How to improve AAP and General Ed Together

[Anonymous]

Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks seem to be thinking that heavenly manna is being dished out in the AAP classes. That ain't so. Believe me, the upper limit to what's being offered isn't that much higher than in GE.

But the classes move much faster, especially in elementary school.

The difference is in how quickly/easily the kids as a group are able to move through the curriculum.

Can we get back to how to fix the system rather than debating how hard or easy the AAP curriculum is? Maybe that debate could have its own thread.

It's hard to leave this out of the discussion when some are proposing that AAP should be offered to everyone, or mostly everyone. I don't think most people really have a sense of what percentage of students could move at the AAP pace or not. Several posters have suggested that AAP be the norm and then have a small slice at the top and a small slice at the bottom. That doesn't really seem like it would be great for the 2 'extremes' on either side.

Welcome to our public education system

Look its still pretty good it's geared towards the middle 80%. Since this area is so well off the problem is the normally top 10% or so is roughyl say 25% of the population instead of just 10% but of course its complicated because its much higher in the higher income areas and much lower in the lower income areas.

Anyway back to the actual issue at hand. Personally I don't see much value in accelerating learning in elementary school but since not everyone agrees with this I think the best solution is keeping everyone mixed and then having "extra" work for the top kids say anywhere from the top 25% to the top 5%. This way the "top" kids are challenged and the "normal" kids still benefit from the extra stimulus of being around the top kids

Then the big separation should be middle school similar to the European model. Everyone takes a test in 5th grade. Then they go to one of three areas, trade school, the current normal school model, or "elite" school. I think these numbers should be 1/3 1/3 1/3 county wide again in a district its not going to be split evenly.

Thats what I would do take it or leave it haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

Fcps has already determined who can handle the accelerated curriculum, how to screen students, how to offer differentiation in gen ed, and how to allow yearly access to AAP level IV programs so that a student is not limited to what they were ready for as a first or second grader.

Fcps already does exactly what you are proposing in this thread and tries to offer AAP to as many students as possible.

You are talking yourself in circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks seem to be thinking that heavenly manna is being dished out in the AAP classes. That ain't so. Believe me, the upper limit to what's being offered isn't that much higher than in GE.

But the classes move much faster, especially in elementary school.

The difference is in how quickly/easily the kids as a group are able to move through the curriculum.

Can we get back to how to fix the system rather than debating how hard or easy the AAP curriculum is? Maybe that debate could have its own thread.

It's hard to leave this out of the discussion when some are proposing that AAP should be offered to everyone, or mostly everyone. I don't think most people really have a sense of what percentage of students could move at the AAP pace or not. Several posters have suggested that AAP be the norm and then have a small slice at the top and a small slice at the bottom. That doesn't really seem like it would be great for the 2 'extremes' on either side.

Welcome to our public education system

Look its still pretty good it's geared towards the middle 80%. Since this area is so well off the problem is the normally top 10% or so is roughyl say 25% of the population instead of just 10% but of course its complicated because its much higher in the higher income areas and much lower in the lower income areas.

Anyway back to the actual issue at hand. Personally I don't see much value in accelerating learning in elementary school but since not everyone agrees with this I think the best solution is keeping everyone mixed and then having "extra" work for the top kids say anywhere from the top 25% to the top 5%. This way the "top" kids are challenged and the "normal" kids still benefit from the extra stimulus of being around the top kids

Then the big separation should be middle school similar to the European model. Everyone takes a test in 5th grade. Then they go to one of three areas, trade school, the current normal school model, or "elite" school. I think these numbers should be 1/3 1/3 1/3 county wide again in a district its not going to be split evenly.

Thats what I would do take it or leave it haha

Haha is right on that last paragraph. That will never fly around here.

As for mixing everyone, parents already complain that teachers can't differentiate from top to bottom in Gen Ed (without the 'top' kids around to make the range even bigger.) How do we make sure teachers have what they need to differentiate across the spectrum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

Fcps has already determined who can handle the accelerated curriculum, how to screen students, how to offer differentiation in gen ed, and how to allow yearly access to AAP level IV programs so that a student is not limited to what they were ready for as a first or second grader.

Fcps already does exactly what you are proposing in this thread and tries to offer AAP to as many students as possible.

You are talking yourself in circles.

YAAAASSSSSS!!!! Thank you! Exactly this!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

Fcps has already determined who can handle the accelerated curriculum, how to screen students, how to offer differentiation in gen ed, and how to allow yearly access to AAP level IV programs so that a student is not limited to what they were ready for as a first or second grader.

Fcps already does exactly what you are proposing in this thread and tries to offer AAP to as many students as possible.

You are talking yourself in circles.

I didn't bring up an issue with the selection process. The issue seems to be that kids aren't mixing well creating division, schools are a turn off to some because of too few or too many AAP students, and general ed students including level 2 and 3 students aren't getting a great academic experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

Fcps has already determined who can handle the accelerated curriculum, how to screen students, how to offer differentiation in gen ed, and how to allow yearly access to AAP level IV programs so that a student is not limited to what they were ready for as a first or second grader.

Fcps already does exactly what you are proposing in this thread and tries to offer AAP to as many students as possible.

You are talking yourself in circles.

I didn't bring up an issue with the selection process. The issue seems to be that kids aren't mixing well creating division, schools are a turn off to some because of too few or too many AAP students, and general ed students including level 2 and 3 students aren't getting a great academic experience.

Well...you keep asking how fcps can offer AAP to more students.

That question is directly related to the selection process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

Fcps has already determined who can handle the accelerated curriculum, how to screen students, how to offer differentiation in gen ed, and how to allow yearly access to AAP level IV programs so that a student is not limited to what they were ready for as a first or second grader.

Fcps already does exactly what you are proposing in this thread and tries to offer AAP to as many students as possible.

You are talking yourself in circles.

I didn't bring up an issue with the selection process. The issue seems to be that kids aren't mixing well creating division, schools are a turn off to some because of too few or too many AAP students, and general ed students including level 2 and 3 students aren't getting a great academic experience.

Your entire bolded section is about how you would like the AAP selection process to work.

Are you even reading what you are writing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then it should be included as evidence for a suggestion rather than its own debate.

The SOL tests show how many kids pass advanced, pass, and fail. We have the number of special ed, general ed, and AAP level 2,3, and 4 students in FCPS. What more information is needed to know how many children can handle an advanced curriculum? Those numbers aren't exact, but they are close enough to propose policy changes.

Fcps has already determined who can handle the accelerated curriculum, how to screen students, how to offer differentiation in gen ed, and how to allow yearly access to AAP level IV programs so that a student is not limited to what they were ready for as a first or second grader.

Fcps already does exactly what you are proposing in this thread and tries to offer AAP to as many students as possible.

You are talking yourself in circles.

I didn't bring up an issue with the selection process. The issue seems to be that kids aren't mixing well creating division, schools are a turn off to some because of too few or too many AAP students, and general ed students including level 2 and 3 students aren't getting a great academic experience.

Your entire bolded section is about how you would like the AAP selection process to work.

Are you even reading what you are writing?

It was in response to people arguing about who and who couldn't handle the AAP curriculum. I was saying that we have numbers that show approximately how many children can handle an advanced curriculum based on SOL data and current numbers of level 2,3, and 4 AAP students. The student demographics shows the number of level 2 and 3 AAP students and membership shows the level 4 students in each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Does anyone have any comments on my recommendations?

Any suggestions on how to provide enrichment at non-center schools without a level IV program?

Implement Level IV curriculum in every single class. Centers can move at a faster pace, regular classes at a regular pace. SAME curriculum (it's not just for gifted kids), SAME teacher training.

Raise up all of FCPS, not just a small percentage.

OP here. I don't think that will work. Many kids cannot handle advanced math or language arts. Many kids in FCPS are below grade. This would do them a disservice by teaching above their level and not addressing their needs.

I do agree all teachers should be trained in some level of gifted teaching.

The only thing 'advanced' is that the concepts are taught more quickly so there is less review. The curriculum itself is NOT advanced and would NOT be teaching ''above their level". Which is why I stated that the "Advanced" kids can advance through the text at a quicker pace and the "regular" kids can be taught at at regular pace.

Kids that are below grade level are a much smaller percentage and can still be team taught with the special ed. teacher.

There is ALREADY a disservice to the GenEd students going on and it's coming from people like you who wrongly think a stronger and better curriculum is "above their level" and think it should be reserved strictly for Level IV students.

Precisely. We hear from AAP parents who state that no one can possibly know what their kids "need," but when we say what our kids need, it's dismissed. ALL kids need access to an advanced curriculum. The only way to know who can do what is to actually let all kids try it out. I'd wager that FAR more kids are perfectly capable of doing AAP work than are currently doing it. Certainly, AAP parents are in no position to insist they know better than we what our kids are capable of. What hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks seem to be thinking that heavenly manna is being dished out in the AAP classes. That ain't so. Believe me, the upper limit to what's being offered isn't that much higher than in GE.

This is very true, and yet another reason why it should be made available to any capable child. It's not a super-advanced, highly gifted curriculum. It's just somewhat faster than the regular curriculum. There are plenty of kids in Gen Ed who are fully capable of moving faster, whether in all subjects or just a few. Level III is *nothing* and it's ridiculous to say that a once a month, or even once a week pull-out is "enriching" these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks seem to be thinking that heavenly manna is being dished out in the AAP classes. That ain't so. Believe me, the upper limit to what's being offered isn't that much higher than in GE.

Which will, of course, trigger a response along the lines of "if it's not much different, why not let all children have access to it." You can't win for trying on this board.

Still haven't heard a coherent, logical reason from any AAP parents as to why all children should not have access to it. Yes, there are some kids for whom an advanced curriculum wouldn't be appropriate. But no one really knows who can do what - unless and until the work is there for them to do in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would make it better if students were simply grouped by ability as other schools do. Use the cogat and naglieri test scores as a starting point and adjust according to performance. Also, have different groups per core subject. Add another teacher or specialist to the lower levels.

This is exactly what has been advocated so many times. Simply group the kids into flexible groups - that they can move into and out of easily, according to ability and accomplishments. So much simpler and more practical than putting them into two huge, fixed groups.

Of course, current AAP parents don't like this idea one bit. Gee, I wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would make it better if students were simply grouped by ability as other schools do. Use the cogat and naglieri test scores as a starting point and adjust according to performance. Also, have different groups per core subject. Add another teacher or specialist to the lower levels.

They are grouped by ability. Parents just don't anyone to name the groups anything that makes one sound better than the other. Or the they want the bottom 10 percent to separated out to be by themselves. As long as their child isn't in THAT group, they don't care about quality or stigma.

But you don't want the "top" 10% to be separated out?? What a hypocrite. As long as your child is in that separate group at the top, away from all those Gen Ed kids, you don't care about quality or stigma - do you?

The point is, kids are not grouped by ability. There are simply two big, vague groups of kids - each with varying abilities and a HUGE overlap in between. If we're going to group kids, at least do it with some common sense and allow them to move freely from one level to another, as needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks seem to be thinking that heavenly manna is being dished out in the AAP classes. That ain't so. Believe me, the upper limit to what's being offered isn't that much higher than in GE.

But the classes move much faster, especially in elementary school.

The difference is in how quickly/easily the kids as a group are able to move through the curriculum.

Can we get back to how to fix the system rather than debating how hard or easy the AAP curriculum is? Maybe that debate could have its own thread.

It's hard to leave this out of the discussion when some are proposing that AAP should be offered to everyone, or mostly everyone. I don't think most people really have a sense of what percentage of students could move at the AAP pace or not. Several posters have suggested that AAP be the norm and then have a small slice at the top and a small slice at the bottom. That doesn't really seem like it would be great for the 2 'extremes' on either side.

Regarding the bolded, that goes for you too. No one actually knows who could move at the AAP pace. Why? Because these kids haven't been given the opportunity to show what they're capable of. I think many of you would be very, very surprised to see just who can do AAP work. As has been said before - it's not much different from Gen Ed work.