AAP drama

[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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I failed as a parent today! My child (2nd grader) came home crying today because apparently three of her friends are switching schools to go to an AAP center next year. I’m happy with my child’ performance and school, and didn’t even consider pushing for this. But she’s been crying for over an hour about how she is “stupid” and will have no friends next year. She doesn’t even want to see these girls tomorrow because they told her they aren’t friends with her anymore. I had absolutely on idea this is something kids talk about- this is my first kid. Have other parents experienced this ?

I don't believe for a hot minute that this happened.

Not the OP. This scenario happens all the time - you simply don't see it because your kid is in AAP. Those of us with kids in GE have experienced exactly this or very similar with our own kids. It's so typical that you would dismiss it though.

This is why AAP centers need to be a thing of the past.

It absolutely does. My DS was a bright LIII who would have most likely been principal placed LLIV if our base school had that as an option. But it didn't, so he had to listen to a friend tell him he wished my kid was smarter so they could still go to school together. My friend had a LLIV class at their base school and her son was principal placed into the classroom. Many AAP kids stayed at that school, and they didn't have to deal with any of the drama.

I've said it before, FCPS just needs to pick one model and stick with it and let parents all deal with the collective fallout. With all of their push for equity, you would think they would standardize this more for the entire program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

Teacher here. While I agree with you, the problem will be the makeup of the below grade level class. It will most likely be ESL and SPED and no one will agree to that. Especially if your child is in one of those categories.

+1. This is already happening at the secondary level.

[Anonymous]

There is a real bias toward kids in AAP, and it is wildly unfair. To single out a kid at age 7 for being "advanced" when so many kids are late bloomers, or move into a district late (as my kids did) is such a disservice to all children. It creates a have/have not mentality far too young. For whatever its worth, I hope your child knows their value doesn't depend on what "friends" are doing in class. Plenty of GE students go on to do very well. I wish your daughter luck and hope she can find some new friends who appreciate her for who she is, not what class she's in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

Teacher here. While I agree with you, the problem will be the makeup of the below grade level class. It will most likely be ESL and SPED and no one will agree to that. Especially if your child is in one of those categories.

+1. This is already happening at the secondary level.

I wonder if more kids actually got what they needed, by the time they got to secondary there would be less kids in remedial classes.

[Anonymous]

They let more and more kids in each year. By fifth grade some huge percentage of the class will be in AAP so try again next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

+ a million
And as another poster pointed out, many kids will be in the advanced groups for one subject but the grade-level (or below) in others. I was also an advanced reader who excelled at language arts - but was horrible at math. So, I was in the advanced English/language arts group but the remedial math class. It served me well because I was always engaged in L.A. but got the math instruction and pacing I desperately needed. By the time I was in high school, I was on-grade level for math and doing fine. In short, most kids will be in a mix of groupings depending on the subject. And I completely agree that this system makes FAR more sense than taking all of the kids and saying one group is "advanced" but the other group is not. How absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They let more and more kids in each year. By fifth grade some huge percentage of the class will be in AAP so try again next year

Yes, approximately 17% in 3rd grade and up to 20% by middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

Teacher here. While I agree with you, the problem will be the makeup of the below grade level class. It will most likely be ESL and SPED and no one will agree to that. Especially if your child is in one of those categories.

+1. This is already happening at the secondary level.

I wonder if more kids actually got what they needed, by the time they got to secondary there would be less kids in remedial classes.

Maybe, but there are a lot of variables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

+ a million
And as another poster pointed out, many kids will be in the advanced groups for one subject but the grade-level (or below) in others. I was also an advanced reader who excelled at language arts - but was horrible at math. So, I was in the advanced English/language arts group but the remedial math class. It served me well because I was always engaged in L.A. but got the math instruction and pacing I desperately needed. By the time I was in high school, I was on-grade level for math and doing fine. In short, most kids will be in a mix of groupings depending on the subject. And I completely agree that this system makes FAR more sense than taking all of the kids and saying one group is "advanced" but the other group is not. How absurd.

As a teacher today, I can tell you this is not accurate anymore because the population is different. Very few kids are below grade level in just one subject. These kids exist of course but most of the below grade level are below grade level in all subjects. Many are ESL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

But at AAP centers, kids are so separated they don't even share lunch together. That's my issue. Even when I had leveled teaching - i.e. advanced in match or whatever, I'd be mixed with other kids for things like music, art, lunch, gym, etc. I HATE how separated the kids are, like living in silos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

But at AAP centers, kids are so separated they don't even share lunch together. That's my issue. Even when I had leveled teaching - i.e. advanced in match or whatever, I'd be mixed with other kids for things like music, art, lunch, gym, etc. I HATE how separated the kids are, like living in silos

Huh? What center are you at? This isn't true at all. Maybe it's because our center is our base, but my AAP kids loved hanging out with their friends at recess and having specials with them. It's not like they segregate choir based on AAP/not-AAP: they don't have the specialists for that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

But at AAP centers, kids are so separated they don't even share lunch together. That's my issue. Even when I had leveled teaching - i.e. advanced in match or whatever, I'd be mixed with other kids for things like music, art, lunch, gym, etc. I HATE how separated the kids are, like living in silos

I don't think that's true everywhere.

My kid played with his non-AAP friends during lunch. Honestly at that age their friends are from things like little league not math break-out sessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

But at AAP centers, kids are so separated they don't even share lunch together. That's my issue. Even when I had leveled teaching - i.e. advanced in match or whatever, I'd be mixed with other kids for things like music, art, lunch, gym, etc. I HATE how separated the kids are, like living in silos

I don't think that's true everywhere.

My kid played with his non-AAP friends during lunch. Honestly at that age their friends are from things like little league not math break-out sessions.

+1. And rec sports are by school. Yes schools often have kids sit with their classes (or even at assigned seats) in lunch, but there are plenty of opportunitites for entire grades to get to know each other, especially once kids start picking specials in 4th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So here's the problem - the kids who aren't in the above grade level classes feel dumb. We saw this this year with the different reading groups in our 2nd grade class. Teacher gave each group a color or whatever, and would move kids around between groups as needed. Nobody ever *told* the kids that one group was the smart group, but it turns out, they're observant and they can figure that out.

It turns out, flexible grouping doesn't actually protect the feelings of the kids who aren't at the top; it's the same problem as knowing your friends are going to the AAP center and you're not. This is going to be an issue weather we divide kids into center/non centers, different classes, different groups within a class, or different levels for each subject. *It even happens if you just teach at one level*, because the kids can tell who is getting it and who isn't.

The other issue with flexible grouping is that, for the most part, kids aren't just moving up and down all over the place. Sure, there are a few kids who might bounce between two levels throughout the year, but almost nobody is rocketing from the bottom to the top. I know teachers who have taught in schools that tried really hard to implement this, only to find out that in general, the kids didn't move much.

Realistically, I honestly feel like things would work best if you just every year sorted the kids into different classes in general order of academic ability

PP here who loves the 80s. I was always way above grade level in reading but pretty average in Math. Without flexible groupings, I would have either been bored to tears in reading, or always struggling in Math. And this was in a podunk school system with low property values. I'm actually not worried about kids feeling dumb, I don't like the idea of it, but it has been going on for hundreds of years. What I think is dumber is wasting gobs of money bussing kids around and manufacturing an us vs. them attitude because we think kids can't handle walking across the hall for Math class.

+ a million
And as another poster pointed out, many kids will be in the advanced groups for one subject but the grade-level (or below) in others. I was also an advanced reader who excelled at language arts - but was horrible at math. So, I was in the advanced English/language arts group but the remedial math class. It served me well because I was always engaged in L.A. but got the math instruction and pacing I desperately needed. By the time I was in high school, I was on-grade level for math and doing fine. In short, most kids will be in a mix of groupings depending on the subject. And I completely agree that this system makes FAR more sense than taking all of the kids and saying one group is "advanced" but the other group is not. How absurd.

Exact same scenario in our house. My kid is literally off the charts on reading language, history, and science, but average at best in math. The way Fairfax county is set up, he gets basically nothing. He cannot handle the level iv math, and his school does not do differentiation well and doesn’t have lliv (which I’ve heard can be more flexible and move kids out to regular math ) so it’s a big fat goose egg despite the fact he is grades ahead of peers in some areas. Kids like this should be in classes where they are receiving advanced material, books that are a higher reading level or age, just like the kids in advanced math, receive advanced materials. Instead, they get nothing.

I really don’t understand why anyone in this county thinks the system is successful. It is purely an advanced math program at heart and nothing else