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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

It's not coasting on it's reputation. It's a change in what's considered best practices for education. Agree or disagree, it's the same at the best school districts around the country.

[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.

There are some pros to this approach and it's been talked about before here, however there are some cons as well.
AAP kids would have to travel further to schools that may not be within their middle and high school pyramid. My guess is that some parents would choose their local school instead although they already do that now.
Likely any local level advanced academics would fluctuate by grade and teacher so that students would have multiple teachers during a school day and possibly even switch from advanced to general ed quarter to quarter
The recommendations would come from the teacher verses a more comprehensive packet including testing and would be more arbitrary
Likely some kids would be in combination classes either with different grades or with different levels leaving less time for the teacher to work with kids on that particular grade level.

Does that all sound ok with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

It's not coasting on it's reputation. It's a change in what's considered best practices for education. Agree or disagree, it's the same at the best school districts around the country.

All one has to do is compare the quality of education from the 1980s/90s, to the past decade or so. It's quite clear that today's "best practices" are a bunch of B.S. And yes, FCPS is absolutely coasting on its prior reputation for excellence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There are some pros to this approach and it's been talked about before here, however there are some cons as well.
AAP kids would have to travel further to schools that may not be within their middle and high school pyramid. My guess is that some parents would choose their local school instead although they already do that now.
Likely any local level advanced academics would fluctuate by grade and teacher so that students would have multiple teachers during a school day and possibly even switch from advanced to general ed quarter to quarter
The recommendations would come from the teacher verses a more comprehensive packet including testing and would be more arbitrary
Likely some kids would be in combination classes either with different grades or with different levels leaving less time for the teacher to work with kids on that particular grade level.

Does that all sound ok with you?

Sure. My kids already have to travel out of their middle and high school pyramid for AAP. My kids also already have multiple teachers during a school day, and they're fine with it. The local AAP would be open enrollment, like MS Honors, so the only fluctuation would be self-imposed. And honestly, some fluctuation between gen ed and local advanced academics would be a good thing, since kids who are struggling would have less stigma behind dropping down to regular classes, and kids who find they need more of a challenge could move up.

[Anonymous]

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.

In my town we had 400 kids per grade. Only 6-8 of us were "GT". There were no issues. Fairfax does it wrong. 25% of kids don't need special services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In my town we had 400 kids per grade. Only 6-8 of us were "GT". There were no issues. Fairfax does it wrong. 25% of kids don't need special services.

But then how would parents get to feel special and be able to brag to their friends about their "gifted" children?

[Anonymous]

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.

In my town we had 400 kids per grade. Only 6-8 of us were "GT". There were no issues. Fairfax does it wrong. 25% of kids don't need special services.

I'm the one who said something similar with only having something similar to Level III pullouts as a kid, so I hear what you are saying. Arguably there were no issues about many things when we were kids, though, such as kids walking home alone, playing outside unattended, having nuts at school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And OP many of the students are outperforming the kids who were in AAP. And it's sweet justice.

Another reason the county should ditch the AAP program. What a waste of money and resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct. And no, no bias or preference. Teachers help students choose the appropriate level courses for the following year based on student's performance and teacher's observations, but parents/students really have the final say.

I have kids in AAP and it delights me to hear of non-AAP kids getting into schools like W&M and UVA.

Out of curiosity why does it delight you to see "regular track" kids ultimately do just as well as the advanced academic kids?

If your kid has been taking the harder courses up until HS it would be natural to want to see that effort pay off - qualifying for/taking/doing well in the tougher classes in HS and getting into the top college as a result of that effort.

NP- that poster didn’t say s/he didn’t want to see her kids do well. What a bizarre interpretation. FYI- AAP isn’t always superior. Especially in elementary. So much more depends on the classroom teacher. And yeah- I’ve just seen another nonAAP sibling admitted EA to UVA. The admission was totally deserved.

[Anonymous]

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.

In my town we had 400 kids per grade. Only 6-8 of us were "GT". There were no issues. Fairfax does it wrong. 25% of kids don't need special services.

THIS. And everyone knows this, but AAP parents just don't want to admit it. Neither does FCPS. They like to pretend FCPS is actually full of "gifted" children, when the reality is anything but.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my town we had 400 kids per grade. Only 6-8 of us were "GT". There were no issues. Fairfax does it wrong. 25% of kids don't need special services.

THIS. And everyone knows this, but AAP parents just don't want to admit it. Neither does FCPS. They like to pretend FCPS is actually full of "gifted" children, when the reality is anything but.

That's why they won't get rid of AAP. So many parents with kids who are barely above average are convinced that their kids are gifted and need self-contained classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are some pros to this approach and it's been talked about before here, however there are some cons as well.
AAP kids would have to travel further to schools that may not be within their middle and high school pyramid. My guess is that some parents would choose their local school instead although they already do that now.
Likely any local level advanced academics would fluctuate by grade and teacher so that students would have multiple teachers during a school day and possibly even switch from advanced to general ed quarter to quarter
The recommendations would come from the teacher verses a more comprehensive packet including testing and would be more arbitrary
Likely some kids would be in combination classes either with different grades or with different levels leaving less time for the teacher to work with kids on that particular grade level.

Does that all sound ok with you?

Sure. My kids already have to travel out of their middle and high school pyramid for AAP. My kids also already have multiple teachers during a school day, and they're fine with it. The local AAP would be open enrollment, like MS Honors, so the only fluctuation would be self-imposed. And honestly, some fluctuation between gen ed and local advanced academics would be a good thing, since kids who are struggling would have less stigma behind dropping down to regular classes, and kids who find they need more of a challenge could move up.

The way it works now for LLIII and LLII kids and even LLIV kids that stay at some base schools is that they get advanced instruction when the numbers work out. WHen there is enough of a cohort of kids and when they can create even classes. This means that on any given year some kids may not get any advanced instruction except the 1 hour pullout when the AART is available. We've known families to move because all of a sudden there aren't enough kids to offer compacted math, or a child in LLIII that is able to get advanced instruction one year but not the next. If the AART goes away, how does FCPS ensure kids get advanced instruction and how do they do that from year after year with class size changes? The teachers have an issue differentiating and say they don't have time to teach more than one level and many parents have had bad experiences with combination classes. The issue isn't that kids will sometimes have to be with general ed students. The issue is that even if they elect to take compacted math or advanced language arts, that it might not be offered at their school or they might not make the cut for that class which all would be determined by the teachers and principal.