AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

So what about the schools that have to use the cluster model, because I agree, it sucks. I taught it one year and one year only because it was the worst. Not every school can have a dedicated class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

Was he black or Hispanic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

So what about the schools that have to use the cluster model, because I agree, it sucks. I taught it one year and one year only because it was the worst. Not every school can have a dedicated class.

This. There are some schools that are currently meeting these needs (maybe). There are a lot that are not.

Make local programs effective and uniform and then maybe you'll see interest in centers decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

So what about the schools that have to use the cluster model, because I agree, it sucks. I taught it one year and one year only because it was the worst. Not every school can have a dedicated class.

Our school uses the cluster method and supposedly they give everyone the same full time AAP curriculum with advanced math. It's really easy to do now with Benchmark and updated math pacing guides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any school with local level IV AAP should not send students to a center. Elementary schools without enough children for a particular grade can give parents the option of sending their kids to the next closest elementary school (assigned by administration) with local level IV AAP (that is also zoned for their base middle school). All middle schools should have level IV AAP.

Great Falls Elementary has a local level IV AAP program with enough kids to make classes at all grades. 40-50 kids a year are bussed from Great Falls (high SES zoned for Cooper/Langley) to the center school Colvin Run (high SES school zoned for Cooper/Langley). Colvin Run’s AAP Program only pulls students from Great Falls (no other elementary schools). There are multiple busses driving these kids from their homes in the Great Falls Elementary boundary to Colvin Run. One bus only has 8-9 students on it!

Yet the quote from Superintendent Reid said they need to calibrate the LLIV programs so they are the same as the center schools. Seems like a flat out admission that they do not provide the same caliber of education. Ritzy Great Falls aside, why would parents from lesser ES (think Title I or nearly so) want their AAP students to be stuck in a cluster where they don't receive the same curriculum, don't have a sufficient peer group in the class, or, worse, are the teacher's aides for the rest of ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Go away. You’re gross.

No. Elementary school and Middle school curriculums are being held hostage by admins who do nothing but cater to poor behaving kids and kids who clearly need remedial support in a separate learning environment. The average kid suffers while AAP allows an escape for a lucky few. At least some kids are getting normal education. Not everyone goes to a low FARMs school in McLean or Oakton.

+1

We left our local school to an AAP largely due to undisciplined kids that the poor school couldn't control. The school administration's hands were tied. Little 'Trenton the Terror' had to be in class with the other kids and disrupt class on a near daily basis. Assaulting the other kids, outbursts, cussing, flipping desks, crying, requiring significant time and resources of the teacher and the teacher's aid; all those issues occurred daily. Now my kid talks about how hard the math is and what she learned in school vs what 'Trenton the Terror' did in class today.

Maybe you should pay for a better neighborhood it's not our fault you cheaped out and are scamming tax dollars

DP, but why should families who can't afford high SES neighborhoods have disruptive kids running wild in their schools' classrooms? Maybe discipline is the answer, as least to the peer group issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school with local level IV AAP should not send students to a center. Elementary schools without enough children for a particular grade can give parents the option of sending their kids to the next closest elementary school (assigned by administration) with local level IV AAP (that is also zoned for their base middle school). All middle schools should have level IV AAP.

Great Falls Elementary has a local level IV AAP program with enough kids to make classes at all grades. 40-50 kids a year are bussed from Great Falls (high SES zoned for Cooper/Langley) to the center school Colvin Run (high SES school zoned for Cooper/Langley). Colvin Run’s AAP Program only pulls students from Great Falls (no other elementary schools). There are multiple busses driving these kids from their homes in the Great Falls Elementary boundary to Colvin Run. One bus only has 8-9 students on it!

Yet the quote from Superintendent Reid said they need to calibrate the LLIV programs so they are the same as the center schools. Seems like a flat out admission that they do not provide the same caliber of education. Ritzy Great Falls aside, why would parents from lesser ES (think Title I or nearly so) want their AAP students to be stuck in a cluster where they don't receive the same curriculum, don't have a sufficient peer group in the class, or, worse, are the teacher's aides for the rest of ES.

They won't want that, so the AAP center school will still continue to exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

So what about the schools that have to use the cluster model, because I agree, it sucks. I taught it one year and one year only because it was the worst. Not every school can have a dedicated class.

Unless a grade level only has 3-4 kids a full class is possible depending on gender ed students. You just put other high achieving kids in the class. So 10 AAP students, the rest Level 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

So what about the schools that have to use the cluster model, because I agree, it sucks. I taught it one year and one year only because it was the worst. Not every school can have a dedicated class.

Our school uses the cluster method and supposedly they give everyone the same full time AAP curriculum with advanced math. It's really easy to do now with Benchmark and updated math pacing guides.

In your school, how many students qualified for Level IV services? There were 4 in my class of 21 students using this model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school with local level IV AAP should not send students to a center. Elementary schools without enough children for a particular grade can give parents the option of sending their kids to the next closest elementary school (assigned by administration) with local level IV AAP (that is also zoned for their base middle school). All middle schools should have level IV AAP.

Great Falls Elementary has a local level IV AAP program with enough kids to make classes at all grades. 40-50 kids a year are bussed from Great Falls (high SES zoned for Cooper/Langley) to the center school Colvin Run (high SES school zoned for Cooper/Langley). Colvin Run’s AAP Program only pulls students from Great Falls (no other elementary schools). There are multiple busses driving these kids from their homes in the Great Falls Elementary boundary to Colvin Run. One bus only has 8-9 students on it!

Yet the quote from Superintendent Reid said they need to calibrate the LLIV programs so they are the same as the center schools. Seems like a flat out admission that they do not provide the same caliber of education. Ritzy Great Falls aside, why would parents from lesser ES (think Title I or nearly so) want their AAP students to be stuck in a cluster where they don't receive the same curriculum, don't have a sufficient peer group in the class, or, worse, are the teacher's aides for the rest of ES.

They should not allow schools to do the cluster model if they want to calibrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school with local level IV AAP should not send students to a center. Elementary schools without enough children for a particular grade can give parents the option of sending their kids to the next closest elementary school (assigned by administration) with local level IV AAP (that is also zoned for their base middle school). All middle schools should have level IV AAP.

Great Falls Elementary has a local level IV AAP program with enough kids to make classes at all grades. 40-50 kids a year are bussed from Great Falls (high SES zoned for Cooper/Langley) to the center school Colvin Run (high SES school zoned for Cooper/Langley). Colvin Run’s AAP Program only pulls students from Great Falls (no other elementary schools). There are multiple busses driving these kids from their homes in the Great Falls Elementary boundary to Colvin Run. One bus only has 8-9 students on it!

Yet the quote from Superintendent Reid said they need to calibrate the LLIV programs so they are the same as the center schools. Seems like a flat out admission that they do not provide the same caliber of education. Ritzy Great Falls aside, why would parents from lesser ES (think Title I or nearly so) want their AAP students to be stuck in a cluster where they don't receive the same curriculum, don't have a sufficient peer group in the class, or, worse, are the teacher's aides for the rest of ES.

They should not allow schools to do the cluster model if they want to calibrate.

Clearly, but it seems to be "principal discretion" at this point, and our school would have only a minority of LIV kids per grade level even if they were all in one classroom. Perhaps, maybe 10, if they kept all the kids who leave for the centers each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

So what about the schools that have to use the cluster model, because I agree, it sucks. I taught it one year and one year only because it was the worst. Not every school can have a dedicated class.

Our school uses the cluster method and supposedly they give everyone the same full time AAP curriculum with advanced math. It's really easy to do now with Benchmark and updated math pacing guides.

In your school, how many students qualified for Level IV services? There were 4 in my class of 21 students using this model.

You might be surprised to find out it's a center. There is a full level iv classroom next door where they put all the kids transferring in, plus a handful of base kids who qualified for level iv. Then my kid's classroom has the rest of the base level iv kids plus advanced math kids rounding out the class, so cluster model. I personally don't have much of a problem with this setup assuming the full time AAP curriculum was indeed taught, but in principle, it's sort of messed up that someone being picky about a cluster model at their own school bumps a kid at a different school (center) to end up in a cluster model classroom without having had that same choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

100% and any child who is failing tests or needs tutoring to stay in the class needs to go back to general education. It's ridiculous the amount of kids who need tutors just because they are in AAP. They clearly don't belong.