Are all AAP centers (including LLIVs) created equal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think it comes down to some schools have critical mass and some don't. If you can fill a classroom with center-eligible children year after year, then there is zero reason for a center option to be offered - place a LLIV teacher for each grade level in that school and leave the centers for the kids at schools without that many center eligible students.

I'm sorry, your suggestion is entirely too reasonable.

Haha. I know, reason will not be tolerated in these parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think it comes down to some schools have critical mass and some don't. If you can fill a classroom with center-eligible children year after year, then there is zero reason for a center option to be offered - place a LLIV teacher for each grade level in that school and leave the centers for the kids at schools without that many center eligible students.

So here's a question. If all the Forestville center eligible AAP kids stay at base school, and there is enough kids for a Level IV class, then they are all together in one class? So then I guess there is a "smart" class and a "dumb" class? Just curious. I don't know much about this. My child has a high IQ but low processing speed due to ADHD and didn't qualify for AAP. Instead, she does pull outs in the resource room for math. She tests at grade level on math, but has trouble with a big classroom. I worry about her being considered one of the "dumb" kids when she certainly isn't. I'm not disaparaging dumb or smart. I just want to be ready to help her navigate peer relations. She was very worried about starting on pull outs and practically begged me not to pursue them even though it was at the recommendation of the teacher. Once the pull outs were implemented for a week or two, then she was happy with it, but I know she worries about the social aspects.

[Anonymous]

that dynamic already exists at center schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think it comes down to some schools have critical mass and some don't. If you can fill a classroom with center-eligible children year after year, then there is zero reason for a center option to be offered - place a LLIV teacher for each grade level in that school and leave the centers for the kids at schools without that many center eligible students.

I'm sorry, your suggestion is entirely too reasonable.

Haha. I know, reason will not be tolerated in these parts.

+2
Common sense seems to be in short supply in these here parts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think it comes down to some schools have critical mass and some don't. If you can fill a classroom with center-eligible children year after year, then there is zero reason for a center option to be offered - place a LLIV teacher for each grade level in that school and leave the centers for the kids at schools without that many center eligible students.

So here's a question. If all the Forestville center eligible AAP kids stay at base school, and there is enough kids for a Level IV class, then they are all together in one class? So then I guess there is a "smart" class and a "dumb" class? Just curious. I don't know much about this. My child has a high IQ but low processing speed due to ADHD and didn't qualify for AAP. Instead, she does pull outs in the resource room for math. She tests at grade level on math, but has trouble with a big classroom. I worry about her being considered one of the "dumb" kids when she certainly isn't. I'm not disaparaging dumb or smart. I just want to be ready to help her navigate peer relations. She was very worried about starting on pull outs and practically begged me not to pursue them even though it was at the recommendation of the teacher. Once the pull outs were implemented for a week or two, then she was happy with it, but I know she worries about the social aspects.

As another poster said, you've just described - exactly - the dynamic at center schools. There are the AAP classes and there are the Gen Ed classes. Even though most of the Gen Ed kids and most of the AAP kids are indistinguishable, the fact that the classes are so clearly segregated makes the kids (and some parents) assume that there are "smart" and "dumb" classes. It's outrageous how FCPS sees fit to make such blatant groupings, when many (most?) of these kids have overlapping abilities. Some are advanced in some subjects, and others in different subjects. It's the very rare child who is consistently advanced across the board, yet dividing the kids up like this makes all the kids assume that one group is superior to the other. And that is definitely NOT the case.

Center schools are a horrible experience for the very bright, Gen Ed child.

[Anonymous]

PP here - I should have actually said, center schools are a horrible experience for ANY Gen Ed child. No matter who they are or how bright they are, it is assumed by the other kids, parents, and teachers, that they are in the "dumb" class. It's a terrible thing to do to these kids.

[Anonymous]

Of course AAP centers vary from school to school. It's just like how the quality of gen. ed varies from school to school. Each principal does things a bit differently. Some principals aren't very good at hiring quality teachers or retaining them. Different principals have different focus, and some don't see the point to offering extra learning experiences or activities. These are also the principals who ride the teachers hard about focusing on SOL practice.

Our center is pretty mediocre. The parents are on the low-key side, for AAP center parents.

I hate to break it to you, PP, but your issue with gen. ed versus center is more about parents being asses. In school, kids have always known who is the smarter and who is the slower. Whether they're tracked, separated, together in one lump, kids know. Just as you know who's the fastest runner in your class and who can't walk and chew gum. And how children act and talk about those differences depends on what kind of asses their parents are, and how the adults in the school model behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course AAP centers vary from school to school. It's just like how the quality of gen. ed varies from school to school. Each principal does things a bit differently. Some principals aren't very good at hiring quality teachers or retaining them. Different principals have different focus, and some don't see the point to offering extra learning experiences or activities. These are also the principals who ride the teachers hard about focusing on SOL practice.

Our center is pretty mediocre. The parents are on the low-key side, for AAP center parents.

I hate to break it to you, PP, but your issue with gen. ed versus center is more about parents being asses. In school, kids have always known who is the smarter and who is the slower. Whether they're tracked, separated, together in one lump, kids know. Just as you know who's the fastest runner in your class and who can't walk and chew gum. And how children act and talk about those differences depends on what kind of asses their parents are, and how the adults in the school model behavior.

PP here and I agree with you about the parents being asses and passing that along to their children. However, the mere fact that in centers, certain classrooms are labled "AAP" and others "Gen Ed" certainly doesn't help matters. It's one thing to have flexible ability groupings, yet a mixed homeroom. But when the homerooms are that black and white, it just enforces the separation and becomes very "in-your-face".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course AAP centers vary from school to school. It's just like how the quality of gen. ed varies from school to school. Each principal does things a bit differently. Some principals aren't very good at hiring quality teachers or retaining them. Different principals have different focus, and some don't see the point to offering extra learning experiences or activities. These are also the principals who ride the teachers hard about focusing on SOL practice.

Our center is pretty mediocre. The parents are on the low-key side, for AAP center parents.

I hate to break it to you, PP, but your issue with gen. ed versus center is more about parents being asses. In school, kids have always known who is the smarter and who is the slower. Whether they're tracked, separated, together in one lump, kids know. Just as you know who's the fastest runner in your class and who can't walk and chew gum. And how children act and talk about those differences depends on what kind of asses their parents are, and how the adults in the school model behavior.

PP here and I agree with you about the parents being asses and passing that along to their children. However, the mere fact that in centers, certain classrooms are labled "AAP" and others "Gen Ed" certainly doesn't help matters. It's one thing to have flexible ability groupings, yet a mixed homeroom. But when the homerooms are that black and white, it just enforces the separation and becomes very "in-your-face".

The "labeling" you refer to was the impetus for changing the name from GT to Advanced Academics, in that the service is named ("labeled") and not the child.

There are some children that require different services. My child has a peanut allergy and must sit at the nut-free table in the cafeteria. Is there a better way to designate that he must be away from peanuts?

Also -- not every center does things the same way. Evidently you have first-hand experience at more than one Center school. I suggest you reach out to the principals at those Center schools and provide suggestions for how to better designate the equivalent of my son who must be away from peanuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course AAP centers vary from school to school. It's just like how the quality of gen. ed varies from school to school. Each principal does things a bit differently. Some principals aren't very good at hiring quality teachers or retaining them. Different principals have different focus, and some don't see the point to offering extra learning experiences or activities. These are also the principals who ride the teachers hard about focusing on SOL practice.

Our center is pretty mediocre. The parents are on the low-key side, for AAP center parents.

I hate to break it to you, PP, but your issue with gen. ed versus center is more about parents being asses. In school, kids have always known who is the smarter and who is the slower. Whether they're tracked, separated, together in one lump, kids know. Just as you know who's the fastest runner in your class and who can't walk and chew gum. And how children act and talk about those differences depends on what kind of asses their parents are, and how the adults in the school model behavior.

PP here and I agree with you about the parents being asses and passing that along to their children. However, the mere fact that in centers, certain classrooms are labled "AAP" and others "Gen Ed" certainly doesn't help matters. It's one thing to have flexible ability groupings, yet a mixed homeroom. But when the homerooms are that black and white, it just enforces the separation and becomes very "in-your-face".

The "labeling" you refer to was the impetus for changing the name from GT to Advanced Academics, in that the service is named ("labeled") and not the child.

There are some children that require different services. My child has a peanut allergy and must sit at the nut-free table in the cafeteria. Is there a better way to designate that he must be away from peanuts?

Also -- not every center does things the same way. Evidently you have first-hand experience at more than one Center school. I suggest you reach out to the principals at those Center schools and provide suggestions for how to better designate the equivalent of my son who must be away from peanuts.

Now that's a strawman if ever there was one. You're actually comparing a child with a peanut allergy - who has to sit at a separate table to prevent contact with peanuts so s/he won't have an adverse reaction - to separating kids into Gen Ed and AAP classrooms? Last time I checked, none of the AAP kids had gone into anaphylactic shock from exposure to Gen Ed students and vice-versa. How bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course AAP centers vary from school to school. It's just like how the quality of gen. ed varies from school to school. Each principal does things a bit differently. Some principals aren't very good at hiring quality teachers or retaining them. Different principals have different focus, and some don't see the point to offering extra learning experiences or activities. These are also the principals who ride the teachers hard about focusing on SOL practice.

Our center is pretty mediocre. The parents are on the low-key side, for AAP center parents.

I hate to break it to you, PP, but your issue with gen. ed versus center is more about parents being asses. In school, kids have always known who is the smarter and who is the slower. Whether they're tracked, separated, together in one lump, kids know. Just as you know who's the fastest runner in your class and who can't walk and chew gum. And how children act and talk about those differences depends on what kind of asses their parents are, and how the adults in the school model behavior.

PP here and I agree with you about the parents being asses and passing that along to their children. However, the mere fact that in centers, certain classrooms are labled "AAP" and others "Gen Ed" certainly doesn't help matters. It's one thing to have flexible ability groupings, yet a mixed homeroom. But when the homerooms are that black and white, it just enforces the separation and becomes very "in-your-face".

The "labeling" you refer to was the impetus for changing the name from GT to Advanced Academics, in that the service is named ("labeled") and not the child.

There are some children that require different services. My child has a peanut allergy and must sit at the nut-free table in the cafeteria. Is there a better way to designate that he must be away from peanuts?

Also -- not every center does things the same way. Evidently you have first-hand experience at more than one Center school. I suggest you reach out to the principals at those Center schools and provide suggestions for how to better designate the equivalent of my son who must be away from peanuts.

Now that's a strawman if ever there was one. You're actually comparing a child with a peanut allergy - who has to sit at a separate table to prevent contact with peanuts so s/he won't have an adverse reaction - to separating kids into Gen Ed and AAP classrooms? Last time I checked, none of the AAP kids had gone into anaphylactic shock from exposure to Gen Ed students and vice-versa. How bizarre.

Trying to come up with an example to better explain needs to you. Sorry it does not convey well for you. As you can tell, I am not an educator.

[Anonymous]

It's more comparable to athletics. Kids can see who's most athletic, who runs the fastest, and no one sees any shame in ranking. They get put on different tiers of teams and that's just life. What's important is that you don't keep the slower runners from racing and being challenged, and you don't give the message that your worth as a person is defined by how fast you can run.

Kids have always been able to see who is brighter and more academically oriented. In a well-run school, they can know these things and it doesn't affect them negatively. But people who cry over the existence of different programs, like AAP differentiation, are just trying to pound everyone into a soothing mush of mediocrity, where we pretend there are no intellectual equivalents of faster runners and never really challenge those intellects because somebody might feel bad about themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's more comparable to athletics. Kids can see who's most athletic, who runs the fastest, and no one sees any shame in ranking. They get put on different tiers of teams and that's just life. What's important is that you don't keep the slower runners from racing and being challenged, and you don't give the message that your worth as a person is defined by how fast you can run.

Kids have always been able to see who is brighter and more academically oriented. In a well-run school, they can know these things and it doesn't affect them negatively. But people who cry over the existence of different programs, like AAP differentiation, are just trying to pound everyone into a soothing mush of mediocrity, where we pretend there are no intellectual equivalents of faster runners and never really challenge those intellects because somebody might feel bad about themselves.

Before AAP and travel sports though, the best and the brightest also weren't sectioned off from everyone else. Differentiation is nice such as what is done in a Montessori school, but the labels and segregation cause problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's more comparable to athletics. Kids can see who's most athletic, who runs the fastest, and no one sees any shame in ranking. They get put on different tiers of teams and that's just life. What's important is that you don't keep the slower runners from racing and being challenged, and you don't give the message that your worth as a person is defined by how fast you can run.

Kids have always been able to see who is brighter and more academically oriented. In a well-run school, they can know these things and it doesn't affect them negatively. But people who cry over the existence of different programs, like AAP differentiation, are just trying to pound everyone into a soothing mush of mediocrity, where we pretend there are no intellectual equivalents of faster runners and never really challenge those intellects because somebody might feel bad about themselves.

Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's more comparable to athletics. Kids can see who's most athletic, who runs the fastest, and no one sees any shame in ranking. They get put on different tiers of teams and that's just life. What's important is that you don't keep the slower runners from racing and being challenged, and you don't give the message that your worth as a person is defined by how fast you can run.

Kids have always been able to see who is brighter and more academically oriented. In a well-run school, they can know these things and it doesn't affect them negatively. But people who cry over the existence of different programs, like AAP differentiation, are just trying to pound everyone into a soothing mush of mediocrity, where we pretend there are no intellectual equivalents of faster runners and never really challenge those intellects because somebody might feel bad about themselves.

Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.