Afterthoughts from AAP orientation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things we've noticed is that the AAP classroom has had more vocabulary work, but less reading and writing work. We are concerned with the lack of writing instruction. Has anyone noticed less reading and writing assignments in AAP than in general ed?

That may be the case in your child's particular AAP center or classroom but it wasn't at our center school. If your child is finishing third grade AAP right now, bear in mind that there should be increased writing each year, as they get the kids gradually ramped up to start middle school. I know my child did do a lot more vocabulary work in third but was soon doing more and more writing.

Is it possible that your child is doing more writing than you realize but it's being done in the classroom, so you don't see much of it coming home as homework?

Our center had plenty of writing assignments both in and out of class, and reading as well, and they increased year by year. For instance, there were small reading discussion groups in fourth and sixth grades (parents helped facilitate those). Sixth grade also had a designated writing teacher and a writing class as part of the sixth grade courses. The writing class was separate from the language arts/reading class, so writing got a lot of attention in that year before middle school.

If you feel your child's class still just isn't doing much writing, ask the teacher about it. Most are glad to explain the progression of courses. Talk to next year's teachers and ask about writing and reading expectations. But if your child is in third right now, you likely will find that there will be a lot more writing to come and more in-depth reading as well.

Is this Louise Archer or another center? Our center doesn't have a writing program. I'm wondering how many do.

[Anonymous]

We left FCPS to move to another state.

Our schools uses Wordly Wise in the Gen Ed classroom, which is every classroom since there is no AAP. The kids keep up with it just fine.

I believe all of the "AAP tools" could easy be used for Gen Ed kids and are in many other districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We left FCPS to move to another state.

Our schools uses Wordly Wise in the Gen Ed classroom, which is every classroom since there is no AAP. The kids keep up with it just fine.

I believe all of the "AAP tools" could easy be used for Gen Ed kids and are in many other districts.

OP Here. Exactly my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you'd prefer that gifted kids get shafted, huh? The line has to be drawn somewhere. People who just miss boundaries are always upset yet boundaries must be drawn.

OP suggested gen ed kids have access to the same resources as AAP, how would that adversely impact AAP kids? No one said to make AAP kids do the gen ed curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you'd prefer that gifted kids get shafted, huh? The line has to be drawn somewhere. People who just miss boundaries are always upset yet boundaries must be drawn.

OP suggested gen ed kids have access to the same resources as AAP, how would that adversely impact AAP kids? No one said to make AAP kids do the gen ed curriculum.

Our FCPS LLIV school used grammar island and building language in the 3rd grade general ed and AAP classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

Three years is better than six. The bright gen ed kids do it k-2 and 3-6. If the gen ed kids had the same curriculum as AAP with those who are behind getting remediation, how would that be bad for AAP kids? There are schools in McLean that have AAP and also use the AAP curriculum for the gen ed kids. Why is that ok for McLean but not the rest of the county? The notion that all kids who are not AAP should get the curriculum suited for the low performing students is ridiculous. Why not try the McLean model and see how it works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

Three years is better than six. The bright gen ed kids do it k-2 and 3-6. If the gen ed kids had the same curriculum as AAP with those who are behind getting remediation, how would that be bad for AAP kids? There are schools in McLean that have AAP and also use the AAP curriculum for the gen ed kids. Why is that ok for McLean but not the rest of the county? The notion that all kids who are not AAP should get the curriculum suited for the low performing students is ridiculous. Why not try the McLean model and see how it works?

There are kids in the county who have 16 other students in their classes, year after year. There are kids in the county who have a full time AART at their schools. There are kids in the county who have teachers who use the AARTs to provide differentiated work to certain kids while other teachers don't use the AARTs and don't provide enrichment or differentiated work. There are kids in the county who have fabulous teachers who make all the difference in the world to their students and then there are duds "teaching" others. Life isn't fair, is it? And who said the base curriculum is for "low performing" students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

No most of them were way too busy prepping for Nnat and cogat.

Sad that you probably believe that. You also probably believe that any parent who is loud enough can get his kid in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you'd prefer that gifted kids get shafted, huh? The line has to be drawn somewhere. People who just miss boundaries are always upset yet boundaries must be drawn.

OP suggested gen ed kids have access to the same resources as AAP, how would that adversely impact AAP kids? No one said to make AAP kids do the gen ed curriculum.

Our FCPS LLIV school used grammar island and building language in the 3rd grade general ed and AAP classrooms.

My kids' base school doesn't have Level IV. Level IV schools that are already using resources for AAP are more likely to feel comfortable using some of then in Gen Ed also. AAP kids across the county have access to the same curriculum. I wish the access gen ed kids have to accelerated resources was more consistently administered. Some gen ed kids have access to compacted math, some don't. Some can be placed into Level IV classrooms for certain subject if the are advanced in those subjects, some can't....I have one child already in AAP. My younger DC can definitely handle what the older one does in AAP so when the time comes, if necessary, I will parent refer and appeal because the base school offers very little differentiation. Do I care about the AAP label? No, but I do care about my kids getting the level of work they can handle so I will do what it takes to get them that. FCPS needs to stop being so focused on the top and the bottom. I know this isn't the case in all schools, but it's like that in enough of them that something should be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

Three years is better than six. The bright gen ed kids do it k-2 and 3-6. If the gen ed kids had the same curriculum as AAP with those who are behind getting remediation, how would that be bad for AAP kids? There are schools in McLean that have AAP and also use the AAP curriculum for the gen ed kids. Why is that ok for McLean but not the rest of the county? The notion that all kids who are not AAP should get the curriculum suited for the low performing students is ridiculous. Why not try the McLean model and see how it works?

There are kids in the county who have 16 other students in their classes, year after year. There are kids in the county who have a full time AART at their schools. There are kids in the county who have teachers who use the AARTs to provide differentiated work to certain kids while other teachers don't use the AARTs and don't provide enrichment or differentiated work. There are kids in the county who have fabulous teachers who make all the difference in the world to their students and then there are duds "teaching" others. Life isn't fair, is it? And who said the base curriculum is for "low performing" students?

So because "life isn't fair," it's ok for FCPS to be totally inconsistent with respect to what resources are available to kids at similar academic levels? This attitude is why AAP is so bloated. If you ignore the bright but not gifted kids because life isn't fair, their parents will prep, refer and appeal if that's the only way to get their kids the appropriate level of education. Then the people who were if the "life isn't fair" group have to deal with the fact that their gifted kids are stuck with kids who aren't gifted. I guess self help is the only choice in some cases. So be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

No most of them were way too busy prepping for Nnat and cogat.

Sad that you probably believe that. You also probably believe that any parent who is loud enough can get his kid in.

Probably not those who are loud enough, but definitely the ones with enough money to pay for a private WISC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you'd prefer that gifted kids get shafted, huh? The line has to be drawn somewhere. People who just miss boundaries are always upset yet boundaries must be drawn.

And I assume you'd be upset if that line were drawn in such a way that your own child was denied admittance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We left FCPS to move to another state.

Our schools uses Wordly Wise in the Gen Ed classroom, which is every classroom since there is no AAP. The kids keep up with it just fine.

I believe all of the "AAP tools" could easy be used for Gen Ed kids and are in many other districts.

They absolutely could. FCPS (and many parents) are convinced that only a certain group of kids could "handle" things like Wordly Wise or Caesar's English. It's incredible how they underestimate all the other kids who are perfectly capable of this work as well. It should simply be the general curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

Three years is better than six. The bright gen ed kids do it k-2 and 3-6. If the gen ed kids had the same curriculum as AAP with those who are behind getting remediation, how would that be bad for AAP kids? There are schools in McLean that have AAP and also use the AAP curriculum for the gen ed kids. Why is that ok for McLean but not the rest of the county? The notion that all kids who are not AAP should get the curriculum suited for the low performing students is ridiculous. Why not try the McLean model and see how it works?

There are kids in the county who have 16 other students in their classes, year after year. There are kids in the county who have a full time AART at their schools. There are kids in the county who have teachers who use the AARTs to provide differentiated work to certain kids while other teachers don't use the AARTs and don't provide enrichment or differentiated work. There are kids in the county who have fabulous teachers who make all the difference in the world to their students and then there are duds "teaching" others. Life isn't fair, is it? And who said the base curriculum is for "low performing" students?

So because "life isn't fair," it's ok for FCPS to be totally inconsistent with respect to what resources are available to kids at similar academic levels? This attitude is why AAP is so bloated. If you ignore the bright but not gifted kids because life isn't fair, their parents will prep, refer and appeal if that's the only way to get their kids the appropriate level of education. Then the people who were if the "life isn't fair" group have to deal with the fact that their gifted kids are stuck with kids who aren't gifted. I guess self help is the only choice in some cases. So be it.

Lines have to be drawn at some point, no? A blood alcohol content (BAC) level for a DUI, qualifying for AAP, be given an award based on somewhat of a subjective decision, etc. it is a detailed process, using multiple data points, and a lot of different eyes separately viewing each kid's file before a decision is made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resources are definitely available GE teachers in many schools. Training, too.

You are projecting a solution based on your very limited anecdotal experience. Many kids are not ready and it creates too much pressure and stress. Let every child learn at their pace. That is what GE teachers are likely trying to do.

Np. How many gen ed teachers do you know who use Caesar's English? The problem is because it's not a part of the gen ed curriculum, most kids who can handle it in Gen Ed don't get access because the teacher is too busy working with the kids who "aren't ready." That's why so many people parent refer and appeal. Bright gen ed kids get screwed because the base gen ed curriculum is dumbed down for the kids who aren't ready. How about if they aren't ready, they can get remedial help? So tired of bright but not gifted kids getting the shaft because of political correctness.

Wouldn't the same be true of the kids in AAP in third, with regard to how they "got the shaft" k-2 when they were likely sitting hearing things for years they already knew?

Three years is better than six. The bright gen ed kids do it k-2 and 3-6. If the gen ed kids had the same curriculum as AAP with those who are behind getting remediation, how would that be bad for AAP kids? There are schools in McLean that have AAP and also use the AAP curriculum for the gen ed kids. Why is that ok for McLean but not the rest of the county? The notion that all kids who are not AAP should get the curriculum suited for the low performing students is ridiculous. Why not try the McLean model and see how it works?

There are kids in the county who have 16 other students in their classes, year after year. There are kids in the county who have a full time AART at their schools. There are kids in the county who have teachers who use the AARTs to provide differentiated work to certain kids while other teachers don't use the AARTs and don't provide enrichment or differentiated work. There are kids in the county who have fabulous teachers who make all the difference in the world to their students and then there are duds "teaching" others. Life isn't fair, is it? And who said the base curriculum is for "low performing" students?

So because "life isn't fair," it's ok for FCPS to be totally inconsistent with respect to what resources are available to kids at similar academic levels? This attitude is why AAP is so bloated. If you ignore the bright but not gifted kids because life isn't fair, their parents will prep, refer and appeal if that's the only way to get their kids the appropriate level of education. Then the people who were if the "life isn't fair" group have to deal with the fact that their gifted kids are stuck with kids who aren't gifted. I guess self help is the only choice in some cases. So be it.

Lines have to be drawn at some point, no? A blood alcohol content (BAC) level for a DUI, qualifying for AAP, be given an award based on somewhat of a subjective decision, etc. it is a detailed process, using multiple data points, and a lot of different eyes separately viewing each kid's file before a decision is made.

Lines do have to be drawn. FCPS has drawn them in the wrong place. The lines neglect the middle kids. You seem to be fine with that, as is FCPS. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Middle school manage to offer regular, honor and AAP. A similar system in elementary would go a far way in fixing the problem.