into. If every school has LLIV, then the LIV kids have a classroom where their needs are met. We reduce bussing costs and increase access to kids at their schools.

I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of a few Centers for the truly gifted, kids who are in the 1%. Kids who are deemed advanced by their Teachers can be given a WiSC and if they are ahead and their test scores are high enough, move to a Gifted and Talented center. But it should only be for kids who are ahead in class and gifted. Maybe one program per pyramid.

Like the Montgomery County system, where a few gifted kids have a great gifted program with very long bus rides and the other gifted kids don't. Except now, as a bonus, every elementary school also gets the politics and in-fighting of a "smart" class, and without support from a team of teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is classist, racist, and inequitable.

We need to follow NYC’s lead and get rid of AAP:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1006426.page

I’m sorry your kid didn’t get in. Maybe next year?

[Anonymous]

I might support getting rid of AAP if and when we get rid of Ms and HS sports team that don’t treat everyone (and play), everyone the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I might support getting rid of AAP if and when we get rid of Ms and HS sports team that don’t treat everyone (and play), everyone the same.

I agree with you. Let’s eliminate sports teams first and then AAP.