Level IV clustering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A significant number of students are leaving Cub Run's LLIV for the center at Poplar Tree next year, in all grades. Their local level program/clustering has not gone well and parents are speaking with their feet.

Same with Virginia Run. I think parents of LIV children at both schools have a strong preference to send their kids to Rocky Run for middle school too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people feeling at schools that are new to clustering model? At my school many families are thinking about moving to the center school. I am worried my DC academic peers are leaving. I am not sure what to do for next year.

I think folks will make the move, though I’m wondering if younger siblings will be able to be pupil placed.

I think the schools implementing the cluster method are schools just adding LLIV and so the kids have already been moving to the Center so it doesn't matter to the Base School or the Center.

Not at Shrevewood. Switched from years of LLIV to cluster model. Lots of families planning to leave after this year where their children have basically been Guinea pigs.

He doesn't even see it coming....

I don't think you're aware of all the positive feedback he HAS received. A lot of families are thrilled to see the super competitive parents & kids leave the school. My son actually expressed relief when he found out one girl is leaving for a different school.

From what I have heard there are A LOT of rising third graders going to the center next year. It will leave just a few Level IV there in third grade next year. I am not sure how they will handle advanced math.

I don't think this is because of clustering, I think this is because Covid really screwed up a lot of kids - there have been insane amounts of behavioral issues in younger grades over the past two years and people want their kids in schools with high socio-economic averages, frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people feeling at schools that are new to clustering model? At my school many families are thinking about moving to the center school. I am worried my DC academic peers are leaving. I am not sure what to do for next year.

I think folks will make the move, though I’m wondering if younger siblings will be able to be pupil placed.

I think the schools implementing the cluster method are schools just adding LLIV and so the kids have already been moving to the Center so it doesn't matter to the Base School or the Center.

Not at Shrevewood. Switched from years of LLIV to cluster model. Lots of families planning to leave after this year where their children have basically been Guinea pigs.

He doesn't even see it coming....

I don't think you're aware of all the positive feedback he HAS received. A lot of families are thrilled to see the super competitive parents & kids leave the school. My son actually expressed relief when he found out one girl is leaving for a different school.

From what I have heard there are A LOT of rising third graders going to the center next year. It will leave just a few Level IV there in third grade next year. I am not sure how they will handle advanced math.

I don't think this is because of clustering, I think this is because Covid really screwed up a lot of kids - there have been insane amounts of behavioral issues in younger grades over the past two years and people want their kids in schools with high socio-economic averages, frankly.

Our choice to go to the Center has nothing to do with the behavioral problems (because they exist outside of SES-factors). Our LLIV has not done a good job of convincing parents that students will get the same level of rigor at the base school as the Center. I've talked to multiple parents from our base and none were convinced. Some are staying, but only because of logistics issues (SACC, younger siblings, employment location, etc).

The divide in academic achievement is definitely a factor, though (unrelated to SES but related to pandemic learning loss), but would be true regardless of the SES of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Shrevewood parent of a general education child and everyone I've talked to who has a child that is not AAP and about half of the people I've talked to who have children that were previously LLIV are happy with the changes at the school. Which leaves you with maybe 7 or 8 families per grade (1/10 of the school's population) that are unhappy that their kids aren't in a special class. If I were the principal, I'd be aiming to please 90% of the population, rather than the teeny tiny 10%, wouldn't you?

If I were the principal, I wouldn't be writing off the needs and concerns of any 10% cohort at my school, regardless of whether that cohort's students were academically ahead, behind, or middle-of-the-pack. I think the actual principal feels the same way, but some parents won't be satisfied unless the principal fully adopts their personal POV. That doesn't mean the principal doesn't take their concerns seriously, even if they perceive it as such... that just speaks to their own blindness, not the principal's lack of care for all.

But I'm glad you're not the principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Shrevewood parent of a general education child and everyone I've talked to who has a child that is not AAP and about half of the people I've talked to who have children that were previously LLIV are happy with the changes at the school. Which leaves you with maybe 7 or 8 families per grade (1/10 of the school's population) that are unhappy that their kids aren't in a special class. If I were the principal, I'd be aiming to please 90% of the population, rather than the teeny tiny 10%, wouldn't you?

If I were the principal, I wouldn't be writing off the needs and concerns of any 10% cohort at my school, regardless of whether that cohort's students were academically ahead, behind, or middle-of-the-pack. I think the actual principal feels the same way, but some parents won't be satisfied unless the principal fully adopts their personal POV. That doesn't mean the principal doesn't take their concerns seriously, even if they perceive it as such... that just speaks to their own blindness, not the principal's lack of care for all.

But I'm glad you're not the principal.

So you're saying that the principal should only take and respond to feedback from 10% of the population and not the 90% who are pleased with the new model because they are...better than everyone else?

[Anonymous]

Anyway, PP, I've heard from very good sources that LLIV is back next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Shrevewood parent of a general education child and everyone I've talked to who has a child that is not AAP and about half of the people I've talked to who have children that were previously LLIV are happy with the changes at the school. Which leaves you with maybe 7 or 8 families per grade (1/10 of the school's population) that are unhappy that their kids aren't in a special class. If I were the principal, I'd be aiming to please 90% of the population, rather than the teeny tiny 10%, wouldn't you?

If I were the principal, I wouldn't be writing off the needs and concerns of any 10% cohort at my school, regardless of whether that cohort's students were academically ahead, behind, or middle-of-the-pack. I think the actual principal feels the same way, but some parents won't be satisfied unless the principal fully adopts their personal POV. That doesn't mean the principal doesn't take their concerns seriously, even if they perceive it as such... that just speaks to their own blindness, not the principal's lack of care for all.

But I'm glad you're not the principal.

So you're saying that the principal should only take and respond to feedback from 10% of the population and not the 90% who are pleased with the new model because they are...better than everyone else?

No, I'm saying I wouldn't take a zero-sum approach and pit different groups/cohorts against each other, I'd start with the default assumption that they all have valid concerns and are operating from a position of self-interest-but-also-good-faith, and would try to ensure all of them felt heard and included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Shrevewood parent of a general education child and everyone I've talked to who has a child that is not AAP and about half of the people I've talked to who have children that were previously LLIV are happy with the changes at the school. Which leaves you with maybe 7 or 8 families per grade (1/10 of the school's population) that are unhappy that their kids aren't in a special class. If I were the principal, I'd be aiming to please 90% of the population, rather than the teeny tiny 10%, wouldn't you?

If I were the principal, I wouldn't be writing off the needs and concerns of any 10% cohort at my school, regardless of whether that cohort's students were academically ahead, behind, or middle-of-the-pack. I think the actual principal feels the same way, but some parents won't be satisfied unless the principal fully adopts their personal POV. That doesn't mean the principal doesn't take their concerns seriously, even if they perceive it as such... that just speaks to their own blindness, not the principal's lack of care for all.

But I'm glad you're not the principal.

So you're saying that the principal should only take and respond to feedback from 10% of the population and not the 90% who are pleased with the new model because they are...better than everyone else?

No, I'm saying I wouldn't take a zero-sum approach and pit different groups/cohorts against each other, I'd start with the default assumption that they all have valid concerns and are operating from a position of self-interest-but-also-good-faith, and would try to ensure all of them felt heard and included.

The problem is that it ultimately is zero-sum and one group is going to be angry if you change expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Shrevewood parent of a general education child and everyone I've talked to who has a child that is not AAP and about half of the people I've talked to who have children that were previously LLIV are happy with the changes at the school. Which leaves you with maybe 7 or 8 families per grade (1/10 of the school's population) that are unhappy that their kids aren't in a special class. If I were the principal, I'd be aiming to please 90% of the population, rather than the teeny tiny 10%, wouldn't you?

If I were the principal, I wouldn't be writing off the needs and concerns of any 10% cohort at my school, regardless of whether that cohort's students were academically ahead, behind, or middle-of-the-pack. I think the actual principal feels the same way, but some parents won't be satisfied unless the principal fully adopts their personal POV. That doesn't mean the principal doesn't take their concerns seriously, even if they perceive it as such... that just speaks to their own blindness, not the principal's lack of care for all.

But I'm glad you're not the principal.

So you're saying that the principal should only take and respond to feedback from 10% of the population and not the 90% who are pleased with the new model because they are...better than everyone else?

No, I'm saying I wouldn't take a zero-sum approach and pit different groups/cohorts against each other, I'd start with the default assumption that they all have valid concerns and are operating from a position of self-interest-but-also-good-faith, and would try to ensure all of them felt heard and included.

Do you even go to this school? The principal is 100% willing to talk to anyone that has anything to say to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, PP, I've heard from very good sources that LLIV is back next year.

For which school? Virginia Run or Shrevewood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A significant number of students are leaving Cub Run's LLIV for the center at Poplar Tree next year, in all grades. Their local level program/clustering has not gone well and parents are speaking with their feet.

Same with Virginia Run. I think parents of LIV children at both schools have a strong preference to send their kids to Rocky Run for middle school too.

MS is a good reason to do it. I moved my kid to center in part because of MS. Might as well go right away in 3rd to develop the social cohort, but 4th is good too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, PP, I've heard from very good sources that LLIV is back next year.

For which school? Virginia Run or Shrevewood?

SW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. 2 different people misread “neighborhood” as “school”. That’s truly bizarre.

Even more chance then that these assumptions are false. Who knows test scores and reading levels of half the kids in the neighborhood? Move on.

You're crazy. Or you're so antisocial that you don't talk to neighbors of similarly aged kids at the bus stop or at other gatherings or when your kids are playing together. Most likely, you're just trying to cover for your truly terrible reading comprehension by deflecting.

Anyway, they're not assumptions. One parent was quite open that she parent referred her kid, the kid got into AAP, and then washed out in 3rd grade because the math was too hard. Another parent flat out said that her kid got a 119 CogAT composite and didn't get pass advanced on any of the 3rd grade SOLs. One parent consistently asked me for help with her kid's 2nd grade math word problems, because neither she nor her DD could understand how to do them, and my kid was getting them correct. Her kid had a <100 NNAT and a 122 CogAT, which she acknowledged freely. Her kid prepped for the CogAT score, which she also acknowledged. After her kid got accepted into AAP, she wouldn't shut up about how the committee saw something special in her kid, and her kid is truly gifted, despite the bad test scores. Yet another parent said they parent referred their kid. Even after prepping like crazy for the IAAT, the kid told other kids that he only got a 68th percentile. One parent was worried about parent referring for AAP because her kid was completely average in math on all metrics. The kid still got into AAP and then slowed it down for everyone else. All of these kids were the types standing around the bus stop reading Magic Treehouse or the like in 2nd, so we're not talking about very advanced readers.

These are the types of kids getting accepted into AAP, and it's not unexpected. In the old system, under which all of these kids were accepted, 10% of FCPS kids earn scores in the top 2%, many due to prepping. Only 2/3 of those kids get accepted into AAP, meaning 6.7% of the FCPS kids are both in-pool and in AAP. AAP includes 20% of the kids per eligible grade level. The remaining 13.3% of the kids in AAP had scores in the 120s or even lower. The AART at my kids' school flat out said in the parent presentations that parents should refer any kid with over 120 on any subsection of CogAT. If the kid is above average, the school will support their application packet, and most of those will get admitted by the central committee. The AAP equity report pretty deliberately hid the CogAT composite data of admitted kids, but the subscore data they released was honestly quite low. It should be quite apparent to everyone that the majority of kids in AAP are merely somewhat above average.

Agree that the AAP report was surprising and I found the test scores to be surprisingly far below the "old" cutoffs. Clustering makes sense, in that light, when coupled with center schools for kids nearer to or above the cutoffs.

Yeah. The big problem is that the overwhelming majority of AAP kids are only slightly advanced and somewhat above average, yet the parents of those kids are the ones fighting tooth and nail against clustering and LLIV. They're convinced that their somewhat above average kids simply can't have their needs met among the unwashed masses, and that their kids are somehow better than or more worthy than the LIII kids from whom they are indistinguishable.

The issue in our cluster school has nothing to do with level III kids. I would be happy to see my kid in a separate class with a combination of Level III and Level IV students. My issue is that our local program only provides Level IV material (beyond the math component) three days a week--sometimes two, depending on the AART's availability.

A lot of people do not feel this way. There have been numerous threads and comments in this forum about how the parents don't want their kid in a standard LLIV classroom, because they want their kid only with centrally placed LIV kids and not any principal placed LLIV kids.

I haven't seen any comments in this thread like that- what I have seen is some parents saying they don't like the LLIV cluster model. Some schools may cluster by filling a class out with LIII kids, but some just fill out classes with everyone.

Our ES told us they were looking at a model where they would split the LIV kids across all classes in the grade, and the other LIV kids in their class would learn LIV content as a cluster. I asked how many LIV kids per grade they usually had, and the answer was 6. Six kids split across 5 classes, and the rest not filled in w LIII, just with everyone.

We're not arrogant enough to think that the poor teacher is going to spend a lot of time teaching our solo kid a separate curriculum when she has 24 other kids to teach. We want our kid with a cohort that will give the teacher the ability to teach faster and more in depth. That could be all LIV kids, or a mix of LIII and LIV, but it's really not in the totally heterogeneous classroom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. 2 different people misread “neighborhood” as “school”. That’s truly bizarre.

Even more chance then that these assumptions are false. Who knows test scores and reading levels of half the kids in the neighborhood? Move on.

You're crazy. Or you're so antisocial that you don't talk to neighbors of similarly aged kids at the bus stop or at other gatherings or when your kids are playing together. Most likely, you're just trying to cover for your truly terrible reading comprehension by deflecting.

Anyway, they're not assumptions. One parent was quite open that she parent referred her kid, the kid got into AAP, and then washed out in 3rd grade because the math was too hard. Another parent flat out said that her kid got a 119 CogAT composite and didn't get pass advanced on any of the 3rd grade SOLs. One parent consistently asked me for help with her kid's 2nd grade math word problems, because neither she nor her DD could understand how to do them, and my kid was getting them correct. Her kid had a <100 NNAT and a 122 CogAT, which she acknowledged freely. Her kid prepped for the CogAT score, which she also acknowledged. After her kid got accepted into AAP, she wouldn't shut up about how the committee saw something special in her kid, and her kid is truly gifted, despite the bad test scores. Yet another parent said they parent referred their kid. Even after prepping like crazy for the IAAT, the kid told other kids that he only got a 68th percentile. One parent was worried about parent referring for AAP because her kid was completely average in math on all metrics. The kid still got into AAP and then slowed it down for everyone else. All of these kids were the types standing around the bus stop reading Magic Treehouse or the like in 2nd, so we're not talking about very advanced readers.

These are the types of kids getting accepted into AAP, and it's not unexpected. In the old system, under which all of these kids were accepted, 10% of FCPS kids earn scores in the top 2%, many due to prepping. Only 2/3 of those kids get accepted into AAP, meaning 6.7% of the FCPS kids are both in-pool and in AAP. AAP includes 20% of the kids per eligible grade level. The remaining 13.3% of the kids in AAP had scores in the 120s or even lower. The AART at my kids' school flat out said in the parent presentations that parents should refer any kid with over 120 on any subsection of CogAT. If the kid is above average, the school will support their application packet, and most of those will get admitted by the central committee. The AAP equity report pretty deliberately hid the CogAT composite data of admitted kids, but the subscore data they released was honestly quite low. It should be quite apparent to everyone that the majority of kids in AAP are merely somewhat above average.

Agree that the AAP report was surprising and I found the test scores to be surprisingly far below the "old" cutoffs. Clustering makes sense, in that light, when coupled with center schools for kids nearer to or above the cutoffs.

Yeah. The big problem is that the overwhelming majority of AAP kids are only slightly advanced and somewhat above average, yet the parents of those kids are the ones fighting tooth and nail against clustering and LLIV. They're convinced that their somewhat above average kids simply can't have their needs met among the unwashed masses, and that their kids are somehow better than or more worthy than the LIII kids from whom they are indistinguishable.

The issue in our cluster school has nothing to do with level III kids. I would be happy to see my kid in a separate class with a combination of Level III and Level IV students. My issue is that our local program only provides Level IV material (beyond the math component) three days a week--sometimes two, depending on the AART's availability.

A lot of people do not feel this way. There have been numerous threads and comments in this forum about how the parents don't want their kid in a standard LLIV classroom, because they want their kid only with centrally placed LIV kids and not any principal placed LLIV kids.

I haven't seen any comments in this thread like that- what I have seen is some parents saying they don't like the LLIV cluster model. Some schools may cluster by filling a class out with LIII kids, but some just fill out classes with everyone.

Our ES told us they were looking at a model where they would split the LIV kids across all classes in the grade, and the other LIV kids in their class would learn LIV content as a cluster. I asked how many LIV kids per grade they usually had, and the answer was 6. Six kids split across 5 classes, and the rest not filled in w LIII, just with everyone.

We're not arrogant enough to think that the poor teacher is going to spend a lot of time teaching our solo kid a separate curriculum when she has 24 other kids to teach. We want our kid with a cohort that will give the teacher the ability to teach faster and more in depth. That could be all LIV kids, or a mix of LIII and LIV, but it's really not in the totally heterogeneous classroom

Our school is doing clustering by teaching the AAP curriculum to everyone and offering advanced ways to answer the questions to the more advanced kids. So whereas the General Ed, LII and III kids might answer an essay question with a paragraph, the LLIV kids can go deeper, do additional research, and write an essay. If they are doing a group project, the teachers will group the LLIV kids together so they can do a more complex answer. They also switch kids for math which has the added benefit of getting them ready to switch classes in middle school -- I heard this is one critique that middle schools have of LLIV programs that kids are together with the same cohort of 20-25 people for three years and then really struggle when they hit middle school with different kids in every class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. 2 different people misread “neighborhood” as “school”. That’s truly bizarre.

Even more chance then that these assumptions are false. Who knows test scores and reading levels of half the kids in the neighborhood? Move on.

You're crazy. Or you're so antisocial that you don't talk to neighbors of similarly aged kids at the bus stop or at other gatherings or when your kids are playing together. Most likely, you're just trying to cover for your truly terrible reading comprehension by deflecting.

Anyway, they're not assumptions. One parent was quite open that she parent referred her kid, the kid got into AAP, and then washed out in 3rd grade because the math was too hard. Another parent flat out said that her kid got a 119 CogAT composite and didn't get pass advanced on any of the 3rd grade SOLs. One parent consistently asked me for help with her kid's 2nd grade math word problems, because neither she nor her DD could understand how to do them, and my kid was getting them correct. Her kid had a <100 NNAT and a 122 CogAT, which she acknowledged freely. Her kid prepped for the CogAT score, which she also acknowledged. After her kid got accepted into AAP, she wouldn't shut up about how the committee saw something special in her kid, and her kid is truly gifted, despite the bad test scores. Yet another parent said they parent referred their kid. Even after prepping like crazy for the IAAT, the kid told other kids that he only got a 68th percentile. One parent was worried about parent referring for AAP because her kid was completely average in math on all metrics. The kid still got into AAP and then slowed it down for everyone else. All of these kids were the types standing around the bus stop reading Magic Treehouse or the like in 2nd, so we're not talking about very advanced readers.

These are the types of kids getting accepted into AAP, and it's not unexpected. In the old system, under which all of these kids were accepted, 10% of FCPS kids earn scores in the top 2%, many due to prepping. Only 2/3 of those kids get accepted into AAP, meaning 6.7% of the FCPS kids are both in-pool and in AAP. AAP includes 20% of the kids per eligible grade level. The remaining 13.3% of the kids in AAP had scores in the 120s or even lower. The AART at my kids' school flat out said in the parent presentations that parents should refer any kid with over 120 on any subsection of CogAT. If the kid is above average, the school will support their application packet, and most of those will get admitted by the central committee. The AAP equity report pretty deliberately hid the CogAT composite data of admitted kids, but the subscore data they released was honestly quite low. It should be quite apparent to everyone that the majority of kids in AAP are merely somewhat above average.

Agree that the AAP report was surprising and I found the test scores to be surprisingly far below the "old" cutoffs. Clustering makes sense, in that light, when coupled with center schools for kids nearer to or above the cutoffs.

Yeah. The big problem is that the overwhelming majority of AAP kids are only slightly advanced and somewhat above average, yet the parents of those kids are the ones fighting tooth and nail against clustering and LLIV. They're convinced that their somewhat above average kids simply can't have their needs met among the unwashed masses, and that their kids are somehow better than or more worthy than the LIII kids from whom they are indistinguishable.

The issue in our cluster school has nothing to do with level III kids. I would be happy to see my kid in a separate class with a combination of Level III and Level IV students. My issue is that our local program only provides Level IV material (beyond the math component) three days a week--sometimes two, depending on the AART's availability.

A lot of people do not feel this way. There have been numerous threads and comments in this forum about how the parents don't want their kid in a standard LLIV classroom, because they want their kid only with centrally placed LIV kids and not any principal placed LLIV kids.

I haven't seen any comments in this thread like that- what I have seen is some parents saying they don't like the LLIV cluster model. Some schools may cluster by filling a class out with LIII kids, but some just fill out classes with everyone.

Our ES told us they were looking at a model where they would split the LIV kids across all classes in the grade, and the other LIV kids in their class would learn LIV content as a cluster. I asked how many LIV kids per grade they usually had, and the answer was 6. Six kids split across 5 classes, and the rest not filled in w LIII, just with everyone.

We're not arrogant enough to think that the poor teacher is going to spend a lot of time teaching our solo kid a separate curriculum when she has 24 other kids to teach. We want our kid with a cohort that will give the teacher the ability to teach faster and more in depth. That could be all LIV kids, or a mix of LIII and LIV, but it's really not in the totally heterogeneous classroom

Our school is doing clustering by teaching the AAP curriculum to everyone and offering advanced ways to answer the questions to the more advanced kids. So whereas the General Ed, LII and III kids might answer an essay question with a paragraph, the LLIV kids can go deeper, do additional research, and write an essay. If they are doing a group project, the teachers will group the LLIV kids together so they can do a more complex answer. They also switch kids for math which has the added benefit of getting them ready to switch classes in middle school -- I heard this is one critique that middle schools have of LLIV programs that kids are together with the same cohort of 20-25 people for three years and then really struggle when they hit middle school with different kids in every class.

This is Shrevewood, by the way, which a PP has been critiquing on every page. It's been very well thought through and implemented.