Longfellow MS AAP overcrowding plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, I hate to tell you this, but "AAP" IS kind of the norm in this area -- much as you might want to avoid it, if your child is at Cooper headed to Langley -- or almost anywhere around here, you're surrounded by very smart, driven, hyper competitive kids and parents. But I guess it will be super relaxed and more positive at Langley as long as there are no "AAP" kids? Phew.

Thanks for the "advice," but I already have two kids at Langley, both very involved in Honors and AP classes and doing great, the (BIG) difference being these classes are open to all. There is no program in high school that is restricted to a certain group. In addition, no one ever asks, cares, or remembers who was in AAP at this point. My kids were not in AAP (then GT), and yet here they are excelling in AP classes. Hmm. Amazing that they, like so many other kids, didn't need AAP at all to be successful in high school.

The reason I and other parents would like our kids' middle school to be an "AAP-free zone," is because our children have already been divided into these (falsely labeled) groups during elementary school. Enough already.

And AAP should never be considered the "norm". I know FCPS likes to tout all the "advanced" students they have in the area, but the fact remains if they would tighten up AAP admittance criteria, they would have far fewer and the program wouldn't be causing the overcrowding we see today.

So basically you think the entire school assignment system should revolve around what suits your particular two children -- and you? They should be able to have a custom designed MS with no one allowed to take any different classes than they are allowed to take? Maybe you could do a better job as a parent supporting them if you weren't so hung up on the AAP issue and still so stuck on insisting that these labels are false, etc. If Langley told you they were no longer going to allow kids who needed AP & honors classes to attend Langley because it falsely labels some kids as "smart" and they want the whole school to be a self-esteem booster for regular kids, would that seem fair to you?

You know, you can spin this any way you want (and clearly, you are trying), but I and others have made the point over and over that if AAP was open TO ALL, it would lose its divisiveness entirely and the labeling would be meaningless. Frankly, it already is as there are so many kids in the program. I'm not sure where you got the bolded statement above, as there are plenty of parents who feel the same way I do. I'm certainly not alone in this. And your final question is ridiculous as AP and honors are open to ALL, not some select group. If children are eager and capable of doing the work, there is no reason an advanced curriculum shouldn't be offered, to anyone in any school.

You're right, it it would lose its divisiveness and the labeling would be meaningless, as would the program itself. Obviously you disagree with or don't understand the basic premise of the program, and refuse to buy into the idea that there might be a sound and even important educational purpose for allowing kids who need this acceleration to be placed together with similarly able peers. I know lots of people don't want to acknowledge its validity, and there's virtually nothing that will convince you otherwise. But thankfully FCPS, at least for now, is still basing its program on sound educational policy and research, and not the preferences of Cooper moms who can't stand to be exposed to an AAP kid.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some kids need acceleration and to be placed together with similarly "gifted" peers. But there's a big difference between "need" and "want," and today's AAP program is filled with too many wannabees. I don't think many people in FCPS would have a problem with a program that helped those truly gifted kids who need it, but the tracking system for kids who have tested or performed well at 8 that it's become today is unacceptable. The fact that the whole school system turns itself upside down for what should be a minority, dividing communities and creating an academic underclass is ridiculous.

It's also worth noting that FCPS specifically does not label any kids AAP. FCPS labels services. Parents label kids. Done right, every school should be able to offer AAP services I-IV. Given the supposedly high concentrations of these special kids, particularly in places like McLean and Vienna, what you probably DON'T need are centers. Offer AAP services at all middle and elementary schools and be done with it.

Nice try with the classic anti-AAP arguments, but again, your personal bias is glaring. We get it, you prefer a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's. Just because you've decided there are wannabes in the program (if so, why didn't you just will/want your child into it?) we should scrap it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, I hate to tell you this, but "AAP" IS kind of the norm in this area -- much as you might want to avoid it, if your child is at Cooper headed to Langley -- or almost anywhere around here, you're surrounded by very smart, driven, hyper competitive kids and parents. But I guess it will be super relaxed and more positive at Langley as long as there are no "AAP" kids? Phew.

Thanks for the "advice," but I already have two kids at Langley, both very involved in Honors and AP classes and doing great, the (BIG) difference being these classes are open to all. There is no program in high school that is restricted to a certain group. In addition, no one ever asks, cares, or remembers who was in AAP at this point. My kids were not in AAP (then GT), and yet here they are excelling in AP classes. Hmm. Amazing that they, like so many other kids, didn't need AAP at all to be successful in high school.

The reason I and other parents would like our kids' middle school to be an "AAP-free zone," is because our children have already been divided into these (falsely labeled) groups during elementary school. Enough already.

And AAP should never be considered the "norm". I know FCPS likes to tout all the "advanced" students they have in the area, but the fact remains if they would tighten up AAP admittance criteria, they would have far fewer and the program wouldn't be causing the overcrowding we see today.

So basically you think the entire school assignment system should revolve around what suits your particular two children -- and you? They should be able to have a custom designed MS with no one allowed to take any different classes than they are allowed to take? Maybe you could do a better job as a parent supporting them if you weren't so hung up on the AAP issue and still so stuck on insisting that these labels are false, etc. If Langley told you they were no longer going to allow kids who needed AP & honors classes to attend Langley because it falsely labels some kids as "smart" and they want the whole school to be a self-esteem booster for regular kids, would that seem fair to you?

You know, you can spin this any way you want (and clearly, you are trying), but I and others have made the point over and over that if AAP was open TO ALL, it would lose its divisiveness entirely and the labeling would be meaningless. Frankly, it already is as there are so many kids in the program. I'm not sure where you got the bolded statement above, as there are plenty of parents who feel the same way I do. I'm certainly not alone in this. And your final question is ridiculous as AP and honors are open to ALL, not some select group. If children are eager and capable of doing the work, there is no reason an advanced curriculum shouldn't be offered, to anyone in any school.

Why is it that AP is open to all students in high school, and it has not been labeled as diluted, but to open enrollment to AAP in elementary school would somehow make the program diluted and meaningless? This is the problem with AAP in elementary and middle school - that only certain groups of student have access to the curriculum. This problem becomes more apparent in middle school, when GE student placement in advanced math classes has not shown any watering down of the math programs. If anything, the math program at Longfellow is running strong despite the placement of GE students in the classes. If they made the AAP program open to students who wanted to take the classes, this problem would be solved.

FCPS should eliminate AAP in middle school. If they need a way to determine whether students are eligible for honors classes, they should treat the rest of the core classes like math. Students would need a pass advance on the 5th or 6th grade corresponding SOL and/or teacher recommendation. Otherwise, open enrollment. These students are all together in high school AP classes, why can't they be together in elementary and middle school AAP?

[Anonymous]

I think plenty of people feel open AP and open honors have diluted the experience.

[Anonymous]

Again, Cluster 1 has adopted AAP curriculum in GE classes this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, Cluster 1 has adopted AAP curriculum in GE classes this year.

This is only half true. I asked our school about this, and I was told the GE teachers have access to the AAP curriculum and can choose to implement it if it fits the needs of the class. I asked how we would ever know whether the teacher chose to use the GE model or the AAP model. I was told we wouldn't know - it is completely at each individual teacher's discretion on whether to use the AAP resources or not. As a GE parent, I'm so annoyed. I'm sure the schools are telling Janine Strauss that they are implementing the AAP curriculum in the GE classes, when in reality they are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, I hate to tell you this, but "AAP" IS kind of the norm in this area -- much as you might want to avoid it, if your child is at Cooper headed to Langley -- or almost anywhere around here, you're surrounded by very smart, driven, hyper competitive kids and parents. But I guess it will be super relaxed and more positive at Langley as long as there are no "AAP" kids? Phew.

Thanks for the "advice," but I already have two kids at Langley, both very involved in Honors and AP classes and doing great, the (BIG) difference being these classes are open to all. There is no program in high school that is restricted to a certain group. In addition, no one ever asks, cares, or remembers who was in AAP at this point. My kids were not in AAP (then GT), and yet here they are excelling in AP classes. Hmm. Amazing that they, like so many other kids, didn't need AAP at all to be successful in high school.

The reason I and other parents would like our kids' middle school to be an "AAP-free zone," is because our children have already been divided into these (falsely labeled) groups during elementary school. Enough already.

And AAP should never be considered the "norm". I know FCPS likes to tout all the "advanced" students they have in the area, but the fact remains if they would tighten up AAP admittance criteria, they would have far fewer and the program wouldn't be causing the overcrowding we see today.

So basically you think the entire school assignment system should revolve around what suits your particular two children -- and you? They should be able to have a custom designed MS with no one allowed to take any different classes than they are allowed to take? Maybe you could do a better job as a parent supporting them if you weren't so hung up on the AAP issue and still so stuck on insisting that these labels are false, etc. If Langley told you they were no longer going to allow kids who needed AP & honors classes to attend Langley because it falsely labels some kids as "smart" and they want the whole school to be a self-esteem booster for regular kids, would that seem fair to you?

You know, you can spin this any way you want (and clearly, you are trying), but I and others have made the point over and over that if AAP was open TO ALL, it would lose its divisiveness entirely and the labeling would be meaningless. Frankly, it already is as there are so many kids in the program. I'm not sure where you got the bolded statement above, as there are plenty of parents who feel the same way I do. I'm certainly not alone in this. And your final question is ridiculous as AP and honors are open to ALL, not some select group. If children are eager and capable of doing the work, there is no reason an advanced curriculum shouldn't be offered, to anyone in any school.

You're right, it it would lose its divisiveness and the labeling would be meaningless, as would the program itself. Obviously you disagree with or don't understand the basic premise of the program, and refuse to buy into the idea that there might be a sound and even important educational purpose for allowing kids who need this acceleration to be placed together with similarly able peers. I know lots of people don't want to acknowledge its validity, and there's virtually nothing that will convince you otherwise. But thankfully FCPS, at least for now, is still basing its program on sound educational policy and research, and not the preferences of Cooper moms who can't stand to be exposed to an AAP kid.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some kids need acceleration and to be placed together with similarly "gifted" peers. But there's a big difference between "need" and "want," and today's AAP program is filled with too many wannabees. I don't think many people in FCPS would have a problem with a program that helped those truly gifted kids who need it, but the tracking system for kids who have tested or performed well at 8 that it's become today is unacceptable. The fact that the whole school system turns itself upside down for what should be a minority, dividing communities and creating an academic underclass is ridiculous.

It's also worth noting that FCPS specifically does not label any kids AAP. FCPS labels services. Parents label kids. Done right, every school should be able to offer AAP services I-IV. Given the supposedly high concentrations of these special kids, particularly in places like McLean and Vienna, what you probably DON'T need are centers. Offer AAP services at all middle and elementary schools and be done with it.

Nice try with the classic anti-AAP arguments, but again, your personal bias is glaring. We get it, you prefer a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's. Just because you've decided there are wannabes in the program (if so, why didn't you just will/want your child into it?) we should scrap it.

Nice try with the nastiness, but you do realize there are several posters on this thread that you seem to be arguing with? I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy of your statements. You prefer that AAP be an exclusive group, not open to all. Isn't this a prime example of prefering "a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is time to what the HS do in MS. Open enrollment for Honors. My children went to Longfellow and there was very little to distinguish between the AAP and Honors classes in terms of curriculum and in terms of caliber of students. It would make classes more uniformly the same size; it would decrease the "us vs them"; it would increase morale.

Couldn't agree more. Actually, Honors classes are already open enrollment, but did you mean open enroll. for AAP as well? If so, I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is time to what the HS do in MS. Open enrollment for Honors. My children went to Longfellow and there was very little to distinguish between the AAP and Honors classes in terms of curriculum and in terms of caliber of students. It would make classes more uniformly the same size; it would decrease the "us vs them"; it would increase morale.

Couldn't agree more. Actually, Honors classes are already open enrollment, but did you mean open enroll. for AAP as well? If so, I agree.

I meant that there would no longer be AAP in MS- but Honors and Gen Ed classes- like in the HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is time to what the HS do in MS. Open enrollment for Honors. My children went to Longfellow and there was very little to distinguish between the AAP and Honors classes in terms of curriculum and in terms of caliber of students. It would make classes more uniformly the same size; it would decrease the "us vs them"; it would increase morale.

Couldn't agree more. Actually, Honors classes are already open enrollment, but did you mean open enroll. for AAP as well? If so, I agree.

I meant that there would no longer be AAP in MS- but Honors and Gen Ed classes- like in the HS.

A student taking four Honors classes in MS (or "full Honors") is receiving Level IV services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, I hate to tell you this, but "AAP" IS kind of the norm in this area -- much as you might want to avoid it, if your child is at Cooper headed to Langley -- or almost anywhere around here, you're surrounded by very smart, driven, hyper competitive kids and parents. But I guess it will be super relaxed and more positive at Langley as long as there are no "AAP" kids? Phew.

Thanks for the "advice," but I already have two kids at Langley, both very involved in Honors and AP classes and doing great, the (BIG) difference being these classes are open to all. There is no program in high school that is restricted to a certain group. In addition, no one ever asks, cares, or remembers who was in AAP at this point. My kids were not in AAP (then GT), and yet here they are excelling in AP classes. Hmm. Amazing that they, like so many other kids, didn't need AAP at all to be successful in high school.

The reason I and other parents would like our kids' middle school to be an "AAP-free zone," is because our children have already been divided into these (falsely labeled) groups during elementary school. Enough already.

And AAP should never be considered the "norm". I know FCPS likes to tout all the "advanced" students they have in the area, but the fact remains if they would tighten up AAP admittance criteria, they would have far fewer and the program wouldn't be causing the overcrowding we see today.

So basically you think the entire school assignment system should revolve around what suits your particular two children -- and you? They should be able to have a custom designed MS with no one allowed to take any different classes than they are allowed to take? Maybe you could do a better job as a parent supporting them if you weren't so hung up on the AAP issue and still so stuck on insisting that these labels are false, etc. If Langley told you they were no longer going to allow kids who needed AP & honors classes to attend Langley because it falsely labels some kids as "smart" and they want the whole school to be a self-esteem booster for regular kids, would that seem fair to you?

You know, you can spin this any way you want (and clearly, you are trying), but I and others have made the point over and over that if AAP was open TO ALL, it would lose its divisiveness entirely and the labeling would be meaningless. Frankly, it already is as there are so many kids in the program. I'm not sure where you got the bolded statement above, as there are plenty of parents who feel the same way I do. I'm certainly not alone in this. And your final question is ridiculous as AP and honors are open to ALL, not some select group. If children are eager and capable of doing the work, there is no reason an advanced curriculum shouldn't be offered, to anyone in any school.

You're right, it it would lose its divisiveness and the labeling would be meaningless, as would the program itself. Obviously you disagree with or don't understand the basic premise of the program, and refuse to buy into the idea that there might be a sound and even important educational purpose for allowing kids who need this acceleration to be placed together with similarly able peers. I know lots of people don't want to acknowledge its validity, and there's virtually nothing that will convince you otherwise. But thankfully FCPS, at least for now, is still basing its program on sound educational policy and research, and not the preferences of Cooper moms who can't stand to be exposed to an AAP kid.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some kids need acceleration and to be placed together with similarly "gifted" peers. But there's a big difference between "need" and "want," and today's AAP program is filled with too many wannabees. I don't think many people in FCPS would have a problem with a program that helped those truly gifted kids who need it, but the tracking system for kids who have tested or performed well at 8 that it's become today is unacceptable. The fact that the whole school system turns itself upside down for what should be a minority, dividing communities and creating an academic underclass is ridiculous.

It's also worth noting that FCPS specifically does not label any kids AAP. FCPS labels services. Parents label kids. Done right, every school should be able to offer AAP services I-IV. Given the supposedly high concentrations of these special kids, particularly in places like McLean and Vienna, what you probably DON'T need are centers. Offer AAP services at all middle and elementary schools and be done with it.

Nice try with the classic anti-AAP arguments, but again, your personal bias is glaring. We get it, you prefer a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's. Just because you've decided there are wannabes in the program (if so, why didn't you just will/want your child into it?) we should scrap it.

Nice try with the nastiness, but you do realize there are several posters on this thread that you seem to be arguing with? I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy of your statements. You prefer that AAP be an exclusive group, not open to all. Isn't this a prime example of prefering "a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's"?

There are several posters you're arguing with too. And no, I don't think my position is inconsistent at all -- I think both our children should be in the program that is educationally appropriate for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There are several posters you're arguing with too. And no, I don't think my position is inconsistent at all -- I think both our children should be in the program that is educationally appropriate for them.

Which comes back to the fact that both of you would apparently be happy if Cooper remained without AAP, and Longfellow were coverted to AAP-only, but that isn't going to play well south of Route 123.

Glad we got that sorted out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is time to what the HS do in MS. Open enrollment for Honors. My children went to Longfellow and there was very little to distinguish between the AAP and Honors classes in terms of curriculum and in terms of caliber of students. It would make classes more uniformly the same size; it would decrease the "us vs them"; it would increase morale.

Couldn't agree more. Actually, Honors classes are already open enrollment, but did you mean open enroll. for AAP as well? If so, I agree.

I meant that there would no longer be AAP in MS- but Honors and Gen Ed classes- like in the HS.

A student taking four Honors classes in MS (or "full Honors") is receiving Level IV services.

Then why not mix the populations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, Cluster 1 has adopted AAP curriculum in GE classes this year.

This is only half true. I asked our school about this, and I was told the GE teachers have access to the AAP curriculum and can choose to implement it if it fits the needs of the class. I asked how we would ever know whether the teacher chose to use the GE model or the AAP model. I was told we wouldn't know - it is completely at each individual teacher's discretion on whether to use the AAP resources or not. As a GE parent, I'm so annoyed. I'm sure the schools are telling Janine Strauss that they are implementing the AAP curriculum in the GE classes, when in reality they are not.

Exactly, and that's unfortunately how I think the whole "bring AAP to all" idea will end up being implemented.

In theory, it's a great idea, but in practice . . . well, that's why grouping/tracking was invented in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are several posters you're arguing with too. And no, I don't think my position is inconsistent at all -- I think both our children should be in the program that is educationally appropriate for them.

Which comes back to the fact that both of you would apparently be happy if Cooper remained without AAP, and Longfellow were coverted to AAP-only, but that isn't going to play well south of Route 123.

Glad we got that sorted out!

Hmm, no I don't think Longfellow should be only AAP -- that's someone else & I think it's crazy talk And actually I think a real center at Cooper is a good idea -- if well planned and the school is given the resources & space it needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, I hate to tell you this, but "AAP" IS kind of the norm in this area -- much as you might want to avoid it, if your child is at Cooper headed to Langley -- or almost anywhere around here, you're surrounded by very smart, driven, hyper competitive kids and parents. But I guess it will be super relaxed and more positive at Langley as long as there are no "AAP" kids? Phew.

Thanks for the "advice," but I already have two kids at Langley, both very involved in Honors and AP classes and doing great, the (BIG) difference being these classes are open to all. There is no program in high school that is restricted to a certain group. In addition, no one ever asks, cares, or remembers who was in AAP at this point. My kids were not in AAP (then GT), and yet here they are excelling in AP classes. Hmm. Amazing that they, like so many other kids, didn't need AAP at all to be successful in high school.

The reason I and other parents would like our kids' middle school to be an "AAP-free zone," is because our children have already been divided into these (falsely labeled) groups during elementary school. Enough already.

And AAP should never be considered the "norm". I know FCPS likes to tout all the "advanced" students they have in the area, but the fact remains if they would tighten up AAP admittance criteria, they would have far fewer and the program wouldn't be causing the overcrowding we see today.

So basically you think the entire school assignment system should revolve around what suits your particular two children -- and you? They should be able to have a custom designed MS with no one allowed to take any different classes than they are allowed to take? Maybe you could do a better job as a parent supporting them if you weren't so hung up on the AAP issue and still so stuck on insisting that these labels are false, etc. If Langley told you they were no longer going to allow kids who needed AP & honors classes to attend Langley because it falsely labels some kids as "smart" and they want the whole school to be a self-esteem booster for regular kids, would that seem fair to you?

You know, you can spin this any way you want (and clearly, you are trying), but I and others have made the point over and over that if AAP was open TO ALL, it would lose its divisiveness entirely and the labeling would be meaningless. Frankly, it already is as there are so many kids in the program. I'm not sure where you got the bolded statement above, as there are plenty of parents who feel the same way I do. I'm certainly not alone in this. And your final question is ridiculous as AP and honors are open to ALL, not some select group. If children are eager and capable of doing the work, there is no reason an advanced curriculum shouldn't be offered, to anyone in any school.

You're right, it it would lose its divisiveness and the labeling would be meaningless, as would the program itself. Obviously you disagree with or don't understand the basic premise of the program, and refuse to buy into the idea that there might be a sound and even important educational purpose for allowing kids who need this acceleration to be placed together with similarly able peers. I know lots of people don't want to acknowledge its validity, and there's virtually nothing that will convince you otherwise. But thankfully FCPS, at least for now, is still basing its program on sound educational policy and research, and not the preferences of Cooper moms who can't stand to be exposed to an AAP kid.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some kids need acceleration and to be placed together with similarly "gifted" peers. But there's a big difference between "need" and "want," and today's AAP program is filled with too many wannabees. I don't think many people in FCPS would have a problem with a program that helped those truly gifted kids who need it, but the tracking system for kids who have tested or performed well at 8 that it's become today is unacceptable. The fact that the whole school system turns itself upside down for what should be a minority, dividing communities and creating an academic underclass is ridiculous.

It's also worth noting that FCPS specifically does not label any kids AAP. FCPS labels services. Parents label kids. Done right, every school should be able to offer AAP services I-IV. Given the supposedly high concentrations of these special kids, particularly in places like McLean and Vienna, what you probably DON'T need are centers. Offer AAP services at all middle and elementary schools and be done with it.

Nice try with the classic anti-AAP arguments, but again, your personal bias is glaring. We get it, you prefer a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's. Just because you've decided there are wannabes in the program (if so, why didn't you just will/want your child into it?) we should scrap it.

Nice try with the nastiness, but you do realize there are several posters on this thread that you seem to be arguing with? I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy of your statements. You prefer that AAP be an exclusive group, not open to all. Isn't this a prime example of prefering "a system which suits your child's needs, not anyone else's"?

There are several posters you're arguing with too. And no, I don't think my position is inconsistent at all -- I think both our children should be in the program that is educationally appropriate for them.

You mean, deemed appropriate by you. And apparently, FCPS. When the reality is, most Gen. Ed. kids could do AAP work without any trouble, were they only given the opportunity.