AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Based on what science? We don’t test students with special education needs every year? Cognitive ability shouldn’t fluctuate that much unless there was something like a language barrier or traumatic event that occurred at the first assessment and would have depressed the scores.

You know as well as I do that a lot of these kids only tested in because they took a class or their parents did their work samples for them, and then they are getting intensive tutoring just so they can hack it. Those kids need to be removed. They remove the challenge from the class when the teacher has to go teach to the lowest denominator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I generally agree with you, but there are exceptions to everything. I have been tutoring a girl in AAP for 2 years. She's at a crappy school and has had only crappy teachers. They are always units behind in the pacing guide and the teacher (both years, different teachers) is absent at least once every 2 weeks. Her parents are just trying to give her a fair shot, she just needs someone to teach her the curriculum. She picks everything up within 1-2 problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

[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:

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.

This is a principal issue, not a student one. Take it up with them.

[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:

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.

This is a principal issue, not a student one. Take it up with them.

What PP is describing is not cluster model. It’s principal-placed model. This is common.

Cluster model, like a shrevewood, is mixing local level iv kids across every classroom, so there is one “cluster” of these kids mixed in with everyone else. If there are enough, that is. So they are not just mixed in with the other almost level iv kids, they are combined with all the kids. Even the lowest performing. So before PP complains about transfers coming in, they should know what they’re talking about.

[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:

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.

This is a principal issue, not a student one. Take it up with them.

What PP is describing is not cluster model. It’s principal-placed model. This is common.

Cluster model, like a shrevewood, is mixing local level iv kids across every classroom, so there is one “cluster” of these kids mixed in with everyone else. If there are enough, that is. So they are not just mixed in with the other almost level iv kids, they are combined with all the kids. Even the lowest performing. So before PP complains about transfers coming in, they should know what they’re talking about.

Right - in the cluster model, there is no one class that is all level iv kids. There are 4 or so per class, if you’re lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

[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.

Exactly. Not everything is about Great Falls/Colvin Run/Cooper/Langley. The rest of us would like to see the Center and Base school programs run the same, before any talk about canceling AAP centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

The difference is that most kids are not advanced across the board. Allowing them to take the appropriate level for each core class would mean there would be kids in some advanced, some grade-level, and some remedial groups. My own kids were highly advanced in language arts, but needed a lot of help in math. I find it very interesting that AAP kids don't have to be advanced across the board - yet they're all labeled as "AAP," even so. Flexible groupings would remove the fixed label - for everyone.

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

I have three kids. The oldest had exactly what I described while in elementary school, before AAP became a thing - as did I during the 80s in FCPS. Kids had no problem moving classes for their core subjects, depending on what level they needed. And if you think moving classes is a "massive waste of time," then I guess you think moving around for specials is too. If that can be managed, then so can moving for core classes, many of which would simply be right next door or across the hall. And some of the kids would just stay in the same class, depending on level. This is not the terribly difficult thing you're making it out to be.

[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

The PP is correct. Kids with major behavioral issues shouldn't be lumped in with Gen Ed. If AAP gets a "special" environment, then Gen Ed kids with no issues should as well.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree, I would be fine with GT. My child would still qualify but the vast majority of his classmates would not. Even in the AAP classroom, my child is being brought down by average children whose parents made them take classes to prepare for the NNAT and COGAT, and then separate enrichment classes to help provide work samples for their AAP classroom. Now that they're in AAP, they all have math tutors. I was honestly surprised by the number of parents I met who told me their children have math tutors so they can keep up in AAP advanced math. The whole point should be that these are children who are ALREADY advanced not kids who need help to get there and help to stay there. We need a true gifted and talented program that is selective and somehow manages to weed out children who are only there because their parents pay to get them there. I can't imagine it's good for those children's mental health either!!

DP. That's what FCPS used to have, and there were none of the issues we see today.

[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.

The math shouldn't be hard for her. If it's too hard for her, she doesn't belong there.

Ha! Tell that to all the AAP kids who need math tutors / reading specialists. What a joke.
DP

[Anonymous]

The better solution would be to go back to having remedial classes. Put the kids who aren't learning into remedial classrooms, allowing the general ed kids to thrive instead of being completely ignored. Because that's what this really comes down to - average to above average children in general ed are BEING IGNORED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also a critical quote:

“When we first opened centers, it was a small number of students, but over the last 20-30 years the number of students found eligible has increased significantly, so the need for bussing them has increased.“

The number of kids found "eligible" has increased only because they lowered the standards for admission. That's the ONLY reason. AAP is not a GT program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

The difference is that most kids are not advanced across the board. Allowing them to take the appropriate level for each core class would mean there would be kids in some advanced, some grade-level, and some remedial groups. My own kids were highly advanced in language arts, but needed a lot of help in math. I find it very interesting that AAP kids don't have to be advanced across the board - yet they're all labeled as "AAP," even so. Flexible groupings would remove the fixed label - for everyone.

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

Sorry, we changed classes like this (groupings by strength by subject) when I was in elementary school - in 1985! It’s not new; it certainly could be done, and it would challenge the “2E” kids who aren’t level 4.

+1
We did this too. All kids were placed in appropriate groups for each core class. Some were advanced across the board - most weren't. This system is so much better than labeling two huge groups of kids, most of whom are very similar in abilities.