AAP drama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
lol what is a truly gifted kid

Not sure, but no one is throwing chairs in DCs center school classroom. And most kids pay attention and do the work.

Call it gifted. Call it above average. Call it watered down. I don’t care.


lol this is accurate for us as well. We just told our kid she is going to a school where the children behave a little better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our AAP center experience has been amazing and absolutely life changing for our DC. My other DC isn’t in AAP and doesn’t need it. They are happy and there isn’t some kind of smart / dumb type of animosity in our house.

Inevitably, my guess is the SB will probably move to dismantle the center system as LLIV is finally up and running everywhere. And even more, my guess is that LLIV will probably be moved to the cluster model in most places due to the segregation like optics of separate classes which really aren’t any better than separate schools if we look at it through an equity lens.

Given all the issues present in many low SES/ middle SES elementary schools, the cluster model will likely result in poorer outcomes for those kids.

I’m just happy my DC will have received a top notch elementary/MS education before the AAP system is changed. Sorry some kids said some mean things though.

Could you explain how your center experience has been life changing? My kid attended an AAP center and was still underwhelmed by everything. He felt like he learned more in 3 hours of AoPS math and language arts classes than he did in an entire week of school. My kid's center was at best mildly accelerated and largely still filled with the station model for math, reading groups that never saw the teacher, lots of busywork, and lots of powerpoint presentations. I know that not all centers are the same, and I'm curious about what your center did differently to make the experience life changing for your kid.

NP. My first DC's center school experience was also life changing, a bit less dramatic for my second DC. The academics are a part of it, more the ELA and S/SS than Advanced Math since the teachers have generally only been so-so math teachers. The focus on critical thinking in the AAP curriculum has been targeted towards DC's weaknesses and has helped him learn and think. More importantly, the cohort and the teachers' comfort, familiarity with GT students who will question and correct errors and think out of the box.

My older DC found a group of kids who accepted and did not belittle his intelligence and quirks, unlike his GE classes. My younger DC found a group of kids who are very similar to him, playing pretend, writing fan fic, terrified of fire alarms, etc.

The center school model is unusual and a relic from a time when GT was considered important. It isn't anymore and FCPS is trying to dismantle it. There are a lot of people in the administration who are hostile to it and they are doing their best to get rid of it. OP's opinion is the majority opinion.

For the bolded, really?! At which school are kids belittling another kid's intelligence and quirks in the 2nd grade? Statistically, there were even another 4 or 5 AAP kids within your kid's 2nd grade classroom, and there should have been several kids above grade level. In FCPS, if anything kids are belittled for being "dumb" - not for being "too smart."

Also, you don't think gen ed kids play pretend or write fan fic? WTH?

DS has a friend that is smart and could careless about school. He is in Advanced Math and LIII but is not curious and has no external motivation to learn about a subject outside of what he has to at school. There are plenty of smart kids just like him. He was in-pool for LIV and had poor GBRS and HOPE scores (his parents applied this year.) There is no doubt that he is smart he is not motivated. His parents know this and applied for LIV again because they know he will do fine in it but he does the bare minimum at school and at home. Statistically, he is that kid you are talking about but he doesn't show it no matter who goads or prods him.

Kids are picked on for being smart and quirky. It happens all the time. The book worm, the kid always raising their hand, the kid who wants more math. Most of the kids could care less but there are kids who will use another kids intelligence and curiosity to target them.

I know kids from our neighborhood who moved to the Center due to bullying in the classroom, mainly because they stood out for their intelligence and other kids were ostracizing them for that reason. I can think of 3 off the top of my head who moved for that reason. The three kids, none were in my kids class but I spoke to their parents as we were deciding on moving to the Center or staying, all said that the kids just fit in better at the Center. They loved it there and have friends from the program still.

I know of one in my sons class who was loudly announcing he was going to the Center in 4th grade because he was smart and heard plenty of kids commenting that they were glad he was leaving. DS told me that he had issues in the classroom because of how he acted towards the other kids and his interests. I am not sure if his issues were that he was quirky or if he thought he was smarter then the others well before leaving for the Center and the other kids ignored him. No one seemed to be sad when he left. I saw him at a party the next year and his Mom said that he was struggling socially at the Center so I suspect it was personality more then anything else.

Again, I'm really curious about where this is happening. My kids attended a Title I ES. There were still quite a lot of bookworms, kids always raising their hands, and kids who loved math in every classroom. It wasn't some sort of weird thing that would cause a kid to be ostracized. The nerdy, AAP bound kids + the bright, nerdy kids who didn't get in were like 30% of the grade. Maybe boy vs. girl dynamics are different. Maybe things are different in an even lower SES school that places very few kids in AAP. Otherwise, at any school placing 15% or more of the grade into AAP, the whole idea of kids being picked on for nerdiness seems weird to me.

Just because you don't see it in your current class doesn't mean 1) It isn't happening. It could be happening but your kid is not reporting it because does not impact your kid. 2) It isn't happening in different classrooms.

DS reports nothing about what is happening at school, I hear a lot when he is car pooling with kids and there are kids who are struggling. My DS doesn't discuss it but other kids do. I have had to tell other kids that their words were not kind during that ride. Lack of hearing about it doesn't mean it is not happening.

The kid I know who left in 4th grade was someone I had never heard about before. I heard DS's friends discussing him bragging about leaving for the Center when they were hanging out. They were not kind in what they had to say about the kid.

There is more happening then you hear. And there is more happening then your kid might hear.

I don't disagree with you, but I am confused. Are you saying that you heard kids making fun of other kids for being too smart or for being bookworms? Or are the kids making fun of those who they think aren't as smart? Your second anecdote suggests that the 4th grade kid was being a jerk about other kids not being smart enough, and your DS's friends were mocking the kid for being an arrogant jerk.

PP's post suggested that kids were being like, "OMG. Look at Larla reading books over there. What a huge nerd. I don't hang out with weird nerds who raise their hands in class and read books." I'm having a hard time imagining anything like this, since even my kids' Title I school had plenty of kids who read voraciously, participated in class, and were above grade level.

I'm not trying to be aggressive about this. It seems implausible to me that a kid would be so alienated in the regular classroom, but when they move to the center alongside 5 other kids who were in that same classroom with them and 25 other kids from their school that they saw in specials and recess, they suddenly fit in perfectly.

When you draw a line to create two groups of people for different treatment, both groups are pressured to hate the other group.

What the actual...?!??? NO. Good lord. It takes a lot of care and feeding for differentiated treatment to turn into hatred. I played on my JV sports teams, never hated the Varsity kids even though they got way better coaching, more access to weights and other training equipment, etc. I went to a small private college, never hated my friends who went to big state universities even though they had way better parties and access to research labs and opportunities. I went to church, never hated my friends to went to temple and who got to have big bar/bat mitzvah celebrations. During COVID I worked an early AM shift, never hated my colleagues who were assigned the PM shift or worked from home. I don't receive SNAP benefits, never hated those who do. My kids don't have IEPs, never hated those kids who do. I live in a state that gets relatively less than average federal funding relative to our tax contributions, never hated those who live in states that receive a greater share. On and on and on and on with examples. Appropriate differentiated treatment absolutely does NOT in itself "pressure hatred towards the other group", yeesh.

A case where differentiated treatment DOES lead to resentment and eventually hatred is often seen in situations where the differentiated treatment is oppressive and/or wildly unfair over an extended period of time (can be the root source of violent ethnic conflicts, for example). But AAP is nothing remotely like a situation that should inherently pressure anyone towards hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
lol what is a truly gifted kid

Not sure, but no one is throwing chairs in DCs center school classroom. And most kids pay attention and do the work.

Call it gifted. Call it above average. Call it watered down. I don’t care.

lol this is accurate for us as well. We just told our kid she is going to a school where the children behave a little better.

Must be a different center from the one our child attends. It's full of horribly behaved AAP kids.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

+1

The solution is tracking and each class being taught to one level. This is best for students and teachers and the way that we learned in school - but the lowest level class will stay the lowest level and will not flexibily move up so we don't do that anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

DP, but this is exactly what I had to do when I taught in another district. Granted I did have a TA, which is key to making this work. Also, they actually followed IEPs in my old district, so all the sped kids were fully supported, which makes a huge difference. But yes. I had 30 kids in an inclusion class. Taught the main lesson at grade level. Broke kids off into 4 differentiated groups for independent work - above grade level, at grade level, below grade level, sped. I would support a group. TA would support a group. 2 groups were truly independent. We would rotate daily. Each group had a different criteria for evaluation. This was followed up with a daily challenge of some sort depending on the subject. All kids were encouraged to try it. Groups were flexible.
But I tend to agree with you. It would never happen in cluster like FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

DP, but this is exactly what I had to do when I taught in another district. Granted I did have a TA, which is key to making this work. Also, they actually followed IEPs in my old district, so all the sped kids were fully supported, which makes a huge difference. But yes. I had 30 kids in an inclusion class. Taught the main lesson at grade level. Broke kids off into 4 differentiated groups for independent work - above grade level, at grade level, below grade level, sped. I would support a group. TA would support a group. 2 groups were truly independent. We would rotate daily. Each group had a different criteria for evaluation. This was followed up with a daily challenge of some sort depending on the subject. All kids were encouraged to try it. Groups were flexible.
But I tend to agree with you. It would never happen in cluster like FCPS.

Kudos - you went over and beyond your minimum expectations, and are an experienced teacher with the support (TA) necessary to implement this approach. I wish there were hundreds of you and you were teaching my child! You already acknowledged FCPS shortfalls in this area, so not an attack on you, but more of a re-iteration... Expecting this type of basic support is folly - Teachers are generally not as experienced or willing (much less compensated) to do the extra up-front work necessary to teach 4 simultaneous class experiences, especially on top of all of the other requirements and "training" that FCPS levies on them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

DP, but this is exactly what I had to do when I taught in another district. Granted I did have a TA, which is key to making this work. Also, they actually followed IEPs in my old district, so all the sped kids were fully supported, which makes a huge difference. But yes. I had 30 kids in an inclusion class. Taught the main lesson at grade level. Broke kids off into 4 differentiated groups for independent work - above grade level, at grade level, below grade level, sped. I would support a group. TA would support a group. 2 groups were truly independent. We would rotate daily. Each group had a different criteria for evaluation. This was followed up with a daily challenge of some sort depending on the subject. All kids were encouraged to try it. Groups were flexible.
But I tend to agree with you. It would never happen in cluster like FCPS.

Kudos - you went over and beyond your minimum expectations, and are an experienced teacher with the support (TA) necessary to implement this approach. I wish there were hundreds of you and you were teaching my child! You already acknowledged FCPS shortfalls in this area, so not an attack on you, but more of a re-iteration... Expecting this type of basic support is folly - Teachers are generally not as experienced or willing (much less compensated) to do the extra up-front work necessary to teach 4 simultaneous class experiences, especially on top of all of the other requirements and "training" that FCPS levies on them!

These are the sort of teachers we chase away in FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

DP, but this is exactly what I had to do when I taught in another district. Granted I did have a TA, which is key to making this work. Also, they actually followed IEPs in my old district, so all the sped kids were fully supported, which makes a huge difference. But yes. I had 30 kids in an inclusion class. Taught the main lesson at grade level. Broke kids off into 4 differentiated groups for independent work - above grade level, at grade level, below grade level, sped. I would support a group. TA would support a group. 2 groups were truly independent. We would rotate daily. Each group had a different criteria for evaluation. This was followed up with a daily challenge of some sort depending on the subject. All kids were encouraged to try it. Groups were flexible.
But I tend to agree with you. It would never happen in cluster like FCPS.

Kudos - you went over and beyond your minimum expectations, and are an experienced teacher with the support (TA) necessary to implement this approach. I wish there were hundreds of you and you were teaching my child! You already acknowledged FCPS shortfalls in this area, so not an attack on you, but more of a re-iteration... Expecting this type of basic support is folly - Teachers are generally not as experienced or willing (much less compensated) to do the extra up-front work necessary to teach 4 simultaneous class experiences, especially on top of all of the other requirements and "training" that FCPS levies on them!

It is an unreasonable workload for teachers to invent so many lesson plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

Good grief. How many times must this be repeated to you? Flexible grouping does NOT mean multiple groups in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a group for all four core classes. So Mrs. X has advanced language arts, Mrs. Y has grade-level, and Mr. Z has remedial. Then the teachers have different groups for math, science, and social studies. The kids switch for each subject anyway. The kids can cycle into and out of these groups as they improve/need more help. No one is locked into any group or label. And each teacher only has one level to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

+1

The solution is tracking and each class being taught to one level. This is best for students and teachers and the way that we learned in school - but the lowest level class will stay the lowest level and will not flexibily move up so we don't do that anymore.

DP. This isn't how flexible grouping works. When a student demonstrates mastery of the subject, they simply move up into the next group. If they're struggling, they move down. That's why it's called "flexible."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

DP, but this is exactly what I had to do when I taught in another district. Granted I did have a TA, which is key to making this work. Also, they actually followed IEPs in my old district, so all the sped kids were fully supported, which makes a huge difference. But yes. I had 30 kids in an inclusion class. Taught the main lesson at grade level. Broke kids off into 4 differentiated groups for independent work - above grade level, at grade level, below grade level, sped. I would support a group. TA would support a group. 2 groups were truly independent. We would rotate daily. Each group had a different criteria for evaluation. This was followed up with a daily challenge of some sort depending on the subject. All kids were encouraged to try it. Groups were flexible.
But I tend to agree with you. It would never happen in cluster like FCPS.

Kudos - you went over and beyond your minimum expectations, and are an experienced teacher with the support (TA) necessary to implement this approach. I wish there were hundreds of you and you were teaching my child! You already acknowledged FCPS shortfalls in this area, so not an attack on you, but more of a re-iteration... Expecting this type of basic support is folly - Teachers are generally not as experienced or willing (much less compensated) to do the extra up-front work necessary to teach 4 simultaneous class experiences, especially on top of all of the other requirements and "training" that FCPS levies on them!

Not even one person has suggested this. You two need to read more carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

Good grief. How many times must this be repeated to you? Flexible grouping does NOT mean multiple groups in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a group for all four core classes. So Mrs. X has advanced language arts, Mrs. Y has grade-level, and Mr. Z has remedial. Then the teachers have different groups for math, science, and social studies. The kids switch for each subject anyway. The kids can cycle into and out of these groups as they improve/need more help. No one is locked into any group or label. And each teacher only has one level to worry about.

Good grief how many times must we explain that not all schools in FCPS operate the same. In our center school, each grade decides whether or not they rotate subjects. And who is responsible for administering all the testing throughout the year, in each subject area, to determine whether or not the 130 students per grade flex up/down or remain the same? Bc our kids aren’t wasting enough time already with the state/county standardized testing requirements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't you all tired of beating this drum about getting rid of AAP/AAP centers? In every post possible these people run over to dump on the program. Well guess what, even if they scrapped AAP and did flexible groups based on ability instead, the kids would still be able to tell who is in the "smart" group and who isn't and comment on it.

I don't agree. Flexible groups could be moved in/out of over time and kids could be grouped differently for different subjects. Homerooms/ specials would be a complete mix. The fully segregated class system that FCPS has implemented, based on completely subjective measures of 7 year olds does more harm than good. The parents of the 50% of kids who get in don't complain and the other 50% of parents are completely dismissed as bitter. So it persists. But that doesn't make it a good way to educate, even if it helps a lot of kids/ parents feel superior.

+1000
Flexible groupings are absolutely the solution. No one would be permanently labeled anything - kids would cycle into and out of groups as appropriate. It's really unbelievable to me that AAP has persisted as long as it had. Whatever happened to the very small, very selective GT program along with flexible groupings for everyone else?

Have you set foot in an FCPS elementary classroom? 1) 50% of students are not in AAP 2) there’s absolutely no way teachers are going to successfully implement differentiated teaching and identify students to regularly cycle through flexible groupings in class sizes of 28+. In theory, sure, sounds great. In practice, never going to happen. My kid couldn’t even get a math worksheet with higher level content she was begging her teacher for. “I’m sorry, I have nothing more to give you” is what she was told. Flexible groupings. lol.

Good grief. How many times must this be repeated to you? Flexible grouping does NOT mean multiple groups in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a group for all four core classes. So Mrs. X has advanced language arts, Mrs. Y has grade-level, and Mr. Z has remedial. Then the teachers have different groups for math, science, and social studies. The kids switch for each subject anyway. The kids can cycle into and out of these groups as they improve/need more help. No one is locked into any group or label. And each teacher only has one level to worry about.

I think what they are saying is even with that set up it can vary.

Example:

80 kids in the grade. 3 teachers.

20 kids are above grade level.
20 are on
40 are below.

You only have three teachers. You can’t have a class of 40 kids.