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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Somehow I not surprised! This is free public school, people!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I agree that it can't be the curriculum for everyone. It can, however, be a curriculum offered to the most advanced classes at the local school. Nothing about the curriculum requires bussing to a separate school and a self-contained classroom for all subjects. Regarding the second bolded point, I feel like AAP needs to be both larger and smaller. The current AAP curriculum isn't very advanced, and many kids are excluded who would be more than capable of handling it. Those kids should be allowed the opportunity to do so. At the same time, AAP has been watered down by so much over-inclusion that the kids at the top are poorly served by the current model. I'd be thrilled if FCPS reverted to the GT system of the past (including at most 5% of the kids), but then offered the AAP curriculum on an open-enrollment basis at all local schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone knkw which high school kids are performing circles around the other high school kids?

You all are WAY too involved in your high schoolers lives if you are still taking a tally sheet of class grades at this point.

I often wonder about this myself. How do you people know how other kids are doing?

And how do you know who.was in AAP. And who wasn't?

[Anonymous]

Of course people know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone knkw which high school kids are performing circles around the other high school kids?

You all are WAY too involved in your high schoolers lives if you are still taking a tally sheet of class grades at this point.

I often wonder about this myself. How do you people know how other kids are doing?

And how do you know who.was in AAP. And who wasn't?

My kids were in a LLIV classroom with the same kids from 3rd through 6th grade. That's how I know many of them. I don't know who was or wasn't in AAP beyond that.

I only know about how non-AAP kids are doing in situations like when a neighbor or friend's kid gets into UVA or W&M, for example. That's the extent of it for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone knkw which high school kids are performing circles around the other high school kids?

You all are WAY too involved in your high schoolers lives if you are still taking a tally sheet of class grades at this point.

I often wonder about this myself. How do you people know how other kids are doing?

And how do you know who.was in AAP. And who wasn't?

Our base elementary school is a center school. My DS, who was in Gen Ed at our base school, is now a senior in HS. At the time, our center school had only one AAP class in his grade. And it was a small class. DS was in compacted math and went into the AAP class for math. Some of the center kids were in class with DS from kindergarten because its their base school as well. So DS knew all the center kids in his grade. I knew a lot of the kids and parents because we live in the same neighborhood, I would go on field trips, go to after school activities, attend the class parties, volunteer at the school, etc.

One of the boys who was in the AAP class, and was in school with DS since kindergarten, is in an activity at the HS that DS participates in. They are friendly and DS has commented to me that "its ironic that he was in AAP and now does not take any honors or IB classes and I was in Gen Ed and I'm a full IB candidate." Another boy who was in the AAP class has since dropped out of high school. Its common knowledge among the classmates and they talk about it because he was a "smart kid."

I don't know how all the AAP kids are doing - just a couple of anecdotal cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

And here's another thing. AAP kids have school choice and are able to move from school to school based on what suits the child best. I would have loved to switch my Gen Ed kid to another school without such an emphasis on AAP to get away from the labeling and bullying. However, turns out only AAP kids have the option to switch.

THIS, 1000x THIS. I have always been appalled that AAP kids are given a choice - they can either stay at their base school or attend a center school. Gen Ed kids are given no so choice. They're stuck at whichever school they're assigned to, period. I, too, would have *loved* to transfer my child to a different elementary school, for exactly the reasons you stated.

Of course, now we'll get the posters claiming, "Of course your child could switch - to an immersion school!" We didn't want immersion. We wanted our children to attend a "normal" elementary school that wasn't hyper-focused on AAP. A school in which they would feel right at home, instead of like the "lesser" kids. Nope, they were stuck. If FCPS sees fit to let some kids choose their school, they need to make that choice available to all.

[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.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP and the point was actually to just open AAP up to ALL. No need to make it a small or large group. Just make it the standard curriculum. And please - it's not harder than Gen Ed. It's simply more work. AAP kids aren't "above grade level"! Unless you're talking about compacted math, in which case there are plenty of Gen Ed kids taking that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does FCPS approach the idea of a "fixed" vs "growth" mindset? Research shows that having a growth mindset is a key aspect of success. I know my kids in APS hear a lot about developing a growth mindset. But it seems that the things people say they are hearing AAP/Gen Ed kids say to each other show that those kids are getting a really strong message that reinforces a "fixed" mindset -- e.g. we're smart/you're dumb. That's damaging for both groups -- the "dumb" ones can start to think they really are and not try while the "smart" ones become averse to trying things that might be hard because struggling with something means they aren't "smart" after all. Getting a B or (horrors!) a C in something becomes a tragedy rather than an opportunity to figure out how to improve.

Yes. The AAP system is unhealthy for all the kids, though of course, parents of AAP kids will vehemently disagree. Their kids are the ones being told they're "smart," so naturally they're all for it. I find it very, very difficult to take this system seriously when the vast majority of kids in both AAP and Gen Ed are indistinguishable from one another. Certainly, there are outliers - but the ridiculous amount of kids accepted into AAP makes it appear that FCPS is a Lake Wobegon. Which it is not.

I am an AAP parent (x3) and I agree with you. It is unhealthy and divisive. And the program is just not very much different, from what I can tell.

When the bar is as low as it must be for there to be SO many kids from each grade being found eligible, what does it say to those who are not? "You're REALLY at the bottom of the barrel." Or maybe it's not that the bar is low, maybe it's too many people gaming the system. I don't know, but I do know that it didn't use to be this way. It has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.

Yes. It certainly has changed dramatically, and not for the better. And the kids who aren't in AAP are not "the bottom of the barrel." Most of them barely missed getting in and their parents simply decided it wasn't worth appealing. The parents at our school have talked extensively about this. And yes, many of the kids getting into AAP have parents who have gamed the system. The whole thing is just so bloated and ridiculous. I feel sorry for the very few kids who are actually, truly gifted and who have to be in a classroom with a bunch of mainstream (AAP) kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

Sure. Since you asked me to drill down to the details if I were in charge of FCPS: Kids could be designated as Level III (corresponding to 1 grade level ahead and 95th percentile-ish+) or Level IV (2+ grade levels ahead, >99th percentile) per subject, based on achievement scores, ability scores, and teacher referral. If the base school has enough Level III kids in a subject, then those kids should take the class at the base school. Homerooms would be mixed ability, with kids switching classes for math and language arts (like they already do for math). If a school does not have enough Level III kids, then those kids should have the option to attend the center. In places like McLean, only the Level IV kids would be center eligible, since about half of the grade would be Level III. In the eastern parts of the county and/or high FARMs schools, Level III kids would attend the center, since there wouldn't be enough to run the advanced classes. The Level III curriculum would look like AAP as it is now, and the Level IV would be more advanced than AAP. This would also help the gen ed kids who are advanced in one subject but not the other, as it would guarantee services in their area of strength. Science could be bundled with math as part of that block, and social studies could similarly be bundled with language arts.

The other, much simpler option would be to make AAP for only the top 10-ish percent of kids by pyramid.

So in some pyramids the center would house LLIV and LLIII kids and really nothing would change except maybe more kids would go to the center and in others just the LLIV kids and those centers would decrease. Level 2 services would be offered at the base schools for those that qualify which is differentiation by subject. Except that perhaps math and science would be grouped similarly and so would language arts and social studies. So potentially then some kids could still be in an advanced class in every subject. The AART then would not be needed in schools or on a more part time basis.

Level 2 and 3 are complete jokes. It's what - one hour of pullouts/week? Let's not pretend otherwise.

[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.

Exactly. This is how GT used to be handled and it worked very well.

[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.

You would think. As another poster said, there are plenty of Gen Ed kids who are advanced in certain subjects, but who aren't receiving advanced instruction because they're not LLIV. Math is usually well-differentiated, at least at our school. Advanced kids from both AAP and Gen Ed take the same math class. But if you have a child who is extremely advanced in language arts, but not in math, that child is pretty much out of luck. It's bizarre that they don't simply have flexible groupings. Not all kids (including AAP) are advanced in *all* subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I agree that it can't be the curriculum for everyone. It can, however, be a curriculum offered to the most advanced classes at the local school. Nothing about the curriculum requires bussing to a separate school and a self-contained classroom for all subjects. Regarding the second bolded point, I feel like AAP needs to be both larger and smaller. The current AAP curriculum isn't very advanced, and many kids are excluded who would be more than capable of handling it. Those kids should be allowed the opportunity to do so. At the same time, AAP has been watered down by so much over-inclusion that the kids at the top are poorly served by the current model. I'd be thrilled if FCPS reverted to the GT system of the past (including at most 5% of the kids), but then offered the AAP curriculum on an open-enrollment basis at all local schools.

Yes. This is what I, and many other parents, have been advocating for years. Things started going downhill when they stopped making GT a very small program for very gifted students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hmm. If they're easily able to do that, you'd think they'd drop all the labels and just put kids in flexible groupings depending on which classes are appropriate for them. You know, like normal schools all across the country do.