Can schools use Level IV material in non-LIV classrooms?

[Anonymous]

At our LLIV orientation, the AART noted that they liked having the LLIV program because it allowed them to 'bring' the LIV material to kids who otherwise wouldn't have access to it. This seems a little disingenuous to me, but I'm not in education, so I'm wondering, is there a reason the school couldn't just use the material across all the classrooms if they wanted to, regardless of if there are LIV students in the classroom?

[Anonymous]

Yes, in our school they expose all kids to LIV material, only math is different.

[Anonymous]

In our school, some gen ed classrooms have exposure to the LIV curriculum. For example, my AAP kid around two semesters of Caesar's English. My friend's student in gen ed did it around 3 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART noted that they liked having the LLIV program because it allowed them to 'bring' the LIV material to kids who otherwise wouldn't have access to it. This seems a little disingenuous to me, but I'm not in education, so I'm wondering, is there a reason the school couldn't just use the material across all the classrooms if they wanted to, regardless of if there are LIV students in the classroom?

That is the entire thought process behind the cluster method of LLIV. All kids are exposed to the LIV material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART noted that they liked having the LLIV program because it allowed them to 'bring' the LIV material to kids who otherwise wouldn't have access to it. This seems a little disingenuous to me, but I'm not in education, so I'm wondering, is there a reason the school couldn't just use the material across all the classrooms if they wanted to, regardless of if there are LIV students in the classroom?

That is the entire thought process behind the cluster method of LLIV. All kids are exposed to the LIV material.

Not really - it's *only* the other kids who are in the classroom(s) with an AAP cluster who are getting the LIV material. I think my question is, if this is a "benefit" of the cluster model, why can't they just use the LIV curriculum in all classrooms, even if there are no LIV students in the room? I feel like they're using this to low key 'guilt' people into picking the local program - a sort of, "see, if you stay you're helping the other kids". But it seems like a false equivalence - they *could* just choose to teach using this curriculum in all classrooms, couldn't they?

[Anonymous]

Yes. In our school, they teach the Level IV curriculum to all classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. In our school, they teach the Level IV curriculum to all classes.

Except math, which they group for - there are two advanced math classes, two regular math classes.

[Anonymous]

You do not see schools using the LIV curriculum in all classes for all students because everyone would not all be able to all cover the entire curriculum at the same pace. For example, consider students who struggle or need support to barely keep up with the non-LIV curriculum.

*I am not suggesting the LIV curriculum is rocket science, that LIV students are all geniuses, that no gen ed kids can do the LIV curriculum, etc. Just that it is probably would not work or be best for everyone; I don’t think any one curriculum is the best choice for everyone.

[Anonymous]

What you're missing is that the bureaucracy is clumsy and stupid, and individuals find ways to hack it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do not see schools using the LIV curriculum in all classes for all students because everyone would not all be able to all cover the entire curriculum at the same pace. For example, consider students who struggle or need support to barely keep up with the non-LIV curriculum.

*I am not suggesting the LIV curriculum is rocket science, that LIV students are all geniuses, that no gen ed kids can do the LIV curriculum, etc. Just that it is probably would not work or be best for everyone; I don’t think any one curriculum is the best choice for everyone.

Thank you, and I agree completely.

It seems like a statement of the obvious that the general education population can not handle the accelerated pace of an accelerated math or advanced English class.

Pretending otherwise, and putting every child on an accelerated track, is simply setting the general education kids up to fail, and is ultimately cruel.

It is simple: each child deserves an education best suited to their individual needs.

Some students are more advanced than others; meet them where they are and give them instruction suitable for their abilities. Then group by ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not see schools using the LIV curriculum in all classes for all students because everyone would not all be able to all cover the entire curriculum at the same pace. For example, consider students who struggle or need support to barely keep up with the non-LIV curriculum.

*I am not suggesting the LIV curriculum is rocket science, that LIV students are all geniuses, that no gen ed kids can do the LIV curriculum, etc. Just that it is probably would not work or be best for everyone; I don’t think any one curriculum is the best choice for everyone.

Thank you, and I agree completely.

It seems like a statement of the obvious that the general education population can not handle the accelerated pace of an accelerated math or advanced English class.

Pretending otherwise, and putting every child on an accelerated track, is simply setting the general education kids up to fail, and is ultimately cruel.

It is simple: each child deserves an education best suited to their individual needs.

Some students are more advanced than others; meet them where they are and give them instruction suitable for their abilities. Then group by ability.

100% agree. I think there are groups of parents who want to believe that everyone can thrive at an accelerated pace. It's just not possible, and that's okay.

So should/do all students have access to the AAP curriculum? Sure. But they don't all have to go to the same depth or move at the same pace. And that's okay too.

Equality is giving everyone a shoe. Equity is giving everyone a shoe that fits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not see schools using the LIV curriculum in all classes for all students because everyone would not all be able to all cover the entire curriculum at the same pace. For example, consider students who struggle or need support to barely keep up with the non-LIV curriculum.

*I am not suggesting the LIV curriculum is rocket science, that LIV students are all geniuses, that no gen ed kids can do the LIV curriculum, etc. Just that it is probably would not work or be best for everyone; I don’t think any one curriculum is the best choice for everyone.

Thank you, and I agree completely.

It seems like a statement of the obvious that the general education population can not handle the accelerated pace of an accelerated math or advanced English class.

Pretending otherwise, and putting every child on an accelerated track, is simply setting the general education kids up to fail, and is ultimately cruel.

It is simple: each child deserves an education best suited to their individual needs.

Some students are more advanced than others; meet them where they are and give them instruction suitable for their abilities. Then group by ability.

100% agree. I think there are groups of parents who want to believe that everyone can thrive at an accelerated pace. It's just not possible, and that's okay.

So should/do all students have access to the AAP curriculum? Sure. But they don't all have to go to the same depth or move at the same pace. And that's okay too.

Equality is giving everyone a shoe. Equity is giving everyone a shoe that fits.

Or maybe there are just parents who want to believe that their special snowflake is at an advanced level, but really, all that qualified the kid was that the parents used lots of GBRS key-words in their application. Admit it, the AAP admissions criteria is shaky at best. Many kids not in AAP IV are completely qualified to "think outside the box." We are new to FCPS, with really high test scores, but never being advised that the application "optional" portions were never optional. While our center school proudly touts "all classes access AAP material," we found that when we pressed our DS's teacher and the AART, we this not to be true in practice. So, banal worksheets it is, because FCPS seeks to create multiple classes of students. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART noted that they liked having the LLIV program because it allowed them to 'bring' the LIV material to kids who otherwise wouldn't have access to it. This seems a little disingenuous to me, but I'm not in education, so I'm wondering, is there a reason the school couldn't just use the material across all the classrooms if they wanted to, regardless of if there are LIV students in the classroom?

That is the entire thought process behind the cluster method of LLIV. All kids are exposed to the LIV material.

Not really - it's *only* the other kids who are in the classroom(s) with an AAP cluster who are getting the LIV material. I think my question is, if this is a "benefit" of the cluster model, why can't they just use the LIV curriculum in all classrooms, even if there are no LIV students in the room? I feel like they're using this to low key 'guilt' people into picking the local program - a sort of, "see, if you stay you're helping the other kids". But it seems like a false equivalence - they *could* just choose to teach using this curriculum in all classrooms, couldn't they?

No, at our school, ALL of the classes are getting the LLIV curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not see schools using the LIV curriculum in all classes for all students because everyone would not all be able to all cover the entire curriculum at the same pace. For example, consider students who struggle or need support to barely keep up with the non-LIV curriculum.

*I am not suggesting the LIV curriculum is rocket science, that LIV students are all geniuses, that no gen ed kids can do the LIV curriculum, etc. Just that it is probably would not work or be best for everyone; I don’t think any one curriculum is the best choice for everyone.

Thank you, and I agree completely.

It seems like a statement of the obvious that the general education population can not handle the accelerated pace of an accelerated math or advanced English class.

Pretending otherwise, and putting every child on an accelerated track, is simply setting the general education kids up to fail, and is ultimately cruel.

It is simple: each child deserves an education best suited to their individual needs.

Some students are more advanced than others; meet them where they are and give them instruction suitable for their abilities. Then group by ability.

100% agree. I think there are groups of parents who want to believe that everyone can thrive at an accelerated pace. It's just not possible, and that's okay.

So should/do all students have access to the AAP curriculum? Sure. But they don't all have to go to the same depth or move at the same pace. And that's okay too.

Equality is giving everyone a shoe. Equity is giving everyone a shoe that fits.

But the only thing that is truly accelerated is math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not see schools using the LIV curriculum in all classes for all students because everyone would not all be able to all cover the entire curriculum at the same pace. For example, consider students who struggle or need support to barely keep up with the non-LIV curriculum.

*I am not suggesting the LIV curriculum is rocket science, that LIV students are all geniuses, that no gen ed kids can do the LIV curriculum, etc. Just that it is probably would not work or be best for everyone; I don’t think any one curriculum is the best choice for everyone.

Thank you, and I agree completely.

It seems like a statement of the obvious that the general education population can not handle the accelerated pace of an accelerated math or advanced English class.

Pretending otherwise, and putting every child on an accelerated track, is simply setting the general education kids up to fail, and is ultimately cruel.

It is simple: each child deserves an education best suited to their individual needs.

Some students are more advanced than others; meet them where they are and give them instruction suitable for their abilities. Then group by ability.

100% agree. I think there are groups of parents who want to believe that everyone can thrive at an accelerated pace. It's just not possible, and that's okay.

So should/do all students have access to the AAP curriculum? Sure. But they don't all have to go to the same depth or move at the same pace. And that's okay too.

Equality is giving everyone a shoe. Equity is giving everyone a shoe that fits.

Or maybe there are just parents who want to believe that their special snowflake is at an advanced level, but really, all that qualified the kid was that the parents used lots of GBRS key-words in their application. Admit it, the AAP admissions criteria is shaky at best. Many kids not in AAP IV are completely qualified to "think outside the box." We are new to FCPS, with really high test scores, but never being advised that the application "optional" portions were never optional. While our center school proudly touts "all classes access AAP material," we found that when we pressed our DS's teacher and the AART, we this not to be true in practice. So, banal worksheets it is, because FCPS seeks to create multiple classes of students. What a joke.

You realize that the COGAT and NNAT are real measures of cognitive ability, right?
All kids can think outside the box but lateral thinking is correlated to general cognitive ability so the kids with high COGAT/NNAT scores will generally have higher lateral thinking ability.
You sound like you think you have somehow made some fatal error in your child's education. Talk to your AART and ask for their help and advice, there are no "points of no return." If your kid is actually gifted, the AART has no interest in seeing your kid bored and disengaged.