Cluster Model for AAP

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the point of the Cluster Model for Local Level IV. How is spreading out the Level IV kids into different classes meeting their needs? Then the teacher has a wide variety of levels to teach to. Why is this done?

[Anonymous]

Baby steps…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the point of the Cluster Model for Local Level IV. How is spreading out the Level IV kids into different classes meeting their needs? Then the teacher has a wide variety of levels to teach to. Why is this done?

It's basically thwarting the intent of AAP and burdening the teachers. Schools that do this don't really buy into AAP.

[Anonymous]

There are some in the adminstration (Gatehouse) who are actively opposed to AAP. Garza was supportive of it and didn't allow any changes to the program. The next superintendent was indifferent and the newest superintendent acts indifferent and is probably not in favor it so has permitted lots of changes to the program. The school board does not care about AAP one way or the other - no one has run on keeping it or dismantling it.

So here we are. If parents like the changes in admissions and the cluster model, they should tell their principal and the superintendent and their school board member. If parents dislike the cluster model, they should tell the superintendent and the school board. Otherwise everyone will think the changes are good.

[Anonymous]

Some of the cluster model schools still switch classrooms for math and language arts instruction. This way, they still get dedicated AAP instruction in the major content areas, but are intermixed with gen ed for homeroom, specials, lunch, recess, and the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some in the adminstration (Gatehouse) who are actively opposed to AAP. Garza was supportive of it and didn't allow any changes to the program. The next superintendent was indifferent and the newest superintendent acts indifferent and is probably not in favor it so has permitted lots of changes to the program. The school board does not care about AAP one way or the other - no one has run on keeping it or dismantling it.

So here we are. If parents like the changes in admissions and the cluster model, they should tell their principal and the superintendent and their school board member. If parents dislike the cluster model, they should tell the superintendent and the school board. Otherwise everyone will think the changes are good.

Do they really listen to parents?

[Anonymous]

At many schools there is not a "wide variety of levels." The kids are pretty cookie cutter. It's just that some prepped, and appealed, and got into AAP.

[Anonymous]

I was shocked to hear this was allowed as it’s very different from what Level IV is supposed to be. I agree that Gatehouse has many who want to dismantle AAP and that FCPS will continue to allow all sorts of things to kill it unless parents make a point of expressing support for AAP. All of Reid’s efforts focus on the lower end of academic achievement and things like absenteeism. Some school board members occasionally talk about rigor and learning for all kids but no one invests in that like they do special education or LGBTQ issues.

[Anonymous]

Our school teaches everyone the AAP curriculum (all schools should do this) and kids switch for advanced math. It works out really well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our school teaches everyone the AAP curriculum (all schools should do this) and kids switch for advanced math. It works out really well.

All schools should not do this. The AAP curriculum with fidelity is not appropriate for many students. You may not be aware that some of your DC's peers are struggling and may be unaware that in some schools, many students are struggling. But that doesn't mean that schools should increase the number of students who are struggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the cluster model schools still switch classrooms for math and language arts instruction. This way, they still get dedicated AAP instruction in the major content areas, but are intermixed with gen ed for homeroom, specials, lunch, recess, and the rest.

This is what my kids’ school does now, but it seems like there will be some changes next year that will be discussed at the level 4 orientation. I would prefer there be a dedicated level 4 classroom, but the changing-classes arrangement has been fine so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to hear this was allowed as it’s very different from what Level IV is supposed to be. I agree that Gatehouse has many who want to dismantle AAP and that FCPS will continue to allow all sorts of things to kill it unless parents make a point of expressing support for AAP. All of Reid’s efforts focus on the lower end of academic achievement and things like absenteeism. Some school board members occasionally talk about rigor and learning for all kids but no one invests in that like they do special education or LGBTQ issues.

Gatehouse wants to get rid of AAP because they believe AAP is incompatible with their idea of “equity,” as in:

- their first priority is equity, diversity, and inclusion. Not academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some in the adminstration (Gatehouse) who are actively opposed to AAP. Garza was supportive of it and didn't allow any changes to the program. The next superintendent was indifferent and the newest superintendent acts indifferent and is probably not in favor it so has permitted lots of changes to the program. The school board does not care about AAP one way or the other - no one has run on keeping it or dismantling it.

So here we are. If parents like the changes in admissions and the cluster model, they should tell their principal and the superintendent and their school board member. If parents dislike the cluster model, they should tell the superintendent and the school board. Otherwise everyone will think the changes are good.

Do they really listen to parents?

Yes they do, but only when parents speak up. Grumbling here or elsewhere online does nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to hear this was allowed as it’s very different from what Level IV is supposed to be. I agree that Gatehouse has many who want to dismantle AAP and that FCPS will continue to allow all sorts of things to kill it unless parents make a point of expressing support for AAP. All of Reid’s efforts focus on the lower end of academic achievement and things like absenteeism. Some school board members occasionally talk about rigor and learning for all kids but no one invests in that like they do special education or LGBTQ issues.

Gatehouse wants to get rid of AAP because they believe AAP is incompatible with their idea of “equity,” as in:

- their first priority is equity, diversity, and inclusion. Not academics.

Talking about Equity and making token changes in the name of Equity, pleases the voting base. Making AAP more advanced earns what? Most of people complaining here don't even bother to vote in school board elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school teaches everyone the AAP curriculum (all schools should do this) and kids switch for advanced math. It works out really well.

All schools should not do this. The AAP curriculum with fidelity is not appropriate for many students. You may not be aware that some of your DC's peers are struggling and may be unaware that in some schools, many students are struggling. But that doesn't mean that schools should increase the number of students who are struggling.

I read this as: My child is special and deserves a special curriculum that your child should not have access to.

I've had a child go through the AAP curriculum, it's not as complex as you seem to think.