Catholic school or FCPS AAP?

[Anonymous]

There is value in your kid not knowing FCPS's opinion that they are gifted (or not). Best kids, transferring (later) into our FCPS for HS, were spared that information. They were hard working and confident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current AAP parent (2 kids in the program, 1 2nd grader accepted) who is switching to a Protestant private that is probably more similar to a parochial school than an independent or a church-based school: it depends.

When my kids moved from the gen ed classroom to AAP, we saw a substantial decrease in behavior issues. Even kids who had caused those issues before ceased to cause them as much - whether because of peer group, teachers, or expectations I don't know. The accelerated math pace helped keep my kids engaged. While not perfect, my kids definitely found peers.

What's causing us to move?

1. Biggest: we, including both parents and the kids, want the religious aspect in the education. That's not going to happen/shouldn't happen in public. We can finally afford it at a private that we think will provide a decent academic education to go with.

2. Language arts even in AAP is significantly lacking.

3. Tired of so many screens. New school still uses screens, but much more sparingly in the lower grades.

What do we feel we are missing out on?

1. Math. Our private doesn't offer the same math opportunities that FCPS does for late high school (BC calc and dual enrollment courses with GMU). We may be able to advocate for those or set our kids' own path if they are that advanced in math, but our school doesn't have that track. We go in knowing that.

2. All the money we would have been able to use for other things. We will miss it.

Catholic schools are not better for Math or Science. That is absurd.

I never said they were. In fact I said moving from FCPS AAP to private Christian we knew we'd be missing out on math at the upper school level, and I'm firmly convinced of that.

That said, I agree with the poster who said that in elementary (no knowledge of middle first-hand) Catholic/private Protestant can definitely be better than in FCPS elementary. The pacing of our private's math curriculum is such that my rising 5th grader who is a year ahead in FCPS by their pacing guide is only half a year ahead of our future private. There are many, many more elementary school science labs at our future private compared to the 0-1 per year my kids in AAP get right now.

High school is a different ballgame, but the elementary education in FCPS has really declined over the past decade or so. I am an FCPS grad myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:During our tour of St. Louis we were astonished at how orderly and attentive the kids were. They were quietly learning together, interacting in a respectful manner and working hard at their lessons. A huge difference from the crazy FCPS elementary school we came from where there are a ton of dysregulated kids shoved together in the same classroom with little help from trained professionals. I don’t begrudge the teachers at FCPS. They are doing their best. But most of them are not trained at being special ed teachers full time, which is what they have become.

We are moving schools in the fall.

What school are you moving from?

[Anonymous]

AAP isn't what it used to be. Public school systems nowadays are often somewhat ideologically hostile to the notion that some students are smarter and/or more advanced than others and deserve an advanced curriculum.

"Helping the smartest students reach their full potential" is no longer on the list of the top 10 goals of public education systems. If your DC is smart, AAP is certainly better for him or her than general education, but it's not nearly "as much better" as it would have been 25 years ago.

For one example of a kind of anti-advanced-placement attitude, public school leaders in Cambridge MA have fought to prevent students from having exposure to Algebra 1 in middle school, because they don't want any students getting too far ahead of other students.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/07/18/cambridge-schools-are-divided-over-middle-school-algebra/

[Anonymous]

Catholic schools tend to focus on a more well-rounded growth. That said there are drawbacks like not being around as many local kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn't what it used to be. Public school systems nowadays are often somewhat ideologically hostile to the notion that some students are smarter and/or more advanced than others and deserve an advanced curriculum.

"Helping the smartest students reach their full potential" is no longer on the list of the top 10 goals of public education systems. If your DC is smart, AAP is certainly better for him or her than general education, but it's not nearly "as much better" as it would have been 25 years ago.

For one example of a kind of anti-advanced-placement attitude, public school leaders in Cambridge MA have fought to prevent students from having exposure to Algebra 1 in middle school, because they don't want any students getting too far ahead of other students.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/07/18/cambridge-schools-are-divided-over-middle-school-algebra/

That’s an interesting article and reflects the discussions in my district as well (DCPS). The goal is to make things equal, but the result is students with means are taking advanced math as an extracurricular and the kids without means lose their path to advanced math. It’s creating a larger disparity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:During our tour of St. Louis we were astonished at how orderly and attentive the kids were. They were quietly learning together, interacting in a respectful manner and working hard at their lessons. A huge difference from the crazy FCPS elementary school we came from where there are a ton of dysregulated kids shoved together in the same classroom with little help from trained professionals. I don’t begrudge the teachers at FCPS. They are doing their best. But most of them are not trained at being special ed teachers full time, which is what they have become.

We are moving schools in the fall.

This is pretty offensive to parents of kids with SN. I hope you are keeping this attitude to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During our tour of St. Louis we were astonished at how orderly and attentive the kids were. They were quietly learning together, interacting in a respectful manner and working hard at their lessons. A huge difference from the crazy FCPS elementary school we came from where there are a ton of dysregulated kids shoved together in the same classroom with little help from trained professionals. I don’t begrudge the teachers at FCPS. They are doing their best. But most of them are not trained at being special ed teachers full time, which is what they have become.

We are moving schools in the fall.

This is pretty offensive to parents of kids with SN. I hope you are keeping this attitude to yourself.

Pp - why is this offensive? There are kids who have special needs and they need teachers who are equipped and trained to teach them. General education teachers generally are not those teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn't what it used to be. Public school systems nowadays are often somewhat ideologically hostile to the notion that some students are smarter and/or more advanced than others and deserve an advanced curriculum.

"Helping the smartest students reach their full potential" is no longer on the list of the top 10 goals of public education systems. If your DC is smart, AAP is certainly better for him or her than general education, but it's not nearly "as much better" as it would have been 25 years ago.

For one example of a kind of anti-advanced-placement attitude, public school leaders in Cambridge MA have fought to prevent students from having exposure to Algebra 1 in middle school, because they don't want any students getting too far ahead of other students.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/07/18/cambridge-schools-are-divided-over-middle-school-algebra/

Using an article from Cambridge to reflect FCPS trends is not helping the conversation. FCPS is not stopping kids from taking Algebra in MS. About 15% of the 7th grade students take Algebra 1 H and a good chunk of kids take Algebra 1 in 8th grade. I believe that about 25% of the students will take Algebra 1 in 9th grade and most of those students are coming out of pyramids with lower SES families. FCPS is promoting finding ways to increase the number of kids taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade in order to close the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn't what it used to be. Public school systems nowadays are often somewhat ideologically hostile to the notion that some students are smarter and/or more advanced than others and deserve an advanced curriculum.

"Helping the smartest students reach their full potential" is no longer on the list of the top 10 goals of public education systems. If your DC is smart, AAP is certainly better for him or her than general education, but it's not nearly "as much better" as it would have been 25 years ago.

For one example of a kind of anti-advanced-placement attitude, public school leaders in Cambridge MA have fought to prevent students from having exposure to Algebra 1 in middle school, because they don't want any students getting too far ahead of other students.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/07/18/cambridge-schools-are-divided-over-middle-school-algebra/

Using an article from Cambridge to reflect FCPS trends is not helping the conversation. FCPS is not stopping kids from taking Algebra in MS. About 15% of the 7th grade students take Algebra 1 H and a good chunk of kids take Algebra 1 in 8th grade. I believe that about 25% of the students will take Algebra 1 in 9th grade and most of those students are coming out of pyramids with lower SES families. FCPS is promoting finding ways to increase the number of kids taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade in order to close the gap.

+1. We are leaving FCPS AAP for private, but our experience at our ES was that they were pushing more kids towards advanced math and Algebra 1 in 7th or 8th rather than fewer. Last year our FCPS ES (an AAP center, so we have plenty of advanced math classes to go around) implemented a program that any kid who pass advanced on the math SOL or got >90th percentile on the iReady in math for spring would be in advanced math the following fall. Several new kids joined my DCs in advanced math who had not been there prior. Being in advanced math gets you on the track to take the placement test for Algebra 1 in 7th and guarantees you Algebra 1 in 8th at the latest unless your parents object.

That said, this is a young district policy and I believe there are plenty of people within FCPS who are anti-advanced placement as well. But from the top there is not quite the same push to flatten everything that there was even two years ago, at least in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During our tour of St. Louis we were astonished at how orderly and attentive the kids were. They were quietly learning together, interacting in a respectful manner and working hard at their lessons. A huge difference from the crazy FCPS elementary school we came from where there are a ton of dysregulated kids shoved together in the same classroom with little help from trained professionals. I don’t begrudge the teachers at FCPS. They are doing their best. But most of them are not trained at being special ed teachers full time, which is what they have become.

We are moving schools in the fall.

This is pretty offensive to parents of kids with SN. I hope you are keeping this attitude to yourself.

Pp - why is this offensive? There are kids who have special needs and they need teachers who are equipped and trained to teach them. General education teachers generally are not those teachers.

Behavior issues does not = special needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current AAP parent (2 kids in the program, 1 2nd grader accepted) who is switching to a Protestant private that is probably more similar to a parochial school than an independent or a church-based school: it depends.

When my kids moved from the gen ed classroom to AAP, we saw a substantial decrease in behavior issues. Even kids who had caused those issues before ceased to cause them as much - whether because of peer group, teachers, or expectations I don't know. The accelerated math pace helped keep my kids engaged. While not perfect, my kids definitely found peers.

What's causing us to move?

1. Biggest: we, including both parents and the kids, want the religious aspect in the education. That's not going to happen/shouldn't happen in public. We can finally afford it at a private that we think will provide a decent academic education to go with.

2. Language arts even in AAP is significantly lacking.

3. Tired of so many screens. New school still uses screens, but much more sparingly in the lower grades.

What do we feel we are missing out on?

1. Math. Our private doesn't offer the same math opportunities that FCPS does for late high school (BC calc and dual enrollment courses with GMU). We may be able to advocate for those or set our kids' own path if they are that advanced in math, but our school doesn't have that track. We go in knowing that.

2. All the money we would have been able to use for other things. We will miss it.

Catholic schools are not better for Math or Science. That is absurd.

Catholic school math programs can be just as good as math at public schools.

The difference is they are not willing to advance everyone/ as many early.

That doesn’t make the math program worse. Just different.

It’s only a “problem” if your child plans to switch to public in 9th. Then suddenly you are “behind”. But it’s easy to catch up by taking geometry the summer between 9 th and 10 th.

[Anonymous]

The problem with many Catholic schools is that there’s NO differentiation. The low IQ kids are kept in with the regular classes and drag down and slow down the entire class. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s an interesting article and reflects the discussions in my district as well (DCPS). The goal is to make things equal, but the result is students with means are taking advanced math as an extracurricular and the kids without means lose their path to advanced math. It’s creating a larger disparity.

And that is what bugs me the most about these elected school board members, in many localities, who talk incessantly about Equity, but then either (a) do nothing or (b) cut the pathways that enable students from lower-income households to advance academically, always done in the name of Equity. Well, either a or b are the least equitable things a school board could possibly choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s an interesting article and reflects the discussions in my district as well (DCPS). The goal is to make things equal, but the result is students with means are taking advanced math as an extracurricular and the kids without means lose their path to advanced math. It’s creating a larger disparity.

And that is what bugs me the most about these elected school board members, in many localities, who talk incessantly about Equity, but then either (a) do nothing or (b) cut the pathways that enable students from lower-income households to advance academically, always done in the name of Equity. Well, either a or b are the least equitable things a school board could possibly choose.

Public schools' current goal is equity in "student results". However the goal should be equality in the opportunities provided. The kids then differentiate themselves depending on their abilities and preferences. Providing opportunities and support to all students seem costly to them, and hard so instead they just get rid of some advancing opportunities. Example: Starting next year AAP math education for 3rd and 4th grade will not be accelerated. In AAP 5th grade kids will be suddenly accelerated to 6th grade. I don't see how this approach is better in any way for everyone.

Even the communist Soviet Union had a "sink or swim" approach in their education. Their goal was never "equality of student outcomes".