Are kids from same school reviewed together for AAP

[Anonymous]

We live in an area with a lot of smart kids (McLean). I’m wondering if my kid will be compared against the kids at our elementary school or the process is random and the committee will be reviewing my kid while also having a kid from Vienna or Fairfax or Springfield in the same pile.

[Anonymous]

One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Your McLean kid is at a disadvantage? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

If your kid is in pool and goal is to say without doubt that your kid is AAP, should have bought and lived zoned for Title 1 school. Most thought are glad live zoned for McLean where many argue that the PTA and other programs already put your child at an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

But FCPS sets the curriculum for the county, not individual schools, so Gen Ed teachers must follow the curriculum as it is laid out for them. How much do teachers have leeway to expand it? I'm sure their hours are already tight to cover the curriculum they are required to cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes. We are in the same situation, not in McLean but a mid/higher SES school. We know many parents in our child's class referred and our child's scores were good in absolute terms but not in pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

But FCPS sets the curriculum for the county, not individual schools, so Gen Ed teachers must follow the curriculum as it is laid out for them. How much do teachers have leeway to expand it? I'm sure their hours are already tight to cover the curriculum they are required to cover.

All Teachers have to cover the curriculum, for example, benchmark has to be used in LIV and Gen Ed and there is no room for anything else. LIV classes are supposed to have the time to do more than base curriculum because the students can pick up the regular material more quickly. It allows time to go deeper and do some additional work. Kids in Advanced Math have to master the current grade level math before they are taught the accelerated material.

We were at an ES without LLIV and most of the Teachers told parents that they incorporated the LIV extras into their classes when possible. DS came home talking about some of the popular ones that have been discussed here even though there wasn't a LLIV program. Cluster schools are presenting the regular curriculum and the LIV extenstions to the entire class, that is how the cluster programs work. It is possible that those programs are set up so that kids who are thought to be able to handle the work are in the clustered classes and that there are classes without a group of LIV kids, but the effect is the same, all the kids in the clustered classes get the LIV curriculum.

It is not that special of a classroom. LLIV classes have success with classes that are 50% Level III/Advanced math kids. Cluster programs send kids to MS who are totally fine in the AAP classes at their MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.

I don't like "equity" (give me old school equality of opportunity), but this is a little bit one-sided an explanation. Given that the AAP program is designed to make sure the educational needs of all kids are met, a kid in McLean who is smart will more easily find a peer group in a ged ed classroom than a native English speaking smart kid in Bailey's Crossroads. And as someone in a top-quarter-of-FCPS high school pyramid, everyone knows that the kids who are taking APs and succeeding in high school may or may not have been in AAP in elementary school. It's a toss-up and no one can tell by that point. If your kid is adequately challenged, do you really need the AAP label?

- 3x AAP parent

[Anonymous]

Higher SES elementary schools don’t HAVE to provide anything to the students who aren’t full time AAP. Even kids with a cohort of students with similar high scores. Students in McLean who are 98th percentile or higher should also be receiving a more advanced in depth curriculum. Another consideration, how is it equitable for students to be in the top 10% of their middle school and be sent to an AAP Center School where some kids are 90th percentile and some are 99th percentile, but the 98th percentile from high SES schools don’t have access to AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.

I am all for giving the top kids at title 1 schools opportunity to advance.

I’m not sure why the kids at UMC have to be hurt in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.

I am all for giving the top kids at title 1 schools opportunity to advance.

I’m not sure why the kids at UMC have to be hurt in the process.

It doesn't hurt your kid. The kids aren't going to the same school/AAP center.