Someone please explain to me the difference between tracking and the AAP program/centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is tracking (unequal opportunity), because they use IQ tests to separate young children into different learning groups.

This is factually incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they not getting the opportunity?
Every kid has the opportunity to apply to be in AAP.

Really? You cant' figure that out? You truly believe they are getting equal opportunity? Please explain how you see the AAP program as equal opportunity.

Explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, since I can't figure that out.

Well, you're certainly acting like a 5 yr. old as you are pretending not to "get it". Obviously, parents who prefer AAP not be open to all, enjoy the perceived "exclusivity" of the program. That is clearly the only reason you don't want other children who are perfectly capable of handling the curriculum, to be given that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke.

Because Level II and Level III services are not consistently delivered across the county and there is (often wide) variance in quality from school to school due to site-based management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.
The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

+100 to your entire post, especially the bolded part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

But AAP is not the top 15%. Many of those kids are in General Ed. Nor would it surprise me to find some of the kids in AAP do not fall into the top 15%. It is truly ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

But AAP is not the top 15%. Many of those kids are in General Ed. Nor would it surprise me to find some of the kids in AAP do not fall into the top 15%. It is truly ridiculous.

Then you are talking about flaws in implementing a system versus flaws in the system design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

But AAP is not the top 15%. Many of those kids are in General Ed. Nor would it surprise me to find some of the kids in AAP do not fall into the top 15%. It is truly ridiculous.

Very true. Especially with the test score criteria for AAP admittance being relatively low, there are some kids in AAP who just squeaked in, and others in Gen Ed who didn't quite make it; a group of kids whose scores are virtually identical. If FCPS would raise it, there would be a substantial decrease in eligible kids. Maybe they would actually even be in the "gifted" range!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

But AAP is not the top 15%. Many of those kids are in General Ed. Nor would it surprise me to find some of the kids in AAP do not fall into the top 15%. It is truly ridiculous.

It should probably be the top 10%, but the AAP powers that be have given a bump of 5% and included anyone who should possibly be included. It seems that if there was even remotely a possibility that someone should be there, they are. And according to many on this board, anyone and everyone who cares to appeal and "push" can easily be in. Both cannot be true, that it is so very easy to get in and that qualified kids are kept out year after year. So that would leave just the issue of kids who maybe should not be there but still are. I would leave it to the kids, their families, and their teachers to decide if the AAP curriculum is not a good match for them. I think it is a good fit the vast majority of the time since the kids have needed to prove themselves in more than one way (tests, GBRS, report cards, work samples, recommendations).

[Anonymous]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

But AAP is not the top 15%. Many of those kids are in General Ed. Nor would it surprise me to find some of the kids in AAP do not fall into the top 15%. It is truly ridiculous.

Very true. Especially with the test score criteria for AAP admittance being relatively low, there are some kids in AAP who just squeaked in, and others in Gen Ed who didn't quite make it; a group of kids whose scores are virtually identical. If FCPS would raise it, there would be a substantial decrease in eligible kids. Maybe they would actually even be in the "gifted" range!

No matter where you draw the line, there are going to be kids just on one side or the other of the line, with very similar characteristics. Where could you make a division that would be completely clear cut with no close calls to make? Human beings cannot be categorized so neatly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is tested. Twice.

Every parent can refer their child for consideration, whether or not the child meets the testing cut offs.

Every child who is refered is looked at by the committee, regardless of the child's score or who referred the child.

If the child is not placed by the committee, the parents equally have the opportuity to appeal.

If the appeal is unsuccessful, the parent can refer the child the following school year, and the next year, and so on and so forth all the way until AAP ends in 8th grade.
Every single student in fcps has this equal opportunity to be considered for the AAP program.

Moreover, the testing is very clearly just ONE part of the assessment, and as another poster mentioned the CogAt & NNAT are not IQ tests anyway.

There's nothing stopping kids from moving into the program later, and lots of differentiation happens within AAP & GE over the years following. Anyone suggesting that this is a permanent, static tracking is not very familiar with how things really work in later grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

Okay, so you are saying that the population served is not "gifted." I think that to the best of their ability, within the available budget (not enough for WISC for all), FCPS is trying to target a group that might be expected to have IQ in the 132 range, the typical definition of gifted. Do you disagree with this definition of gifted? Or do you think that all FCPS should have to take the WISC, since CogAT and NNAT aren't actual IQ tests, in order to determine who truly has 132 IQ? Because of budget limitations FCPS has to use CogAT and NNAT at 132 as the in-pool group to automatically consider for AAP. Because the tests are flawed, parent referrals are allowed. Even with national gifted education standards, there are mandates for multiple criteria to be considered for placement. If you read about selection criteria for gifted education, you'll see that what FCPS does is not different from what other programs for gifted (not highly gifted) do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

Not all schools would have enough students for critical mass. They may have just three or five students and not enough for a full class. Even if there are enough for one full class, it is considered undesirable for students to be in just one grouping for several years. At least two classes for mixing is considered best.