AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

Agree! This is absolutely why parents push for AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

What does this even mean? Isn't there a set curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Besides the cluster model, what practices do you mean? My kid is at a LL4 with a designated class and has friends at center. His experience doesn’t look too different academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

PP. What I’ve experienced in two other districts out of state is one GT class, about 10-20 kids, that fed into one middle school. GT started in first grade or second grade. GT continued at the middle school. Not even close to top 10%. More like top .5%. They were at least a year ahead at all times. Taking Latin in first grade, stuff like that. This served my child well. When we moved here she was instantly bored in AAP. I have a different kid in AAP, who’s not GT, and they don’t seem that much ahead of the regular classes but it serves him fine because he’s being challenged more than Gen Ed and needs a push. I wish that FCPS had a true GT program for the truly GT, one class per pyramid, you have to drive them, and then an AAP class at each elementary for those who need a little extra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Where did I say "rework the entire system"?

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

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

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

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

Ooooh some-bunny is scared that their child will get kicked out of AAP because of pass-proficient scores on the SOL this year!!!

The teachers are already looking at every child's iReady scores, SOLs, and other assessments taken throughout the year. This would be no different. If a child isn't keeping up, they need to be kicked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school with local level IV AAP should not send students to a center. Elementary schools without enough children for a particular grade can give parents the option of sending their kids to the next closest elementary school (assigned by administration) with local level IV AAP (that is also zoned for their base middle school). All middle schools should have level IV AAP.

Great Falls Elementary has a local level IV AAP program with enough kids to make classes at all grades. 40-50 kids a year are bussed from Great Falls (high SES zoned for Cooper/Langley) to the center school Colvin Run (high SES school zoned for Cooper/Langley). Colvin Run’s AAP Program only pulls students from Great Falls (no other elementary schools). There are multiple busses driving these kids from their homes in the Great Falls Elementary boundary to Colvin Run. One bus only has 8-9 students on it!

GFES certainly does NOT have enough kids to make classes at all grades. That’s the only reason why families go to the center school.

GFES would have 41 more students if none of the students transferred to Colvin Run. That would be enough to have a full time level 4 AAP class in each grade 3-6.

41 in grades 3-6 total. Some grades might have enough, especially the larger ones, in our grade only 7 kids are accepted to full time. Colvin run has 2 full classes.

[Anonymous]

You have to review both map categories under the Facilities Dashboard Transfer Data maps [Sept count for SY24-25]:
Colvin Run:77 in- 28 AAP GFES.
GFES to CRES: 41 all transfer categories-28 AAP=13 other
JIP transfers into GFES: 28 [total in FLI not published by FCPS under school profiles].

School profiles are June so AAP Level iv doesn't have an official count for SY24-25 available. AAP Level iv =base school + AAP transfer+ student transfer reg.

[Anonymous]

I'm angry about comparing kids to kids at their own school instead of the entire FCPS population. I literally know a family that picked a house zoned to a Title I school so their child would get into AAP. My child has higher test scores (NNAT, COGAT, iready, SOL, everything) but because we're at a school with lots of highly educated, wealthy families, my kid didn't get in. Why is her child more deserving of a better education than mine just because she goes to school with poor kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

What does this even mean? Isn't there a set curriculum?

The local level 4 doesn’t have to consist of only Level IV identified kids. The principal can put whomever they want in it. The core classes are not taught to only level IV identified kids. They can be grouped with the whole grade. So yo7 have a very different peer group which leads to a different pace and depth of instruction even with the same curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Would make sense as part of the equity plan. Let’s face it AAP is what GenEd used to be, so getting rid of it lowers the bar as far as it can go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm angry about comparing kids to kids at their own school instead of the entire FCPS population. I literally know a family that picked a house zoned to a Title I school so their child would get into AAP. My child has higher test scores (NNAT, COGAT, iready, SOL, everything) but because we're at a school with lots of highly educated, wealthy families, my kid didn't get in. Why is her child more deserving of a better education than mine just because she goes to school with poor kids?

Your child is at a school with kids who are better prepared for school, have better PTA programs, and have more parental support. The kids are far more likely to be on grade level and advanced. The peer group is going to be more academically focused because they have more stable housing, regular meals, and more financial stability. Your kid is going to be in a better position for success then the kids at a Title 1 school.

The kid at a Title 1 school come from families where there is far more instability and are far less prepared for school. The LLIV class is more likely to be on grade level and not receiving attention from the teacher in the class because there are kids far behind.

So you are complaining that your kid isn’t in a class that is not all that advanced while a kid at a Title 1 school is essentially in a grade level class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm angry about comparing kids to kids at their own school instead of the entire FCPS population. I literally know a family that picked a house zoned to a Title I school so their child would get into AAP. My child has higher test scores (NNAT, COGAT, iready, SOL, everything) but because we're at a school with lots of highly educated, wealthy families, my kid didn't get in. Why is her child more deserving of a better education than mine just because she goes to school with poor kids?

If your school has a ton of smart kids, your child already has a cohort of smart kids. They don’t need to go to another school to get one.

[Anonymous]

The way ffx county does AAP centers seems crazy to me. So much churn for kids going to different schools and then back (seems to be what everybody is against in the boundary forum - instability for kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way ffx county does AAP centers seems crazy to me. So much churn for kids going to different schools and then back (seems to be what everybody is against in the boundary forum - instability for kids).

Going to a center is an option. Kids canary at their base school of theu prefer. But the center option needs to stay for those who want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

What does this even mean? Isn't there a set curriculum?

The local level 4 doesn’t have to consist of only Level IV identified kids. The principal can put whomever they want in it. The core classes are not taught to only level IV identified kids. They can be grouped with the whole grade. So yo7 have a very different peer group which leads to a different pace and depth of instruction even with the same curriculum.

I teach at Local Level 4. The kids principal placed are also high achieving students. In fact, some of my Level 3 kids perform higher than some of my Level 4 kids who could have chosen the center. The AAP classes at the center are filled with kids who somehow got in as well. Your argument doesn’t hold regarding LL4 classes that are designated as the Level 4 class with principal placement. Secondly, if you think there are no kids who struggle academically in a center, you are clearly unaware.