Raising AAP standards

[Anonymous]

Actually, according to the FCPS dashboard, only Lemon Road has capacity. The others are over.

[Anonymous]

Looking at the dashboard, I also see that Churchill Road is under capacity (by one student). The most crowded elementary in the county is actually Westgate elementary (a non-center school), not Haycock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20% of all kids in grades 3-8 are in AAP.

They should go to a straight IQ test, and limit it to no more than the top 1%. Return the rest to gen ed. The teachers already provide differentiated services in the classroom, and will simply continue to do so.

I agree on the top 1% in AAP. Then establish Local Level IV at every elementary and middle school for the kids between gen ed and AAP. This reduces transportation costs as well as overcrowding at AAP Centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of all kids in grades 3-8 are in AAP.

They should go to a straight IQ test, and limit it to no more than the top 1%. Return the rest to gen ed. The teachers already provide differentiated services in the classroom, and will simply continue to do so.

I agree on the top 1% in AAP. Then establish Local Level IV at every elementary and middle school for the kids between gen ed and AAP. This reduces transportation costs as well as overcrowding at AAP Centers.

This is a wonderful idea.

[Anonymous]

Would you have a requirement that the child has to be 1%- 2 on both many and cigar, not either? That alone should reduce the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of all kids in grades 3-8 are in AAP.

They should go to a straight IQ test, and limit it to no more than the top 1%. Return the rest to gen ed. The teachers already provide differentiated services in the classroom, and will simply continue to do so.

I agree on the top 1% in AAP. Then establish Local Level IV at every elementary and middle school for the kids between gen ed and AAP. This reduces transportation costs as well as overcrowding at AAP Centers.

This is similar to what FCPS had in place years ago.
140+ WISC kids got center placement
130-140 WISC kids got school based services.
It worked. There were far fewer centers, and no overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think AAP should raise the bar for admission until they address the lack of level III services. My current second grader receives level III services, which is pullout small group work, one hour, twice a month. I don't think DC would get any more in 3-6 grade. The current system is set up so that level IV gets full day services, while the rest of the advanced learners barely get any services. I don't think my child is in the top 1%, but gen Ed classes are designed for the middle of the road child. Unless they start offering more services for the 70-99% group, parents of children in this "advanced" group will continue to prep, appeal, and otherwise work within the system to get their children in AAP. It's not fair that the top 1% should receive so much more assistance than children who are also advanced, just not to the same degree.

Totally agree! There is an incentive for kids who are very close to the cut off or are not selected to appeal b/c the difference in services b/t Level 4 and Level 3 is steep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think AAP should raise the bar for admission until they address the lack of level III services. My current second grader receives level III services, which is pullout small group work, one hour, twice a month. I don't think DC would get any more in 3-6 grade. The current system is set up so that level IV gets full day services, while the rest of the advanced learners barely get any services. I don't think my child is in the top 1%, but gen Ed classes are designed for the middle of the road child. Unless they start offering more services for the 70-99% group, parents of children in this "advanced" group will continue to prep, appeal, and otherwise work within the system to get their children in AAP. It's not fair that the top 1% should receive so much more assistance than children who are also advanced, just not to the same degree.

Totally agree! There is an incentive for kids who are very close to the cut off or are not selected to appeal b/c the difference in services b/t Level 4 and Level 3 is steep.

This is further support for Local Level IV at every elementary and middle school. The tricky part is ensuring consistency from one school to another. A principal should not be able to opt out of providing necessary services to students in the school.

[Anonymous]

Here is the reason why things will not really change: AAP the way it is constructed, only costs the county a few hundred thousand, and that is for transportation costs.

Level III actually costs more, because in addition to the regular teachers you need the pull out specialists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the reason why things will not really change: AAP the way it is constructed, only costs the county a few hundred thousand, and that is for transportation costs.

Level III actually costs more, because in addition to the regular teachers you need the pull out specialists.

Great points, especially in a bad budget year. Might you have any idea why FCPS would dream up this cost-prohibitive proposal now?

[Anonymous]

AAP (then GT) was 12% in 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of all kids in grades 3-8 are in AAP.

They should go to a straight IQ test, and limit it to no more than the top 1%. Return the rest to gen ed. The teachers already provide differentiated services in the classroom, and will simply continue to do so.

Our base school just eliminated ability grouping. My kid is not AAP but I have no confidence that he will be challenged anymore. I just don't think the teachers can adequately differentiate in one classroom for all of the different abilities.

We can't. With classes of up to 32 student in my building, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible to differentiate.

[Anonymous]

Would love to hear from the teachers and administrators what their solutions are to providing a challenging environment for every child so they all can work at an accelerated pace for them. Wouldn't differentiation by subject alone make far better sense? I have yet to see a really gifted math student be awesome in English too, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would love to hear from the teachers and administrators what their solutions are to providing a challenging environment for every child so they all can work at an accelerated pace for them. Wouldn't differentiation by subject alone make far better sense? I have yet to see a really gifted math student be awesome in English too, for example.

There are "really gifted" math students that are "really gifted" in language arts in my kids' AAP Center.

I think the subject-specific differentiation is already offered in middle and high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of all kids in grades 3-8 are in AAP.

They should go to a straight IQ test, and limit it to no more than the top 1%. Return the rest to gen ed. The teachers already provide differentiated services in the classroom, and will simply continue to do so.

Our base school just eliminated ability grouping. My kid is not AAP but I have no confidence that he will be challenged anymore. I just don't think the teachers can adequately differentiate in one classroom for all of the different abilities.

We can't. With classes of up to 32 student in my building, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible to differentiate.

Thank you for being honest!!! I think our principal has a PC agenda. I'm not unsympathetic that the kids in the lower groups feels stuck there (and one of my kids sometimes ends up in the lower groups) and I think the teachers need to be flexible about grouping, but to entirely eliminate ability grouping and then try to tell me that there will still be differentiation is insulting to my intelligence.