Is FCPS ending advance math for students who are not in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Putting all the so-called advanced kids and EVERYONE else together is what is inequitable. AAP is the OPPOSITE of equity. It's catering to rich white and asian families and is disgusting.

+100
Flexible groupings would see kids mixed in ways they are not currently. The "advanced" LA group might not all be in the "advanced" math group (or science, social studies). This monolithic "AAP" group is full of kids who aren't advanced across the board. Just as GE is full of bright kids who ARE advanced in certain subjects, but not all. The current system is ridiculous.

I agree. I went to school in FCPS about a zillion years ago; advanced classes didn't start until the 5th- 6th grade, and then we were grouped for math and language arts according to where you performed on the yearly, not monthly, aptitude test. I was reading at an 11th-grade level in the 4th grade, but I failed at math when it meant having to sit down every day and do the work. It's not my jam at all, but I still scored above the 95th percentile for state-wide students in math, so I was in advanced math and language arts for the rest of 5-6th. If someone had tested me in the second grade and assigned me at that point, it would have been over because I could barely read in the 2nd grade.

I got lots of C's in math and A's in language arts; I was perfectly pleased with my C and ecstatic for a B. Some things I picked up quickly, and other things I didn't, no one had to slow down a class so that I could catch up. I got a C, and other kids got an A. And it meant that after elementary I continued on the college prep track. This meant I was getting exposure to the more complex subject matter, even if I didn't master it, which meant that I could pass the minimum math requirement when I did go off to college; I wasn't being tracked to community college or beauty school right out of the gate starting in 2nd grade.

What they are doing now makes no sense. I have a DS who couldn't sit still in 2nd but scores advanced pass for every single Language Arts SOL he's had put in front of him since then; he's a better math student than I ever was, not gifted, but he loves science, language arts, history, social studies, anything that involves reading. He has the closest thing to a photographic memory I've seen in a kid, which isn't just a party trick. It means he has a lot of facts flying around in his head, is chomping at the bit to learn more, is capable of higher-order thinking, and is desperate for opportunities where he can relate what he knows to what he's learning. But there is no place for that in GenEd, which is fine. A school can't be everything for everyone, but it seems to be a waste when a kid like that sits on ice for 8 hours a day.

I have a teacher friend who teaches AAP math in FCPS, and as she put it, they move so fast that almost no one in the class can keep up, and those who do are learning the concepts at a surface level only. There isn't enough time to teach the required materials in the time they have because the majority of the students aren't capable of achieving the level they would need to in order to keep up with the pace. So, most of her kids are doing outside tutoring, Mathnasium, Kumon etc., to keep up, while others, who are more capable, are doing outside enrichment to fill in the gaps so they can learn what they need to know to stay ahead. Oh, and she mentioned they are all very into Dogman and other graphic novels, but even the most basic young reader literature available. Meanwhile, many kids are in GenEd and can keep up but are bored to tears because it all moves too slowly and isn't challenging enough.

So, what exactly are they accomplishing? I figured out maybe a little too late that my DS wouldn't get the education I received because it isn't being offered to anyone. So now I spend money to have DS work twice weekly with a retired school teacher. My request was that she challenge him, teach him to write in cursive, and give him opportunities to think, allow discussion, write, identify, and also help to fill in the gaps. It's not enough because 2 hours a week doesn't make up for a full-time but fundamentally weak elementary education, but it's something.

Wow, I could have written much of this! My super bright, articulate, language-loving son was reading all of the Brian Jacques "Redwall" novels, starting in the 2nd and 3rd grades. He absolutely loved reading and was so far ahead of his classmates, who were still reading the Jack and Annie books. However, he was not placed in AAP. Why? Because his math was at grade level. Apparently, being advanced in language arts isn't enough to place you in AAP - you also have to be advanced in math. But it's ok if you're still reading Magic Tree House books.

If there had been flexible groupings, he would have been in the advanced groups for LA, science, and social studies, and on-grade level for math. The current AAP/GE or bust is a ridiculous way to group kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

And it worked. I learned early on that I was great at some things and not so great at others. If I wanted to improve, I needed extra help or practice but had to accept that there were limitations. It's such an important lesson in self awareness. And if a kid had internal motivation, which doesn't come from the parents, they will rise to the top.

[Anonymous]

Flexible groups is the best solution for differentiating.

So why do we have AAP? So rich people can avoid the poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

And it worked. I learned early on that I was great at some things and not so great at others. If I wanted to improve, I needed extra help or practice but had to accept that there were limitations. It's such an important lesson in self awareness. And if a kid had internal motivation, which doesn't come from the parents, they will rise to the top.

+1
I can't even imagine anyone claiming flexible grouping is "inequitable" - it's the very epitome of equity. Meeting every student where they are, and allowing for improvement (or remediation) as needed. AAP is the definition of INequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

And it worked. I learned early on that I was great at some things and not so great at others. If I wanted to improve, I needed extra help or practice but had to accept that there were limitations. It's such an important lesson in self awareness. And if a kid had internal motivation, which doesn't come from the parents, they will rise to the top.

+1
I can't even imagine anyone claiming flexible grouping is "inequitable" - it's the very epitome of equity. Meeting every student where they are, and allowing for improvement (or remediation) as needed. AAP is the definition of INequitable.

There are FCPS-hating trolls who spew nonsense just to stir the pot. It wasn’t a sincere comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

And it worked. I learned early on that I was great at some things and not so great at others. If I wanted to improve, I needed extra help or practice but had to accept that there were limitations. It's such an important lesson in self awareness. And if a kid had internal motivation, which doesn't come from the parents, they will rise to the top.

+1
I can't even imagine anyone claiming flexible grouping is "inequitable" - it's the very epitome of equity. Meeting every student where they are, and allowing for improvement (or remediation) as needed. AAP is the definition of INequitable.

They thinking inequitable because some childrens getting more advance materials.

[Anonymous]

If AAP is primarily for advanced Math (I've been happy with it for two of my kids... oldest was able to do Algebra in 7th grade as a result), then they should RELY PRIMARILY ON THE NNAT AND COGAT SCORES.

THese idiots through their social engineering have shot themselves in the foot. Teachers having such input will primarily end up with teacher-pleasing students - often those most articulate and probably who excel at communication and language, leapfrogging kids with high IQs who can handle and would benefit from math. It's like having an advanced race driving course and selecting people based on how well they can parallel park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If AAP is primarily for advanced Math (I've been happy with it for two of my kids... oldest was able to do Algebra in 7th grade as a result), then they should RELY PRIMARILY ON THE NNAT AND COGAT SCORES.

THese idiots through their social engineering have shot themselves in the foot. Teachers having such input will primarily end up with teacher-pleasing students - often those most articulate and probably who excel at communication and language, leapfrogging kids with high IQs who can handle and would benefit from math. It's like having an advanced race driving course and selecting people based on how well they can parallel park.

My kid was above average but not advanced on NNATS and COGATS, got into advanced math as a GE student and has had nothing but As in math through high school. Some kids are just hard workers and know how to study. Excluding them in favor of brighter kids who have no idea how to actually study makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

And it worked. I learned early on that I was great at some things and not so great at others. If I wanted to improve, I needed extra help or practice but had to accept that there were limitations. It's such an important lesson in self awareness. And if a kid had internal motivation, which doesn't come from the parents, they will rise to the top.

+1
I can't even imagine anyone claiming flexible grouping is "inequitable" - it's the very epitome of equity. Meeting every student where they are, and allowing for improvement (or remediation) as needed. AAP is the definition of INequitable.

There are FCPS-hating trolls who spew nonsense just to stir the pot. It wasn’t a sincere comment.

PP. I am quite sincere. And it's not nonsense. Historically, education pedagogy tends to develop on a pendulum. Learned that in my education theory class for teaching. We may be experiencing the far end of a swing and go back the other direction. Like a recession or housing bubble, you can't really know until after it has begun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC told me that their teacher informed them there will be no Advanced math from 2024 onwards. Any FCPS staff here, is it correct?

No I am pretty sure this is old news and DCUM blew the whistle on it and they backtracked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

And it worked. I learned early on that I was great at some things and not so great at others. If I wanted to improve, I needed extra help or practice but had to accept that there were limitations. It's such an important lesson in self awareness. And if a kid had internal motivation, which doesn't come from the parents, they will rise to the top.

+1
I can't even imagine anyone claiming flexible grouping is "inequitable" - it's the very epitome of equity. Meeting every student where they are, and allowing for improvement (or remediation) as needed. AAP is the definition of INequitable.

There are FCPS-hating trolls who spew nonsense just to stir the pot. It wasn’t a sincere comment.

PP. I am quite sincere. And it's not nonsense. Historically, education pedagogy tends to develop on a pendulum. Learned that in my education theory class for teaching. We may be experiencing the far end of a swing and go back the other direction. Like a recession or housing bubble, you can't really know until after it has begun.

What century was that?

[Anonymous]

It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

[Anonymous]

All I know is that I received an excellent education from FCPS in the 1980s, when flexible grouping was done and the GT program was tiny and extremely selective (I was not in it).

The education my own kids have been getting over the last couple of decades at FCPS bears no resemblance to the common sense approach I grew up with. What a shame that the absurd and bloated AAP has served mainly to divide kids rather than making sure ALL kids have an appropriate group to join for all core classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I know is that I received an excellent education from FCPS in the 1980s, when flexible grouping was done and the GT program was tiny and extremely selective (I was not in it).

The education my own kids have been getting over the last couple of decades at FCPS bears no resemblance to the common sense approach I grew up with. What a shame that the absurd and bloated AAP has served mainly to divide kids rather than making sure ALL kids have an appropriate group to join for all core classes.

I agree with you on flexible grouping. However, I think the AAP program is important and should be expanded to all kids that can handle it. There are a lot of kids that didn't test in but would do well. Some kids just don't test well on that day or don't realize the importance of the test. Others are just hard workers. I wouldn't have sent my kids to FCPS, if there was not an AAP program. The general classroom moves so slowly, my kids would have been bored out of their minds. A lot of people would abandon public school. With kids now at a FCPS high school that focuses on equity grading with diluted academics (thanks Reid and Principal Calvert), I wish we had left for private during Covid and never looked back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.