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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

Neither is AAP. Why do some kids have to change schools? Why do some kids get their own AAP class at their base school? Why do some kids have to change classes to AAP just for Math? Why do some not get any true AAP class but a mixture of L4 eligible and L3 high achievers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

That’s the issue. Drop AAP and move to flexible groupings. It works in other school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

DP. It's not used at all, thanks to AAP/GE. Somehow FCPS thinks that splitting the students into two massive groups is the way to address every student's needs. It is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

Neither is AAP. Why do some kids have to change schools? Why do some kids get their own AAP class at their base school? Why do some kids have to change classes to AAP just for Math? Why do some not get any true AAP class but a mixture of L4 eligible and L3 high achievers?

+1
AAP is a mess and the different "L2, L3, L4" labels are just nonsense that means nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

That’s the issue. Drop AAP and move to flexible groupings. It works in other school districts.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

Neither is AAP. Why do some kids have to change schools? Why do some kids get their own AAP class at their base school? Why do some kids have to change classes to AAP just for Math? Why do some not get any true AAP class but a mixture of L4 eligible and L3 high achievers?

+1
AAP is a mess and the different "L2, L3, L4" labels are just nonsense that means nothing.

+1. It is suppose to appease parents so that they think their kid is getting some extra critical thinking exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

Neither is AAP. Why do some kids have to change schools? Why do some kids get their own AAP class at their base school? Why do some kids have to change classes to AAP just for Math? Why do some not get any true AAP class but a mixture of L4 eligible and L3 high achievers?

+1
AAP is a mess and the different "L2, L3, L4" labels are just nonsense that means nothing.

+1. It is suppose to appease parents so that they think their kid is getting some extra critical thinking exercise.

THIS ^^. When my son was in 2nd grade, he was selected for a Socratic Seminar pullout. At first, we were excited and thought how great it was that he was getting "enrichment." It turned out to be just a wasted half hour doing silly worksheets - and he still had to make up the regular class work he had missed. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

PP again - forgot to mention that if there had simply been flexible groupings, he would have benefitted far more from being in the advanced language arts group than this exercise in wasted time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

Neither is AAP. Why do some kids have to change schools? Why do some kids get their own AAP class at their base school? Why do some kids have to change classes to AAP just for Math? Why do some not get any true AAP class but a mixture of L4 eligible and L3 high achievers?

+1
AAP is a mess and the different "L2, L3, L4" labels are just nonsense that means nothing.

Are t those labels the different groups? I.e. differentiation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again - forgot to mention that if there had simply been flexible groupings, he would have benefitted far more from being in the advanced language arts group than this exercise in wasted time.

I don’t think your example has anything to do with flexible groupings I think it has to do with the person that runs the flexible groupings did not do a good job. But your son was in fact, pulled out for a flexible grouping based on his skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.