AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

The difference is that most kids are not advanced across the board. Allowing them to take the appropriate level for each core class would mean there would be kids in some advanced, some grade-level, and some remedial groups. My own kids were highly advanced in language arts, but needed a lot of help in math. I find it very interesting that AAP kids don't have to be advanced across the board - yet they're all labeled as "AAP," even so. Flexible groupings would remove the fixed label - for everyone.

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

Sorry, we changed classes like this (groupings by strength by subject) when I was in elementary school - in 1985! It’s not new; it certainly could be done, and it would challenge the “2E” kids who aren’t level 4.

Maybe you didn’t get the memo that quite a few things have changed in 40 years.

DP. Maybe you didn't get the memo that AAP isn't helping anyone - at any end of the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system harms the kids in the upper ranges: the top kids in Gen Ed classes that teach to the bottom, who are told to go online while the teacher has to help the stragglers, and the true GT, who can’t advance because of the bottom AAP kids. The metrics to get into AAP should be a firm test score, eliminate all subjectivity. I’ve seen this in two other school districts and it worked great, where it was truly GT. We also had to drive our kid, sometimes a great distance, but no parents complained because they were true GT and needed to be in these programs.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

+1
In no way should kids be allowed to leave for a center if they already have LL4 at their school. How incredibly inequitable to give certain kids a choice of schools, and the rest of the kids no choice at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The better solution would be to go back to having remedial classes. Put the kids who aren't learning into remedial classrooms, allowing the general ed kids to thrive instead of being completely ignored. Because that's what this really comes down to - average to above average children in general ed are BEING IGNORED.

I totally agree. But flexible groupings would also solve this, since there would be a remedial group. Most kids aren't remedial/advanced across the board in all subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

DP. I don't think that's what the PP was suggesting at all. They simply said ALL students should have to retest every year. I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

That’s not what I was suggesting - you’re just blowing everything out of proportion intentionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

That’s not what I was suggesting - you’re just blowing everything out of proportion intentionally.

+1
I think the PP is triggered because they know full well their kid wouldn't qualify if they had to take a test each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

The student didn’t qualify originally, so what bias was in place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

That’s not what I was suggesting - you’re just blowing everything out of proportion intentionally.

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. If your statement means none of the above then youre throwing out random anecdotes to an OP suggesting annual retesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should have to test in every year. Not one and done.

I had a student a few years ago that was multiple grade levels below. I pulled his file and saw that he had scored in the 60th percentile for the CogAT and 80th percentile for the NNAT. I mentioned it to the AART and she pulled his admissions packet.

He had not been approved for AAP on paper, but they must’ve clicked the wrong button in the database. Did we correct the error and send him back to GenEd? Nope, he stayed it.

So you want to rework the entire system, adding huge amounts of work and cost across multiple grades county wide because of one clerical error that happened years ago. Seems like a great plan.

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

Where you endorsed the idea of retesting every year by providing one anecdote of a scenario where a child undeserving of AAP would get caught in the purposed annual AAP testing.

Or that the teacher caught it without retesting because he was that low.

You're suggesting that teachers take the time to go back through the tests and AAP package for each student they feel is unworthy of AAP to do what? Again, a waste of time, resources, and money. It also exposes children to the teacher's biases.

Which by the way is still reworking the system...

That’s not what I was suggesting - you’re just blowing everything out of proportion intentionally.

+1
I think the PP is triggered because they know full well their kid wouldn't qualify if they had to take a test each year.

Nope. My children are in multiple gifted programs outside of FCPS as well. In each program you only have to test once to get in. There is no reason to re-test every year. Whether you like it or not this is the FCPS program to meet the gifted education requirement in VA.

It's more likely that your child can't get in to AAP and now you're dreaming up reasons to mess with the program.

[Anonymous]

We left bc the lliv program was less stable - at the orientation, they shared that they were moving toward cluster model, that it would depend on numbers. It felt like it would be same as second-grade classroom.

I agree that it would be nice/cheaper to keep kids local. But then there needs to be some standardization of the local programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

AAP used to gave a separate LA curriculum. They are required to do Benchmark. The kids are expected to do the same. They might get extensions but the reality is it is a waste of money and resources to continue centers when MOST kids in the program are not gifted in all subject areas. I teach AAP. Centers should only be for schools without a cohort of kids. I am against cluster model. I think kids should have a dedicated class which is what they have at my school. AAP looks completely different now due to Benchmark.

If every school had an advanced class and no school used the cluster model I think you'd see support for centers dramatically decline.

But lots of schools have bought in to the cluster model - presumably because it's the path of least resistance for administrators. And some schools don't have any local support yet (that's us). Our base school doesn't even have advanced math until 5th grade.

Except there are schools with a dedicated class and kids still leave for center cause they feel the center is more elite. They should not have the option if their needs can be met at base school. I am against cluster model but I have been teaching at LL4 with a dedicated class and know it works.

+1
In no way should kids be allowed to leave for a center if they already have LL4 at their school. How incredibly inequitable to give certain kids a choice of schools, and the rest of the kids no choice at all.

If you're worried about school choice and equity hate on immersion programs. They're only accessible to families with the ability to drive their kids. AAP is at least nominally merit-based (how that system needs to be revised is a separate question).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system harms the kids in the upper ranges: the top kids in Gen Ed classes that teach to the bottom, who are told to go online while the teacher has to help the stragglers, and the true GT, who can’t advance because of the bottom AAP kids. The metrics to get into AAP should be a firm test score, eliminate all subjectivity. I’ve seen this in two other school districts and it worked great, where it was truly GT. We also had to drive our kid, sometimes a great distance, but no parents complained because they were true GT and needed to be in these programs.

When I looked at other school districts GT programs, I noticed that they were pulling kids with test scores in the 95th percentile and above. Those scores are well below what I suspect the average test score for AAP in FCPS. If you set the test score at the 99th percentile, then you are pulling in all the kids scoring 132 and higher on the NNAT or CoGAT or both, if that is the requirement. You will actually end up with a larger program then we have now. It doesn't take much prep to get from a mid 120 to 132 on the CoGAT.

Is the solution to pull the top 10% from each school into the LIV program and keep it local? That way you are meeting the needs to the top 10% of the kids at the school regardless of test score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We left bc the lliv program was less stable - at the orientation, they shared that they were moving toward cluster model, that it would depend on numbers. It felt like it would be same as second-grade classroom.

I agree that it would be nice/cheaper to keep kids local. But then there needs to be some standardization of the local programs.

Agree. Local Level IV are not the same as a center. Each principal runs them however they want and they don’t have to meet FCPS’s center practices.