On the chopping block: AAP Centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It's about time. It's a tremendous waste of money and resources.

"Base kid" is a common taunt at our center school.

The AAP students are so segregated and operate in their own rarefied air beginning as young as third grade.

Very much an "us v. them" mentality fueled by hyper-competitive parents.

Enough!

The ugly reality is that FCPS is back to ersatz segregation, with the "elites" getting preferential treatment and in some center schools, "base kids" are the minority.

Interesting to note that some of the FCPS center schools HAD to become centers to avoid

I'm sorry this was your and your child's experience at your one center school, but in six years of AAP center schools (ES and MS) this was nothing like the experience our kid, our family or the many other families we knew well through school ever had.

DCUM is full of people saying their center schools are hotbeds of "hyper-competitive parents." I knew only one family like that in six years (and the school at one point told those parents to cool their jets and wouldn't allow their kid to do some stuff the parents insisted was the kid's "right"--yes, administrators CAN say no to parents who are pushy).

And there are lots of depictions on DCUM of AAP kids as arrogant little jerks taunting other kids. Never saw it and I was in both our center schools -- a lot. There certainly may be some centers like that, but if that was the case at YOUR child's school, did you or other parents (of AAP students or general ed students) ever do anything about it? Come up with some ways for the kids to mix more? Point out to anyone in authority that teasing was taking place and needed to be addressed? Volunteer to make the school as a whole a more cooperative, positive environment?

Not the PP, but first of all - were your kids in AAP? If so, then of course you never saw this behavior. AAP parents and kids experience a wholly different atmosphere at center schools th than Gen Ed kids and parents. M
And as far as the parents "doing anything about it"? Beyond bringing up these situations repeatedly at PTA meetings and private conferences with administration, what, exactly are the parents supposed to do? I'm a very active volunteer at our school and see this kind of behavior happen often. This is an administrative issue. More specifically, this is an FCPS issue. Parents can complain, suggest, cajole, request - you name it. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on FCPS to rectify the imbalance they've created with center schools.

So what you really want is for the imbalance to go the other way. So your GE kids significantly outnumber the AAP kids, and they can taunt the nerds? I have seen and heard of AAP nastiness too. But in our Center, it's from high SES GE kids directed at AAP kids and telling them they are not wanted. I wonder where that attitude comes from?

No one should be taunting anyone, first of all. Secondly, AAP kids aren't "nerds" (your word, by the way) - most are as mainstream as any other kids, due to how many have been admitted in recent years. AAP kids are not a majority in real life. They just aren't. Why should they be a majority in any school? The way centers are set up, AAP kids somehow look like the "norm," while Gen Ed kids are the exception.

AAP kids are mainstream and yet your DC wasn't admitted? No wonder you are so petty and bitter. Anyway, if AAP Centers are so terrible for GE kids, why did you move into an area where your kids would have to go to a Center? Either you didn't research the school or you assumed your kids would be AAP (which explains the bitter I guess).

You certainly are assuming a lot, aren't you? Like other posters have noted, we moved into our neighborhood before the center was even here, assuming our kids would be attending the community school we had planned on. Imagine our surprise when it was announced our kids' base school would instead be a center, due to rezoning. We certainly did our research prior to settling in our neighborhood, and never once assumed our kids would be in AAP. In fact, AAP wasn't even something we thought about when deciding on schools (much to the surprise of parents like you, who clearly live and breathe AAP!). We're bitter, but not for the reason you claim. We didn't want our kids to attend a center school, period.

If anything, you're the one who sounds petty with your claim that we "assumed our kids would be in AAP". I know it's hard to believe, but there are a lot of parents in the county who don't consider AAP to be the magic bullet so many of you do, and who aren't seeking out a center school.

[Anonymous]

Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, it's an administrative problem. But certain centers are absolutely well known for the total imbalance and toxic environment, yet FCPS (and certain school administrators) sits silent.

I wasn't actually asking AAP parents specifically to do anything about it. My original post was more annoyance at people in other centers saying "well, my school isn't like that..." OK, but several others are and it would be appreciated if it was actually acknowledged and maybe there is some support in the community to get those centers some help to fix the mess of FCPS's making.

Exactly. And I'd like to point out that there are quite a few posters here on DCUM (not just one!) making the point that AAP centers have long since outlived their purpose. Whoever keeps implying that there is only one is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, once you pull out the AAP center, get ready for your school's average SOL scores to drop, which makes your school's Great Schools number drop, which hurts your real estate values. Louise Archer GE parents may hate having the AAP kids at the school, but they don't complain about their Great Schools 9. Be careful what you ask for...

I see this as an argument for center elimination, not retention. If the only thing propping up a school's scores are AAP kids, then their presence is preventing administrators (and parents) from having an accurate picture of the school's needs. Yes, the scores, Great Schools rating, and property values may decrease without the out-of-boundary AAP kids, but I think the more honest measure of a true neighborhood school that would result is ultimately in the best interests of the kids being taught there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, once you pull out the AAP center, get ready for your school's average SOL scores to drop, which makes your school's Great Schools number drop, which hurts your real estate values. Louise Archer GE parents may hate having the AAP kids at the school, but they don't complain about their Great Schools 9. Be careful what you ask for...

I see this as an argument for center elimination, not retention. If the only thing propping up a school's scores are AAP kids, then their presence is preventing administrators (and parents) from having an accurate picture of the school's needs. Yes, the scores, Great Schools rating, and property values may decrease without the out-of-boundary AAP kids, but I think the more honest measure of a true neighborhood school that would result is ultimately in the best interests of the kids being taught there.

Absolutely agree. AAP centers, and the resulting Great Schools rating, provide a false measure of how well ALL the kids at that school are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

The problem is identifying the kids that need it...they selection method is, by definition, predictive. If the goal is to ensure everyone who needs AAP is admitted, then you will end up admitting kids that don't need it. If the goal is to ensure you do not give the services to anyone who does not need it, then you will miss many kids. The problem is there is no sure fire way to ID that, possibly short of giving every child a WISC. Given that there are roughly 13000 kids per gran in FCPS, and the WISC cost for the county would be about 300/student, that would cost about 4 million/year. And that does not include the logistical costs of the test....

So, we are left with our imperfect detector. The county has a stated goal of having every potentially gifted student in AAP. In order to achieve this, they have defined this process, which probably gets 99.5% of those kids, but falsely identifies about 10% of the kids (3% should be in and are in).

Read some detection theory...you will understand the problem. It is probability of detection (.995 for FCPS) vs FAR (.10)....

[Anonymous]

PP here FAR is false alarm (or admit) rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - with a very tiny exception, the vast majority of AAP kids are normal. There's a huge overlap between AAP and Gen Ed kids, as all of us know. If we were talking about GT, from more than a decade ago, then yes, those kids were exceptional. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that the AAP of today is simply not a gifted model any longer. There is no need for FCPS to continue creating an artificial "peer group" for a massive group of basically mainstream kids.

+100 Well said and so true!

I would say, by and large, 20-30% of the kids in GenED could do fine in AAP, and would be no different than 1/2 the AAP students. Whether that is a huge overlap or not is up to interpretation. Like any cutoff, there will be issues at the edges. Certainly, the best non-AAP student is smarter than the worst AAP student. But, the top half of AAP are certainly smarter that the vast majority of non-AAP student. But, if you cut the boundary so that AAP was half the size, you would still end up with issues at the edges.

FCPS has created a system where the kids that NEED AAP are getting in (at probably the 99.5% level). To do that, they also admit 3-4x as many kids that do not need it, but will do fine in it.

I think that is actually a good tradeoff.

I disagree. By admitting only the students who absolutely need a different learning environment - and that number has got to be minuscule - AAP would become more similar to what GT once was. There wouldn't be this ridiculous jockeying to get in because it would be understood that AAP was a special ed program, reserved only for kids with exceptional ability.

Disagree.

Having a kid who is at that upper 99% range in multiple testing scenarios, what you describe (a miniscule group of students only in the upper 99% range) is one of the worst possible ideas, particularly at the elementary level.

A center program that is about two, maybe three classes is ideal. What you are proposing would be very negative for those kids at the very top.

[Anonymous]

No, it wouldn't. There would just be fewer centers where all the kids gather. So, they would have 2 classes but may have to go a bit farther to get it. Basically the old GT model. It would be far, far better but identification is the problem as a pp mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it wouldn't. There would just be fewer centers where all the kids gather. So, they would have 2 classes but may have to go a bit farther to get it. Basically the old GT model. It would be far, far better but identification is the problem as a pp mentioned.

If we are aT THE 99% there will be 130 kids in the county in AAP per grade. That means 5 classes per grade in the county. Learn to do math.

[Anonymous]

No, I don't think you are right. First, no one said 99th. Could be 98th. Second, scores are higher than national average in Fairfax. Third, do some looking. Centers have been around for a long, long time. We used to have a smaller total population, a more selective program, and still had viable centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think you are right. First, no one said 99th. Could be 98th. Second, scores are higher than national average in Fairfax. Third, do some looking. Centers have been around for a long, long time. We used to have a smaller total population, a more selective program, and still had viable centers.

So, how do you determine if someone is 97 vs. 96 vs 95 pct? and what is the uncertainty in that estimate? Are you trying to serve all that are 97 and above (i.e., that need it), or just those that are 97 and above on an arbitrary metric?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think you are right. First, no one said 99th. Could be 98th. Second, scores are higher than national average in Fairfax. Third, do some looking. Centers have been around for a long, long time. We used to have a smaller total population, a more selective program, and still had viable centers.

So, how do you determine if someone is 97 vs. 96 vs 95 pct? and what is the uncertainty in that estimate? Are you trying to serve all that are 97 and above (i.e., that need it), or just those that are 97 and above on an arbitrary metric?

Yes, back to the identification problem already noted.