No separate AAP student track in FCPS high schools, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Level 2 and 3 are complete jokes. It's what - one hour of pullouts/week? Let's not pretend otherwise.

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

That's not entirely true.
I grew up in FCPS in the 80s and I was in GT. I lived in Vienna with Vienna Elementary as my base school and I was sent to a GT center at Louise Archer. I went to Longfellow GT center for middle school (yes, all the way from Vienna) and then back to Madison for high school where they offered both regular and GT classes in core subjects plus AP classes in junior and senior year. I have no idea how the selection process worked, but I remember taking an IQ test with a private psychologist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The way it works now for LLIII and LLII kids and even LLIV kids that stay at some base schools is that they get advanced instruction when the numbers work out. WHen there is enough of a cohort of kids and when they can create even classes. This means that on any given year some kids may not get any advanced instruction except the 1 hour pullout when the AART is available. We've known families to move because all of a sudden there aren't enough kids to offer compacted math, or a child in LLIII that is able to get advanced instruction one year but not the next. If the AART goes away, how does FCPS ensure kids get advanced instruction and how do they do that from year after year with class size changes? The teachers have an issue differentiating and say they don't have time to teach more than one level and many parents have had bad experiences with combination classes. The issue isn't that kids will sometimes have to be with general ed students. The issue is that even if they elect to take compacted math or advanced language arts, that it might not be offered at their school or they might not make the cut for that class which all would be determined by the teachers and principal.

If the majority of Level IV kids did not have the option to attend the center, then there should be enough kids to offer advanced classes in every subject. Compacted math isn't that advanced or out of reach. My Title I, high FARMs, non-AAP school manages to have a full advanced math class, even after sending over 20 kids each year to the AAP center. Likewise, there are at least 20 kids reading above grade level, even after losing over 20 kids to the center. I would imagine most schools should have enough kids to support advanced classes.

Also, not all classes need to have the same number of kids. Homerooms might have 22 kids, but the compacted math class might have 30. There wouldn't be an issue of making the cut, since the class would be open enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Level 2 and 3 are complete jokes. It's what - one hour of pullouts/week? Let's not pretend otherwise.

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

That's not entirely true.
I grew up in FCPS in the 80s and I was in GT. I lived in Vienna with Vienna Elementary as my base school and I was sent to a GT center at Louise Archer. I went to Longfellow GT center for middle school (yes, all the way from Vienna) and then back to Madison for high school where they offered both regular and GT classes in core subjects plus AP classes in junior and senior year. I have no idea how the selection process worked, but I remember taking an IQ test with a private psychologist.

Ok - I would wager that the GT classes you were in were very, very small compared to what we have today. And that the vast majority of kids were *not* in GT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my town we had 400 kids per grade. Only 6-8 of us were "GT". There were no issues. Fairfax does it wrong. 25% of kids don't need special services.

THIS. And everyone knows this, but AAP parents just don't want to admit it. Neither does FCPS. They like to pretend FCPS is actually full of "gifted" children, when the reality is anything but.

That's why they won't get rid of AAP. So many parents with kids who are barely above average are convinced that their kids are gifted and need self-contained classrooms.

+1
FCPS should be ashamed of how they've turned what was once an effective GT program for the gifted, into a mainstream, divisive program for average/above average kids who are basically identical to their peers in Gen Ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It can't be the curriculum for everyone. Have you not heard about the achievement gap? Or the high level of ESOL students in the area? There is also growing concern at the elementary level already that academics are moving too fast for their kids. Not everyone wants to devote the time to be "above grade level" or has the ability to be "above grade level" in school. Those kids that want to learn more and can handle it should have the opportunity.

And AAP can be harder than general ed for some students. That's a ridiculous statement to say they are completely the same. They are not. Perhaps more students can handle the AAP curriculum than are offered it, however this argument is about making that group smaller, not larger.

I agree that it can't be the curriculum for everyone. It can, however, be a curriculum offered to the most advanced classes at the local school. Nothing about the curriculum requires bussing to a separate school and a self-contained classroom for all subjects. Regarding the second bolded point, I feel like AAP needs to be both larger and smaller. The current AAP curriculum isn't very advanced, and many kids are excluded who would be more than capable of handling it. Those kids should be allowed the opportunity to do so. At the same time, AAP has been watered down by so much over-inclusion that the kids at the top are poorly served by the current model. I'd be thrilled if FCPS reverted to the GT system of the past (including at most 5% of the kids), but then offered the AAP curriculum on an open-enrollment basis at all local schools.

Open enrollment advanced classes in elementary school would not be advanced. They would be slowed down for all the children of parents who want the "advanced" label for social reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It can't be the curriculum for everyone. Have you not heard about the achievement gap? Or the high level of ESOL students in the area? There is also growing concern at the elementary level already that academics are moving too fast for their kids. Not everyone wants to devote the time to be "above grade level" or has the ability to be "above grade level" in school. Those kids that want to learn more and can handle it should have the opportunity.

And AAP can be harder than general ed for some students. That's a ridiculous statement to say they are completely the same. They are not. Perhaps more students can handle the AAP curriculum than are offered it, however this argument is about making that group smaller, not larger.

I agree that it can't be the curriculum for everyone. It can, however, be a curriculum offered to the most advanced classes at the local school. Nothing about the curriculum requires bussing to a separate school and a self-contained classroom for all subjects. Regarding the second bolded point, I feel like AAP needs to be both larger and smaller. The current AAP curriculum isn't very advanced, and many kids are excluded who would be more than capable of handling it. Those kids should be allowed the opportunity to do so. At the same time, AAP has been watered down by so much over-inclusion that the kids at the top are poorly served by the current model. I'd be thrilled if FCPS reverted to the GT system of the past (including at most 5% of the kids), but then offered the AAP curriculum on an open-enrollment basis at all local schools.

Open enrollment advanced classes in elementary school would not be advanced. They would be slowed down for all the children of parents who want the "advanced" label for social reasons.

This is how AAP currently is, what with all the appeals from parents desperate to get their average kids in. It's why AAP is no longer a "gifted" program, as it was in the 80s and 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Level 2 and 3 are complete jokes. It's what - one hour of pullouts/week? Let's not pretend otherwise.

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

That's not entirely true.
I grew up in FCPS in the 80s and I was in GT. I lived in Vienna with Vienna Elementary as my base school and I was sent to a GT center at Louise Archer. I went to Longfellow GT center for middle school (yes, all the way from Vienna) and then back to Madison for high school where they offered both regular and GT classes in core subjects plus AP classes in junior and senior year. I have no idea how the selection process worked, but I remember taking an IQ test with a private psychologist.

Ok - I would wager that the GT classes you were in were very, very small compared to what we have today. And that the vast majority of kids were *not* in GT.

Correct. I think there were only one or two centers in the entire county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It can't be the curriculum for everyone. Have you not heard about the achievement gap? Or the high level of ESOL students in the area? There is also growing concern at the elementary level already that academics are moving too fast for their kids. Not everyone wants to devote the time to be "above grade level" or has the ability to be "above grade level" in school. Those kids that want to learn more and can handle it should have the opportunity.

And AAP can be harder than general ed for some students. That's a ridiculous statement to say they are completely the same. They are not. Perhaps more students can handle the AAP curriculum than are offered it, however this argument is about making that group smaller, not larger.

I agree that it can't be the curriculum for everyone. It can, however, be a curriculum offered to the most advanced classes at the local school. Nothing about the curriculum requires bussing to a separate school and a self-contained classroom for all subjects. Regarding the second bolded point, I feel like AAP needs to be both larger and smaller. The current AAP curriculum isn't very advanced, and many kids are excluded who would be more than capable of handling it. Those kids should be allowed the opportunity to do so. At the same time, AAP has been watered down by so much over-inclusion that the kids at the top are poorly served by the current model. I'd be thrilled if FCPS reverted to the GT system of the past (including at most 5% of the kids), but then offered the AAP curriculum on an open-enrollment basis at all local schools.

Open enrollment advanced classes in elementary school would not be advanced. They would be slowed down for all the children of parents who want the "advanced" label for social reasons.

Exactly like middle and high school "honors" classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Open enrollment advanced classes in elementary school would not be advanced. They would be slowed down for all the children of parents who want the "advanced" label for social reasons.

Those same parents push, prep, and game the system not to get their kids into AAP, which in turn slows down AAP.

[Anonymous]

^To get their kids into AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The way it works now for LLIII and LLII kids and even LLIV kids that stay at some base schools is that they get advanced instruction when the numbers work out. WHen there is enough of a cohort of kids and when they can create even classes. This means that on any given year some kids may not get any advanced instruction except the 1 hour pullout when the AART is available. We've known families to move because all of a sudden there aren't enough kids to offer compacted math, or a child in LLIII that is able to get advanced instruction one year but not the next. If the AART goes away, how does FCPS ensure kids get advanced instruction and how do they do that from year after year with class size changes? The teachers have an issue differentiating and say they don't have time to teach more than one level and many parents have had bad experiences with combination classes. The issue isn't that kids will sometimes have to be with general ed students. The issue is that even if they elect to take compacted math or advanced language arts, that it might not be offered at their school or they might not make the cut for that class which all would be determined by the teachers and principal.

If the majority of Level IV kids did not have the option to attend the center, then there should be enough kids to offer advanced classes in every subject. Compacted math isn't that advanced or out of reach. My Title I, high FARMs, non-AAP school manages to have a full advanced math class, even after sending over 20 kids each year to the AAP center. Likewise, there are at least 20 kids reading above grade level, even after losing over 20 kids to the center. I would imagine most schools should have enough kids to support advanced classes.

Also, not all classes need to have the same number of kids. Homerooms might have 22 kids, but the compacted math class might have 30. There wouldn't be an issue of making the cut, since the class would be open enrollment.

The everage class in FCPS that isn't high FARMS is 27. Schools would range from 25-35 kids. Not 30. LLIV schools already have this type of system in place and it is not working well. Or at least FCPS is not able to make sure any child is getting compacted math. It's all school based decision making. If there is advanced instruction it is similar to "honors" classes in middle school that aren't really advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Level 2 and 3 are complete jokes. It's what - one hour of pullouts/week? Let's not pretend otherwise.

DP. That's what I got as a kid in the 80s though (that's all there was). My parents would have never dared to complain that I was bored in school. I read, helped the teacher grade work and helped other students and I liked it! Lol.

Everything was different then, though. When they siphon more and more bright but mainstream kids out of the regular classroom and into AAP, it weakens the regular classroom and leads to lower instructional levels in both gen ed and AAP. One of the reasons so many schools are eliminating gen ed advanced math is that after they've sent 20% of their kids off to the AAP center, there aren't enough advanced kids remaining to fill out an advanced math class. It's not surprising that advanced gen ed kids would be more bored now vs. in the 80s, since the level of instruction in gen ed in the 80s was so much higher than it is now.

This is so true. I attended FCPS during the 80s, and the quality of the instruction I received was so far above what kids receive now. And this was in General Education - there were no actual GT classes, just pullouts. ALL of the students were given excellent instruction - lots of writing and grammar lessons. You simply don't see that now.

FCPS has coasted on its reputation as an excellent school district for far too long. It used to be, but it is no longer.

That's not entirely true.
I grew up in FCPS in the 80s and I was in GT. I lived in Vienna with Vienna Elementary as my base school and I was sent to a GT center at Louise Archer. I went to Longfellow GT center for middle school (yes, all the way from Vienna) and then back to Madison for high school where they offered both regular and GT classes in core subjects plus AP classes in junior and senior year. I have no idea how the selection process worked, but I remember taking an IQ test with a private psychologist.

Plenty of people still take WISC tests with scores in the 130's and are rejected from AAP. What score did you get? If it's under 145 I don't really want to hear from you about how less people should be in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Plenty of people still take WISC tests with scores in the 130's and are rejected from AAP. What score did you get? If it's under 145 I don't really want to hear from you about how less people should be in AAP.

It's very uncommon for kids with WISC scores in the 130s to get rejected. Many kids appeal and get accepted with scores in the mid 120s.

[Anonymous]

Most school districts can manage to educate their above average children without giving them a label and sending them to a different school. It's not like the only choices here are the current AAP model or absolutely no differentiation. There is a middle ground.

Whether school based or open enrollment advanced classes would end up being watered down is immaterial. AAP is already watered down. If you read the AAP forum, many of the kids in it aren't particularly advanced. Kids who are gifted and need GT instruction are bored out of their minds in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most school districts can manage to educate their above average children without giving them a label and sending them to a different school. It's not like the only choices here are the current AAP model or absolutely no differentiation. There is a middle ground.

Whether school based or open enrollment advanced classes would end up being watered down is immaterial. AAP is already watered down. If you read the AAP forum, many of the kids in it aren't particularly advanced. Kids who are gifted and need GT instruction are bored out of their minds in AAP.

Many school districts have gifted programs and most of them have names. Many involve going to another school, whether for one day a week or full time.

What they don't have is DCUM, a large forum to complain on.