What’s the big fuss about AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many outdated people here who probably have college graduates. We're not doing numbered levels anymore, sweeties!!!

Access to Rigor: Grades K-6 – All students receive talent development lessons with critical and creative thinking strategies and AAP curriculum lessons. This is a normal classroom and sometimes the AART pushes in for a stupid Jacob's ladder lesson

Subject-Specific Services: Grades K-6 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons in the general education setting in areas of academic strength. This is extra math worksheets

Part-Time Services: Grades 3-6 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons in more than one academic content area. The Advanced Academic Resource Teacher (AART) leads these lessons. Programming has increased depth and complexity in several content areas.This is actually wrong because some kids AART pull outs, but there are also kids who get advanced math where they push in to the AAP or LLIV classroom

Full-Time Services: Grades 3-8 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons full-time. Programming has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.This is the AAP or LLIV classroom but the biggest difference is just advanced math

So, in other words... The same exact tiers exist, whether they're numbers or otherwise. (i.e. LIII is now just "part time").

The same exact problems exist in that only LIV, or Full time is centrally managed, and all other levels (subject specific, part time) are implemented by the local school, which has wide discretion on how to execute them, which can also be space dependent. .e. in some centers of Local Full-time classrooms, there may be space for push-ins, and in other times, the AART may provide 1-hour weekly support - both of which are acceptable approaches.

As a parent of a 2nd grader and 5th grader, I'll continue to use the terms interchangeably, as I believe they're still well understood. Not sure if the "Sweeeties" was meant to be condescending, but it comes off that way.

The frustrating part is that in most schools, the AAP classroom is really only about 10 kids who were actually accepted into the program and everyone else is principal placed. We didn't learn this until my son started middle school and all of the sudden, all these kids we thought were AAP were in his Honors classes.

But how is that frustrating? Were their parents lording over their kids' "AAP" status over you or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many outdated people here who probably have college graduates. We're not doing numbered levels anymore, sweeties!!!

Access to Rigor: Grades K-6 – All students receive talent development lessons with critical and creative thinking strategies and AAP curriculum lessons. This is a normal classroom and sometimes the AART pushes in for a stupid Jacob's ladder lesson

Subject-Specific Services: Grades K-6 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons in the general education setting in areas of academic strength. This is extra math worksheets

Part-Time Services: Grades 3-6 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons in more than one academic content area. The Advanced Academic Resource Teacher (AART) leads these lessons. Programming has increased depth and complexity in several content areas.This is actually wrong because some kids AART pull outs, but there are also kids who get advanced math where they push in to the AAP or LLIV classroom

Full-Time Services: Grades 3-8 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons full-time. Programming has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.This is the AAP or LLIV classroom but the biggest difference is just advanced math

So, in other words... The same exact tiers exist, whether they're numbers or otherwise. (i.e. LIII is now just "part time").

The same exact problems exist in that only LIV, or Full time is centrally managed, and all other levels (subject specific, part time) are implemented by the local school, which has wide discretion on how to execute them, which can also be space dependent. .e. in some centers of Local Full-time classrooms, there may be space for push-ins, and in other times, the AART may provide 1-hour weekly support - both of which are acceptable approaches.

As a parent of a 2nd grader and 5th grader, I'll continue to use the terms interchangeably, as I believe they're still well understood. Not sure if the "Sweeeties" was meant to be condescending, but it comes off that way.

The frustrating part is that in most schools, the AAP classroom is really only about 10 kids who were actually accepted into the program and everyone else is principal placed. We didn't learn this until my son started middle school and all of the sudden, all these kids we thought were AAP were in his Honors classes.

But how is that frustrating? Were their parents lording over their kids' "AAP" status over you or something?

Not PP, but I can see the resentment. PP's child's peers were given an advantage. Assuming they're similarly skilled, a non-transparent decision was made somewhere in the school system (Different in each school) that allowed potentially equally qualified children to be segregated. One was given an advanced curriculum and opportunities that the other was not. Both are now in the same classroom 4 years later potentially showing that the segregation may not have been warranted. It makes the PP question whether they did the best advocating for their child. Should they have become a thorn in the principal's side? Should they have prepped better in 2nd grade for that single test? Should they have volunteered for PTA to gain better awareness and higher profile? What was the basis for that decision? All questions in hindsight that make you question "why not my child"...

All of the above is wild speculation... Maybe there were criteria openly known, maybe the differences were stark and easily seen between children, maybe PP child doesn't even belong in honors but is there due to open enrollment, maybe PP's child is in Honors now because of the work they put in the strive above the hell that is General Education classroom. Or maybe everything above is accurate. Hypotheticals are fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many outdated people here who probably have college graduates. We're not doing numbered levels anymore, sweeties!!!

Access to Rigor: Grades K-6 – All students receive talent development lessons with critical and creative thinking strategies and AAP curriculum lessons. This is a normal classroom and sometimes the AART pushes in for a stupid Jacob's ladder lesson

Subject-Specific Services: Grades K-6 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons in the general education setting in areas of academic strength. This is extra math worksheets

Part-Time Services: Grades 3-6 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons in more than one academic content area. The Advanced Academic Resource Teacher (AART) leads these lessons. Programming has increased depth and complexity in several content areas.This is actually wrong because some kids AART pull outs, but there are also kids who get advanced math where they push in to the AAP or LLIV classroom

Full-Time Services: Grades 3-8 – Identified students receive AAP curriculum lessons full-time. Programming has increased depth, complexity, and pace in all academic content areas.This is the AAP or LLIV classroom but the biggest difference is just advanced math

So, in other words... The same exact tiers exist, whether they're numbers or otherwise. (i.e. LIII is now just "part time").

The same exact problems exist in that only LIV, or Full time is centrally managed, and all other levels (subject specific, part time) are implemented by the local school, which has wide discretion on how to execute them, which can also be space dependent. .e. in some centers of Local Full-time classrooms, there may be space for push-ins, and in other times, the AART may provide 1-hour weekly support - both of which are acceptable approaches.

As a parent of a 2nd grader and 5th grader, I'll continue to use the terms interchangeably, as I believe they're still well understood. Not sure if the "Sweeeties" was meant to be condescending, but it comes off that way.

The frustrating part is that in most schools, the AAP classroom is really only about 10 kids who were actually accepted into the program and everyone else is principal placed. We didn't learn this until my son started middle school and all of the sudden, all these kids we thought were AAP were in his Honors classes.

But how is that frustrating? Were their parents lording over their kids' "AAP" status over you or something?

Not PP, but I can see the resentment. PP's child's peers were given an advantage. Assuming they're similarly skilled, a non-transparent decision was made somewhere in the school system (Different in each school) that allowed potentially equally qualified children to be segregated. One was given an advanced curriculum and opportunities that the other was not. Both are now in the same classroom 4 years later potentially showing that the segregation may not have been warranted. It makes the PP question whether they did the best advocating for their child. Should they have become a thorn in the principal's side? Should they have prepped better in 2nd grade for that single test? Should they have volunteered for PTA to gain better awareness and higher profile? What was the basis for that decision? All questions in hindsight that make you question "why not my child"...

All of the above is wild speculation... Maybe there were criteria openly known, maybe the differences were stark and easily seen between children, maybe PP child doesn't even belong in honors but is there due to open enrollment, maybe PP's child is in Honors now because of the work they put in the strive above the hell that is General Education classroom. Or maybe everything above is accurate. Hypotheticals are fun!

This is the biggest troll-post I've seen in a while and that's saying something for this forum!

[Anonymous]

Principal placement is great. Identifies on the cusp kids that may not test well and probably qualify with the central committee on a good day. One would hope principals aren't placing chair throwers in the AAP class. Some of you parents are just snobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Principal placement is great. Identifies on the cusp kids that may not test well and probably qualify with the central committee on a good day. One would hope principals aren't placing chair throwers in the AAP class. Some of you parents are just snobs.

Those chair throwers would be in special education, not in AAP. Also, what’s the big deal? The principal doesn’t even place AAP, the committee does,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Principal placement is great. Identifies on the cusp kids that may not test well and probably qualify with the central committee on a good day. One would hope principals aren't placing chair throwers in the AAP class. Some of you parents are just snobs.

It does happen. We had a kid likely principal placed into AAP last year (kid is in gen ed this year, along with a few others) who had a calm down corner and usually that was enough. But my kid came home one day saying that didn't work....the kid got locked out of the classroom, was banging on the door and ultimately got sent home. I was surprised to hear it because I thought usually they leave the kid in the class and then everyone else has to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Principal placement is great. Identifies on the cusp kids that may not test well and probably qualify with the central committee on a good day. One would hope principals aren't placing chair throwers in the AAP class. Some of you parents are just snobs.

Yes, it helps to identify kids whose parents don't appeal or buy a gifted diagnoss.

[Anonymous]

No, principal placement is bad. What if that principal has bias? You guys are making me lose hope in the future of our nation, having to kiss the shoes of the principal just to get into AAP.

[Anonymous]

There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

Absolutely, that's just how things work. No matter what, a selection process will never be 100% accurate and give those AAP spots out to the people most qualified, some who don't deserve it will get those spots. People will always complain no matter what

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

Absolutely, that's just how things work. No matter what, a selection process will never be 100% accurate and give those AAP spots out to the people most qualified, some who don't deserve it will get those spots. People will always complain no matter what

Then why not at least make it objective so there isn't an option for bias or favors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

Absolutely, that's just how things work. No matter what, a selection process will never be 100% accurate and give those AAP spots out to the people most qualified, some who don't deserve it will get those spots. People will always complain no matter what

Then why not at least make it objective so there isn't an option for bias or favors?

College submissions have some degree of subjectivity as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

Absolutely, that's just how things work. No matter what, a selection process will never be 100% accurate and give those AAP spots out to the people most qualified, some who don't deserve it will get those spots. People will always complain no matter what

Then why not at least make it objective so there isn't an option for bias or favors?

College submissions have some degree of subjectivity as well.

College admissions I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

Absolutely, that's just how things work. No matter what, a selection process will never be 100% accurate and give those AAP spots out to the people most qualified, some who don't deserve it will get those spots. People will always complain no matter what

Then why not at least make it objective so there isn't an option for bias or favors?

College submissions have some degree of subjectivity as well.

College admissions have a limited number of slots and have a completely different goal than gifted education. Some degree of subjectivity is fine, but the current model is rejecting kids with 99th percentile scores when the teacher doesn't like the kid.

The most logical system would automatically admit kids above a specified score threshold on whatever ability or achievement tests they wish to use. Then, kids below the threshold could apply and be holistically admitted through teacher ratings and portfolios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always someone left out. When that someone has monetary means and a voice to complain/advocate, it gets attention. Wherever they draw the line, people will complain.

Essentially, there's no winning in this argument, if we can even call it an argument.

Absolutely, that's just how things work. No matter what, a selection process will never be 100% accurate and give those AAP spots out to the people most qualified, some who don't deserve it will get those spots. People will always complain no matter what

Then why not at least make it objective so there isn't an option for bias or favors?

College submissions have some degree of subjectivity as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Colleges are private institutions operating in their own self interest, FCPS is a public institution that should be operating in the students best interest.