What’s the big fuss about AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to prep your child to suck up to the teacher than it is to prep them to a 98th percentile+ score. For what AAP is, it would make the most sense to just use an achievement test. The kids who are above grade level in both math and language arts should be in AAP. The kids above grade level in only language arts should place into the AAP classroom for language arts and in a gen ed one for math. The kids above grade level in only math should get advanced math. Some small number of kids who didn't test at above grade level could appeal, and based on the teacher's recommendation + a portfolio review could be placed anyway. There would be a lot less angst, and none of the insanity where AAP teachers have to deal with kids who are below grade level, while above grade level gen ed kids are told that they can't get advanced math or an above grade level reading group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to prep your child to suck up to the teacher than it is to prep them to a 98th percentile+ score. For what AAP is, it would make the most sense to just use an achievement test. The kids who are above grade level in both math and language arts should be in AAP. The kids above grade level in only language arts should place into the AAP classroom for language arts and in a gen ed one for math. The kids above grade level in only math should get advanced math. Some small number of kids who didn't test at above grade level could appeal, and based on the teacher's recommendation + a portfolio review could be placed anyway. There would be a lot less angst, and none of the insanity where AAP teachers have to deal with kids who are below grade level, while above grade level gen ed kids are told that they can't get advanced math or an above grade level reading group.

Np. Agree with you, but there's currently no objective test given to determine above grade level language arts for current 2nd graders. The only test is VALLS, which may be helpful to identify struggling readers, but doesn't identify how advanced a child is beyond being a fluent reader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to prep your child to suck up to the teacher than it is to prep them to a 98th percentile+ score. For what AAP is, it would make the most sense to just use an achievement test. The kids who are above grade level in both math and language arts should be in AAP. The kids above grade level in only language arts should place into the AAP classroom for language arts and in a gen ed one for math. The kids above grade level in only math should get advanced math. Some small number of kids who didn't test at above grade level could appeal, and based on the teacher's recommendation + a portfolio review could be placed anyway. There would be a lot less angst, and none of the insanity where AAP teachers have to deal with kids who are below grade level, while above grade level gen ed kids are told that they can't get advanced math or an above grade level reading group.

This would only work if the entire grade level team (all teachers) taught LA at the same exact time, math at the same exact time, etc. this is often done at a local level IV. It requires all team members teaching all subjects. But many elementary schools have grade level teams that departmentalize beginning in 4th grade (one teacher only teaches math, one does LA, one does SS/Sci.) so this would not be possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to prep your child to suck up to the teacher than it is to prep them to a 98th percentile+ score. For what AAP is, it would make the most sense to just use an achievement test. The kids who are above grade level in both math and language arts should be in AAP. The kids above grade level in only language arts should place into the AAP classroom for language arts and in a gen ed one for math. The kids above grade level in only math should get advanced math. Some small number of kids who didn't test at above grade level could appeal, and based on the teacher's recommendation + a portfolio review could be placed anyway. There would be a lot less angst, and none of the insanity where AAP teachers have to deal with kids who are below grade level, while above grade level gen ed kids are told that they can't get advanced math or an above grade level reading group.

This would only work if the entire grade level team (all teachers) taught LA at the same exact time, math at the same exact time, etc. this is often done at a local level IV. It requires all team members teaching all subjects. But many elementary schools have grade level teams that departmentalize beginning in 4th grade (one teacher only teaches math, one does LA, one does SS/Sci.) so this would not be possible.

I'm always going to support a student's right to access the appropriate level of instruction over an elementary school teacher's desire to only teach one subject. If a school can't possibly figure out how to deliver advanced language arts instruction to all kids who need it as well as advanced math to all who qualify, then the school shouldn't departmentalize.

FWIW, my kids' school didn't departmentalize at all until 6th grade. In 6th, math wasn't departmentalized, and the other subjects only were to some degree. They also clustered all of the advanced language arts kids in the same classroom to facilitate appropriate instruction. It worked fine. It's not exactly rocket science for each ES teacher to handle all or most of the ES subjects. In many ways, it worked better for math, since the school could provide more instructional levels. One class was advanced math. One was kind of between grade level and advanced math. One was purely grade level. One was grade level with heavy ESOL support. And one was below grade level with the resource teacher. Every child could switch into the most appropriate class for their needs.

If a school is creative, I think they could make instructional levels like this work even with departmentalization. They could group students into homerooms based on instructional needs. They could semi-departmentalize, where some teachers handle both math and science while others handle both language arts and history. They could utilize the AART or resource teachers as additional teachers or support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to prep your child to suck up to the teacher than it is to prep them to a 98th percentile+ score. For what AAP is, it would make the most sense to just use an achievement test. The kids who are above grade level in both math and language arts should be in AAP. The kids above grade level in only language arts should place into the AAP classroom for language arts and in a gen ed one for math. The kids above grade level in only math should get advanced math. Some small number of kids who didn't test at above grade level could appeal, and based on the teacher's recommendation + a portfolio review could be placed anyway. There would be a lot less angst, and none of the insanity where AAP teachers have to deal with kids who are below grade level, while above grade level gen ed kids are told that they can't get advanced math or an above grade level reading group.

This would only work if the entire grade level team (all teachers) taught LA at the same exact time, math at the same exact time, etc. this is often done at a local level IV. It requires all team members teaching all subjects. But many elementary schools have grade level teams that departmentalize beginning in 4th grade (one teacher only teaches math, one does LA, one does SS/Sci.) so this would not be possible.

I'm always going to support a student's right to access the appropriate level of instruction over an elementary school teacher's desire to only teach one subject. If a school can't possibly figure out how to deliver advanced language arts instruction to all kids who need it as well as advanced math to all who qualify, then the school shouldn't departmentalize.

FWIW, my kids' school didn't departmentalize at all until 6th grade. In 6th, math wasn't departmentalized, and the other subjects only were to some degree. They also clustered all of the advanced language arts kids in the same classroom to facilitate appropriate instruction. It worked fine. It's not exactly rocket science for each ES teacher to handle all or most of the ES subjects. In many ways, it worked better for math, since the school could provide more instructional levels. One class was advanced math. One was kind of between grade level and advanced math. One was purely grade level. One was grade level with heavy ESOL support. And one was below grade level with the resource teacher. Every child could switch into the most appropriate class for their needs.

If a school is creative, I think they could make instructional levels like this work even with departmentalization. They could group students into homerooms based on instructional needs. They could semi-departmentalize, where some teachers handle both math and science while others handle both language arts and history. They could utilize the AART or resource teachers as additional teachers or support.

It’s way more work for the teachers to have to teach all subjects after years of not doing this, especially LA. Not going to happen. Also, it’s possible the special ed kids need to be together so the special Ed teacher can go in one class. If there are 5 difference classes of LA, the special Ed teacher wouldn’t be able to meet with all her kids in one spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not that I disagree (particularly since my child is a great online test-taker), but this will encourage test preparation even more than previously. Though in my own mind personally, even with prepping, if a student can score 99 percentile, they've proven to me to be capable to be in AAP.

Sure, but it's a lot easier to prep your child to suck up to the teacher than it is to prep them to a 98th percentile+ score. For what AAP is, it would make the most sense to just use an achievement test. The kids who are above grade level in both math and language arts should be in AAP. The kids above grade level in only language arts should place into the AAP classroom for language arts and in a gen ed one for math. The kids above grade level in only math should get advanced math. Some small number of kids who didn't test at above grade level could appeal, and based on the teacher's recommendation + a portfolio review could be placed anyway. There would be a lot less angst, and none of the insanity where AAP teachers have to deal with kids who are below grade level, while above grade level gen ed kids are told that they can't get advanced math or an above grade level reading group.

This would only work if the entire grade level team (all teachers) taught LA at the same exact time, math at the same exact time, etc. this is often done at a local level IV. It requires all team members teaching all subjects. But many elementary schools have grade level teams that departmentalize beginning in 4th grade (one teacher only teaches math, one does LA, one does SS/Sci.) so this would not be possible.

I'm always going to support a student's right to access the appropriate level of instruction over an elementary school teacher's desire to only teach one subject. If a school can't possibly figure out how to deliver advanced language arts instruction to all kids who need it as well as advanced math to all who qualify, then the school shouldn't departmentalize.

FWIW, my kids' school didn't departmentalize at all until 6th grade. In 6th, math wasn't departmentalized, and the other subjects only were to some degree. They also clustered all of the advanced language arts kids in the same classroom to facilitate appropriate instruction. It worked fine. It's not exactly rocket science for each ES teacher to handle all or most of the ES subjects. In many ways, it worked better for math, since the school could provide more instructional levels. One class was advanced math. One was kind of between grade level and advanced math. One was purely grade level. One was grade level with heavy ESOL support. And one was below grade level with the resource teacher. Every child could switch into the most appropriate class for their needs.

If a school is creative, I think they could make instructional levels like this work even with departmentalization. They could group students into homerooms based on instructional needs. They could semi-departmentalize, where some teachers handle both math and science while others handle both language arts and history. They could utilize the AART or resource teachers as additional teachers or support.

It’s way more work for the teachers to have to teach all subjects after years of not doing this, especially LA. Not going to happen. Also, it’s possible the special ed kids need to be together so the special Ed teacher can go in one class. If there are 5 difference classes of LA, the special Ed teacher wouldn’t be able to meet with all her kids in one spot.

Our ES ended up in this situation. There were a few kids with IEPs that needed advanced math but the other IEP kids were not able to handle that math. In 5th grade there was an advanced math class, where all the kids needing advanced math shared the same homeroom and teacher, and the regular class. We did not have LLIV. The kids with IEPs needing advanced math where in an advanced math group in the regular math class so that they could receive services from the resource teacher. By the end of the year, the advanced math IEP kids had moved into the advanced math class because they were not getting what they needed in the regular class even with the resource support. The school had to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

I'm always going to support a student's right to access the appropriate level of instruction over an elementary school teacher's desire to only teach one subject. If a school can't possibly figure out how to deliver advanced language arts instruction to all kids who need it as well as advanced math to all who qualify, then the school shouldn't departmentalize.

FWIW, my kids' school didn't departmentalize at all until 6th grade. In 6th, math wasn't departmentalized, and the other subjects only were to some degree. They also clustered all of the advanced language arts kids in the same classroom to facilitate appropriate instruction. It worked fine. It's not exactly rocket science for each ES teacher to handle all or most of the ES subjects. In many ways, it worked better for math, since the school could provide more instructional levels. One class was advanced math. One was kind of between grade level and advanced math. One was purely grade level. One was grade level with heavy ESOL support. And one was below grade level with the resource teacher. Every child could switch into the most appropriate class for their needs.

If a school is creative, I think they could make instructional levels like this work even with departmentalization. They could group students into homerooms based on instructional needs. They could semi-departmentalize, where some teachers handle both math and science while others handle both language arts and history. They could utilize the AART or resource teachers as additional teachers or support.

Sadly, ES classes aren’t departmentalized in FCPS. Only Math is for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Because AAP is what GenEd once was, that is how far FCPS has fallen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because AAP is what GenEd once was, that is how far FCPS has fallen.

Yep. Now GenEd is full of people who don’t care about their grades, chair throwers, and people who are set up for a life of crime.

[Anonymous]

Honest truth: When someone hears my child is in AAP, they automatically assume DC is a child worth getting to know, a potential friend for their DC. That's been my experience at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest truth: When someone hears my child is in AAP, they automatically assume DC is a child worth getting to know, a potential friend for their DC. That's been my experience at least.

That is the dumbest thing I have read all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest truth: When someone hears my child is in AAP, they automatically assume DC is a child worth getting to know, a potential friend for their DC. That's been my experience at least.

That is the dumbest thing I have read all day.

It's the truth though, I'm sorry you still feel like you have to pretend it's not on an anonymous forum. Whatever scores you honest anonymous internet points I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest truth: When someone hears my child is in AAP, they automatically assume DC is a child worth getting to know, a potential friend for their DC. That's been my experience at least.

+1 same. AAP kids are known as good kids and kids who care about their studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest truth: When someone hears my child is in AAP, they automatically assume DC is a child worth getting to know, a potential friend for their DC. That's been my experience at least.

+1 same. AAP kids are known as good kids and kids who care about their studies.

At our school they are arrogant and over prepped with zero social skills and extremely pushy tiger parents, like you must be.