The difference btw the AAP class and the General Ed class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

Exactly this. Karma is often pretty sweet. Too bad though - it didn’t have to be like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is correct. AAP is not only a brain drain, taking all the best students out of the population of a school and classroom, leaving mediocre-poor lumped together behind. It's also a parent drain. I used to be volunteer coordinator for my child's ES, and when 3rd grade came and all the AAP kids left, so did all the volunteers. It's time to get rid of AAP. It's good for a handful of people, and bad for the rest of us.

Not going to happen. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

My ES in the 80s had no tracking of any sort, just clustering... which basically meant I sat by myself during math period and tutored / answered questions for whichever group of kids wasn't working with the teacher at the moment. They'd do their independent assignments and if they got stuck they'd come to me. On the one hand, if there'd been a cohort of equivalent-level peers I would have enjoyed that (instead I got a couple hours of district-wide pullout session something like one or two days a month). On the other hand, having to teach the material to other kids helped me learn it deeper and more intuitively, trying different techniques or methods of explaining. I'm not sure there's a clear best way to do this, either in terms of how much to do the clustering/tracking within classrooms vs. between classrooms, or how big the AAP cohort should be etc., but *as long as teachers can find creative ways to keep kids engaged and challenged one way or the other*, I don't think the exact format or grouping of students really matters all that much, there's pros/cons to any approach. It's really about the teacher's ability to deliver (and the support they get in doing so), and that there's a _reasonable_ number of ability/aptitude groupings in the classroom (maybe 3-4 max?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is correct. AAP is not only a brain drain, taking all the best students out of the population of a school and classroom, leaving mediocre-poor lumped together behind. It's also a parent drain. I used to be volunteer coordinator for my child's ES, and when 3rd grade came and all the AAP kids left, so did all the volunteers. It's time to get rid of AAP. It's good for a handful of people, and bad for the rest of us.

Opinions like this reveal some of you for the a-holes you are. NEWSFLASH: some people CHOOSE not to send their kids to AAP. There are plenty of smart and motivated kids in "gen ed" classes. Mine was one of them. DC started honors classes in middle school (which our center school told us that all honors courses was essentially the AAP curriculum). DC is now in HS (10th) and all honors and AAP and killing it. Doing better than a lot of her AAP friends from ES.

Generalizing those not in AAP as mediocre and their parents . . . bunch of crap. The Gen Ed parent volunteers were just as involved -if not more so- at our ES. You smug hags need to check yourself.

And you believed that? Awww.

NP and yes, we were also told that opting into all honors in middle school through open enrollment was the exact same thing as AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is correct. AAP is not only a brain drain, taking all the best students out of the population of a school and classroom, leaving mediocre-poor lumped together behind. It's also a parent drain. I used to be volunteer coordinator for my child's ES, and when 3rd grade came and all the AAP kids left, so did all the volunteers. It's time to get rid of AAP. It's good for a handful of people, and bad for the rest of us.

Opinions like this reveal some of you for the a-holes you are. NEWSFLASH: some people CHOOSE not to send their kids to AAP. There are plenty of smart and motivated kids in "gen ed" classes. Mine was one of them. DC started honors classes in middle school (which our center school told us that all honors courses was essentially the AAP curriculum). DC is now in HS (10th) and all honors and AAP and killing it. Doing better than a lot of her AAP friends from ES.

Generalizing those not in AAP as mediocre and their parents . . . bunch of crap. The Gen Ed parent volunteers were just as involved -if not more so- at our ES. You smug hags need to check yourself.

And you believed that? Awww.

NP and yes, we were also told that opting into all honors in middle school through open enrollment was the exact same thing as AAP.

This is most likely true nowadays. See the thread on assigned books or lack thereof. Our AAP MS (local level) stopped reading novels. You'd think in an AAP level class, the kids would be able to read novels quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

Oh, if you heard it from your very good friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is correct. AAP is not only a brain drain, taking all the best students out of the population of a school and classroom, leaving mediocre-poor lumped together behind. It's also a parent drain. I used to be volunteer coordinator for my child's ES, and when 3rd grade came and all the AAP kids left, so did all the volunteers. It's time to get rid of AAP. It's good for a handful of people, and bad for the rest of us.

Opinions like this reveal some of you for the a-holes you are. NEWSFLASH: some people CHOOSE not to send their kids to AAP. There are plenty of smart and motivated kids in "gen ed" classes. Mine was one of them. DC started honors classes in middle school (which our center school told us that all honors courses was essentially the AAP curriculum). DC is now in HS (10th) and all honors and AAP and killing it. Doing better than a lot of her AAP friends from ES.

Generalizing those not in AAP as mediocre and their parents . . . bunch of crap. The Gen Ed parent volunteers were just as involved -if not more so- at our ES. You smug hags need to check yourself.

And you believed that? Awww.

NP and yes, we were also told that opting into all honors in middle school through open enrollment was the exact same thing as AAP.

This is most likely true nowadays. See the thread on assigned books or lack thereof. Our AAP MS (local level) stopped reading novels. You'd think in an AAP level class, the kids would be able to read novels quickly.

This is so strange. My kid was in honors English during MS (not AAP) and they most definitely read novels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

DP. I wouldn't call that a "chip on his shoulder" at all. That's simply the very natural result of being labeled "less than" from a very early age by FCPS and AAP kids. Glad to hear he is excelling. This happens all the time with former GE kids. Several at our HS wound up going to Ivies - and many former AAP kids were completely average students by high school. This is why labeling and sorting children at the age of 7 benefits no one in the long run. Flexible groupings throughout elementary are the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

DP. I wouldn't call that a "chip on his shoulder" at all. That's simply the very natural result of being labeled "less than" from a very early age by FCPS and AAP kids. Glad to hear he is excelling. This happens all the time with former GE kids. Several at our HS wound up going to Ivies - and many former AAP kids were completely average students by high school. This is why labeling and sorting children at the age of 7 benefits no one in the long run. Flexible groupings throughout elementary are the way to go.

Again, the idea of flexible grouping is good. The problem is when there are too many needs within one classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

DP. I wouldn't call that a "chip on his shoulder" at all. That's simply the very natural result of being labeled "less than" from a very early age by FCPS and AAP kids. Glad to hear he is excelling. This happens all the time with former GE kids. Several at our HS wound up going to Ivies - and many former AAP kids were completely average students by high school. This is why labeling and sorting children at the age of 7 benefits no one in the long run. Flexible groupings throughout elementary are the way to go.

Again, the idea of flexible grouping is good. The problem is when there are too many needs within one classroom.

Yes, and that typically results in more brown faces in the lower groups which will be seen as racist. So, we're back to AAP providing a way out for higher performers in Title 1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

DP. I wouldn't call that a "chip on his shoulder" at all. That's simply the very natural result of being labeled "less than" from a very early age by FCPS and AAP kids. Glad to hear he is excelling. This happens all the time with former GE kids. Several at our HS wound up going to Ivies - and many former AAP kids were completely average students by high school. This is why labeling and sorting children at the age of 7 benefits no one in the long run. Flexible groupings throughout elementary are the way to go.

Again, the idea of flexible grouping is good. The problem is when there are too many needs within one classroom.

Which is why flexible groups are spread out among all the grade-level classes. Kids switch rooms depending on group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

DP. I wouldn't call that a "chip on his shoulder" at all. That's simply the very natural result of being labeled "less than" from a very early age by FCPS and AAP kids. Glad to hear he is excelling. This happens all the time with former GE kids. Several at our HS wound up going to Ivies - and many former AAP kids were completely average students by high school. This is why labeling and sorting children at the age of 7 benefits no one in the long run. Flexible groupings throughout elementary are the way to go.

Again, the idea of flexible grouping is good. The problem is when there are too many needs within one classroom.

Yes, and that typically results in more brown faces in the lower groups which will be seen as racist. So, we're back to AAP providing a way out for higher performers in Title 1 schools.

If high performers in Title 1 schools have an "out" with AAP, then they would just as easily be in the higher flexible groups. You're not making sense.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

As I read this, I'm thinking I could have written this! My youngest was one of those "gen ed" kids who perceived the difference. We made the mistake of buying our home zoned for an AAP elementary school. I'll never forget when he came home on the first day of 3rd grade and was crying to me because he was in "the dumb class." Fast forward to high school, and he is doing the full IB diploma. His freshman year when he was in class again with some of the AAP kids, he told me that a couple of them asked him why he hadn't been in AAP. I know he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Gen Ed vs AAP.

DP. I wouldn't call that a "chip on his shoulder" at all. That's simply the very natural result of being labeled "less than" from a very early age by FCPS and AAP kids. Glad to hear he is excelling. This happens all the time with former GE kids. Several at our HS wound up going to Ivies - and many former AAP kids were completely average students by high school. This is why labeling and sorting children at the age of 7 benefits no one in the long run. Flexible groupings throughout elementary are the way to go.

Again, the idea of flexible grouping is good. The problem is when there are too many needs within one classroom.

Which is why flexible groups are spread out among all the grade-level classes. Kids switch rooms depending on group.

There are a lot of logistics that go into placement even with flexible grouping and switching classes. For example, let’s say there are 75 kids in a grade level and there are 3 teachers. Let’s say for LA you have 25 kids who are above, then you have 20 who are on, and the rest are below. That would be 30 kids who are already struggling in a LA grouping. Those kids who are below could still have a huge spectrum of needs and putting them in one class won’t necessarily be effective.

Unless class sizes are capped at 20 kids for all groupings, flexible grade level groupings won’t work. There are many grade levels where 1/2 the grade is performing below and the rest aren’t.

The way classes should be…

Max Class Sizes of 20
More ESOL support and SPED support to support struggling learners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.

I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.

No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.

Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?

The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.

I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.

The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.

And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.

+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP

This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.

But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.

DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.

Segregation and tracking are two different words.

And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.

Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.

FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.

BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary

I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.

And I can assure you that is the case. I have a very good friend who is an AAP teacher and even she agrees that there is very little reason for the separation. Most of those kids are in b/c of parents appealing, spending the money getting extra testing, etc. And I can also assure you the "gen ed" kids at our school DEFINITELY perceive the difference. And the non-AAP ones excelling in HS have def made comments about the fact that they are doing better than lots of AAP kids - I've heard it more than once. Maybe a bit of schadenfreude but . . . . I get it. They were treated like dumb "Gen Pop" miscreants all through ES and they didn't need to be.

Oh, if you heard it from your very good friend.

You can eyeroll and not believe it b/c it doesn't fit your narrative. Doesn't mean that it's not true or change what my friend -an AAP teacher- has said.