No separate AAP student track in FCPS high schools, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DP. So instead of a two-track system there would be a three-track system of base schools that switch subjects, center schools for Level III kids, and central center schools for the "real" Level IV kids. And that sounds better to you?

How did you get that? For the majority of FCPS schools, the kids would remain at their base schools and take advanced classes by subject, just as they do now for math. Only the exceptionally advanced would attend the center, just like in the old G/T model. The only concession here is for the high FARMS schools that don't have enough advanced kids to offer advanced classes, and thus might need to still send moderately advanced kids to the center.

It really shouldn't be about a label at all. The system should only be concerned with providing an appropriate educational level to each kid in each subject, so no kids are either struggling or are so advanced that they're learning nothing. The only reason centers should exist at all is to group kids who are so advanced that an appropriate class level wouldn't have enough students to support it at the base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. So instead of a two-track system there would be a three-track system of base schools that switch subjects, center schools for Level III kids, and central center schools for the "real" Level IV kids. And that sounds better to you?

How did you get that? For the majority of FCPS schools, the kids would remain at their base schools and take advanced classes by subject, just as they do now for math. Only the exceptionally advanced would attend the center, just like in the old G/T model. The only concession here is for the high FARMS schools that don't have enough advanced kids to offer advanced classes, and thus might need to still send moderately advanced kids to the center.

It really shouldn't be about a label at all. The system should only be concerned with providing an appropriate educational level to each kid in each subject, so no kids are either struggling or are so advanced that they're learning nothing. The only reason centers should exist at all is to group kids who are so advanced that an appropriate class level wouldn't have enough students to support it at the base school.

From my non-McLean-non-high-FARMS perspective, that's how the current system works. But there are many posters on this forum who hate the current system and want to blow it all up, including you. We'll agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
From my non-McLean-non-high-FARMS perspective, that's how the current system works. But there are many posters on this forum who hate the current system and want to blow it all up, including you. We'll agree to disagree.

I'm curious about how it does work at your school. Is it a center school, LLIV, or base? How many kids get into Level IV each year? What services are given to the kids who are Level III?

Our neighborhood school sends 25 kids per year to the center. Most of those kids could have their needs met at the local neighborhood school via subject differentiation. The few who couldn't have their needs met at the local school now can't have them met at the center, either, since it has been so watered down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
From my non-McLean-non-high-FARMS perspective, that's how the current system works. But there are many posters on this forum who hate the current system and want to blow it all up, including you. We'll agree to disagree.

20% of FCPS kids are all such outliers that they need to be shipped to a different school for appropriate differentiation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
From my non-McLean-non-high-FARMS perspective, that's how the current system works. But there are many posters on this forum who hate the current system and want to blow it all up, including you. We'll agree to disagree.

20% of FCPS kids are all such outliers that they need to be shipped to a different school for appropriate differentiation?

So here's the issue that some LLIV schools are having right now with so many kids at the base school who are ahead in instruction. They then make 2-3 classes of advanced instruction in a subject and then the kids who aren't advanced in the subject still feel like they aren't advanced and outnumbered and because it's an arbitrary cutoff based on classroom size, one child could be in an advanced class one year and not in it the next. There's no mechanism to insist they still get advanced instruction other than placement with a certain class and teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no mechanism to insist they still get advanced instruction other than placement with a certain class and teacher.

There's currently no mechanism to insist that advanced gen ed kids get advanced instruction in their areas of strength. A gen ed kid might be significantly stronger in math than the AAP kids in the grade, but if there are no seats available in the AAP math, that really advanced gen ed kid is out of luck. Or if the child attends a base school that doesn't offer advanced math, that child is also out of luck. Why is it so important to ensure that one group of kids must have access to all advanced classes all of the time, yet virtually identical kids aren't guaranteed anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no mechanism to insist they still get advanced instruction other than placement with a certain class and teacher.

There's currently no mechanism to insist that advanced gen ed kids get advanced instruction in their areas of strength. A gen ed kid might be significantly stronger in math than the AAP kids in the grade, but if there are no seats available in the AAP math, that really advanced gen ed kid is out of luck. Or if the child attends a base school that doesn't offer advanced math, that child is also out of luck. Why is it so important to ensure that one group of kids must have access to all advanced classes all of the time, yet virtually identical kids aren't guaranteed anything?

Agreed, however that is the fear that some people have with AAP going away. The focus will be on minimizing the achievement gap with no guarantee for any advanced instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agreed, however that is the fear that some people have with AAP going away. The focus will be on minimizing the achievement gap with no guarantee for any advanced instruction.

Surely advanced instruction can be provided without all of the segregation, elitism, labeling, and busing to different schools, especially when the level of instruction in AAP isn't even that advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agreed, however that is the fear that some people have with AAP going away. The focus will be on minimizing the achievement gap with no guarantee for any advanced instruction.

Surely advanced instruction can be provided without all of the segregation, elitism, labeling, and busing to different schools, especially when the level of instruction in AAP isn't even that advanced.

One would think but it isn't happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical.

That ^^. When my (non-AAP) kid has been in arguments with other neighborhood kids about various factual things, the AAP kids are quick to decide that they must be correct because they're smart and the non-AAP kids aren't. This happens even when the AAP kids are completely wrong. The sad but funny part is that my kid actually had higher test scores and academic achievement than many of the AAP kids in the neighborhood. We didn't apply (with 97th percentile test scores) because we assumed that unless your kid tested in, that kid didn't really belong in AAP. The other parents pushed and prepped their kids in with 90th percentile scores, but now are convinced that their kids are gifted. The whole thing is ridiculous.

+1
We also assumed that AAP really was a gifted program, for kids who were off the charts on test scores - so we didn't bother appealing even though we certainly could have. How wrong we were, when we discovered that the majority of kids in our son's class were admitted to AAP, and the ones who weren't had parents who were appealing. That was definitely a head-scratcher. It was at that point that we started planning our move to a different school district - one which doesn't segregate the student body into two groups of pretty much identical kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

Fortunately, most of this nonsense is significantly reduced in middle school and pretty much ends as the kids get to the part of school that really matters (high school), when the AAP kids lose their label. My DC came out of a middle school that was something like 65-67% AAP students. Based on those stats, you would expect a similar portion of the high school to graduate with honors (over a 4.0 weighted GPA), but it's just not the case. Many AAP kids who are actually average students are not among the top achievers, and plenty of bright "gen ed" kids whose parents didn't file AAP appeals or spend thousands of dollars on educational and IQ testing will. It all evens out and the "gen ed" kids have the same shot as anyone else.

It is easy to get wrapped up in it and bent out of shape, however, when you have one of the "dumb" kids in AAP center ES and they are being insulted by their peers over a couple of IQ points.

Exactly. I blame both FCPS and the parents of the AAP kids who actually believe they're "smarter."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

Fortunately, most of this nonsense is significantly reduced in middle school and pretty much ends as the kids get to the part of school that really matters (high school), when the AAP kids lose their label. My DC came out of a middle school that was something like 65-67% AAP students. Based on those stats, you would expect a similar portion of the high school to graduate with honors (over a 4.0 weighted GPA), but it's just not the case. Many AAP kids who are actually average students are not among the top achievers, and plenty of bright "gen ed" kids whose parents didn't file AAP appeals or spend thousands of dollars on educational and IQ testing will. It all evens out and the "gen ed" kids have the same shot as anyone else.

It is easy to get wrapped up in it and bent out of shape, however, when you have one of the "dumb" kids in AAP center ES and they are being insulted by their peers over a couple of IQ points.

But it doesn't necessarily even out and can be harmful to kids in both groups if they spend their early school years absorbing these smart/dumb messages. Those former AAP kids who are floundering, may be doing so because they've internalized the 'smart' label and can't cope with difficult classes that challenge that label. And the 'dumb' can end up performing below where they could because they've learned not to try. I thought the whole idea from the APP advocates is that the early years DO matter. Can't have it both ways.

This is true too. The labels are so damaging, especially to the "Gen Ed" kids. They absolutely internalize the message that they're "not good enough" for AAP, when most often, nothing is further from the truth. What they don't realize is that AAP isn't harder than Gen Ed - it's the exact same curriculum, simply with more assignments. Our principal even said that any of these kids could do AAP work, and that he felt AAP should simply be the standard curriculum for everyone. I really admired him for saying so, especially to a gathering of parents at a PTA meeting.

[Anonymous]

Some principals, like at my base school, don't like the AAP centers because it makes their SOL scores lower at the base, when they have high test takers taken away.

If your principal thought it was so great, and everyone could do it, he could do it at the local level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

Fortunately, most of this nonsense is significantly reduced in middle school and pretty much ends as the kids get to the part of school that really matters (high school), when the AAP kids lose their label. My DC came out of a middle school that was something like 65-67% AAP students. Based on those stats, you would expect a similar portion of the high school to graduate with honors (over a 4.0 weighted GPA), but it's just not the case. Many AAP kids who are actually average students are not among the top achievers, and plenty of bright "gen ed" kids whose parents didn't file AAP appeals or spend thousands of dollars on educational and IQ testing will. It all evens out and the "gen ed" kids have the same shot as anyone else.

It is easy to get wrapped up in it and bent out of shape, however, when you have one of the "dumb" kids in AAP center ES and they are being insulted by their peers over a couple of IQ points.

But it doesn't necessarily even out and can be harmful to kids in both groups if they spend their early school years absorbing these smart/dumb messages. Those former AAP kids who are floundering, may be doing so because they've internalized the 'smart' label and can't cope with difficult classes that challenge that label. And the 'dumb' can end up performing below where they could because they've learned not to try. I thought the whole idea from the APP advocates is that the early years DO matter. Can't have it both ways.

This is true too. The labels are so damaging, especially to the "Gen Ed" kids. They absolutely internalize the message that they're "not good enough" for AAP, when most often, nothing is further from the truth. What they don't realize is that AAP isn't harder than Gen Ed - it's the exact same curriculum, simply with more assignments. Our principal even said that any of these kids could do AAP work, and that he felt AAP should simply be the standard curriculum for everyone. I really admired him for saying so, especially to a gathering of parents at a PTA meeting.

It can't be the curriculum for everyone. Have you not heard about the achievement gap? Or the high level of ESOL students in the area? There is also growing concern at the elementary level already that academics are moving too fast for their kids. Not everyone wants to devote the time to be "above grade level" or has the ability to be "above grade level" in school. Those kids that want to learn more and can handle it should have the opportunity.

And AAP can be harder than general ed for some students. That's a ridiculous statement to say they are completely the same. They are not. Perhaps more students can handle the AAP curriculum than are offered it, however this argument is about making that group smaller, not larger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some principals, like at my base school, don't like the AAP centers because it makes their SOL scores lower at the base, when they have high test takers taken away.

If your principal thought it was so great, and everyone could do it, he could do it at the local level.

Our LLIV high achieving school mixes kids for half the day offering AAP level classes to all for some subjects and still people complain about not getting into AAP and not getting enough enrichment.