AAP drama

[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.

+ 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

Reading books creates too much inequity.

[Anonymous]

The main problem is General Ed is closer to remedial and AAP is what General Ed should be.

If we have a separate Remedial Ed - where children who need additional support and with much lower student/teacher ratios are placed, it would help both General Ed and Remedial group.

I am making this up as an example: 15-20% in Remedial Ed, 75-80% in General Ed, 1-5% in Gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main problem is General Ed is closer to remedial and AAP is what General Ed should be.

If we have a separate Remedial Ed - where children who need additional support and with much lower student/teacher ratios are placed, it would help both General Ed and Remedial group.

I am making this up as an example: 15-20% in Remedial Ed, 75-80% in General Ed, 1-5% in Gifted.

That is not far from the truth.
The negative effects of being in the "slow" class is so pronounced that they just put everyone in remedial.
I think the whole "break-out" sessions idea is based on the realization that we are not going to go back to sticking the slow kids in the slow class.
But yeah, a significant portion of the general ed pace and curriculum seems geared towards the slow kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main problem is General Ed is closer to remedial and AAP is what General Ed should be.

If we have a separate Remedial Ed - where children who need additional support and with much lower student/teacher ratios are placed, it would help both General Ed and Remedial group.

I am making this up as an example: 15-20% in Remedial Ed, 75-80% in General Ed, 1-5% in Gifted.

Except that your numbers are way off. FCPS has, from the beginning, designed its gifted program to be XL, so previously around 10% and now close to 20%, possibly less at the wealthiest schools.

The bigger issue is the percentage in Remedial Ed and General Ed, which varies widely between different schools.

[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.

Agreed - our center has kids in AAP and Gen Ed together and mixed for specials (art, music, PE, plus choir/strings/band), lunch, and recess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed - our center has kids in AAP and Gen Ed together and mixed for specials (art, music, PE, plus choir/strings/band), lunch, and recess.

+1 We specifically chose our center because of the mixed approach for specials. The LLIV program at the local school created a very insulated cohort of 1 class that would have very little variability or co-mingling over a 4 year period.

[Anonymous]

Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

All kids will be getting the basal in LA. AAP kids will be doing the same grade level standards as others. They might have some extensions but not the way it has been in the past. I guess my point is they really won’t be getting accelerated or advanced reading compared to their gen ed classmates. Furthermore, avid readers will probably find the new basal boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

All kids will be getting the basal in LA. AAP kids will be doing the same grade level standards as others. They might have some extensions but not the way it has been in the past. I guess my point is they really won’t be getting accelerated or advanced reading compared to their gen ed classmates. Furthermore, avid readers will probably find the new basal boring.

I'm so disappointed by this change. My new AAP kid has been thrilled at the idea of actual work, and I fear this will now be marginally better, at best. I'm crossing my fingers out center teachers just continue to meet the kids where they actually are 🤞

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

All kids will be getting the basal in LA. AAP kids will be doing the same grade level standards as others. They might have some extensions but not the way it has been in the past. I guess my point is they really won’t be getting accelerated or advanced reading compared to their gen ed classmates. Furthermore, avid readers will probably find the new basal boring.

I'm so disappointed by this change. My new AAP kid has been thrilled at the idea of actual work, and I fear this will now be marginally better, at best. I'm crossing my fingers out center teachers just continue to meet the kids where they actually are 🤞

There will be work but it won’t be the same as the LA programs for AAP in the past. I just wish AAP was able to use grade level above of the basal but the county is not doing it. I am concerned about the program since MCPS used it and hated it so they are switching this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

All kids will be getting the basal in LA. AAP kids will be doing the same grade level standards as others. They might have some extensions but not the way it has been in the past. I guess my point is they really won’t be getting accelerated or advanced reading compared to their gen ed classmates. Furthermore, avid readers will probably find the new basal boring.

I assume this is part of the equity push, but is there an explanation on FCPS website explaining their reasoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

All kids will be getting the basal in LA. AAP kids will be doing the same grade level standards as others. They might have some extensions but not the way it has been in the past. I guess my point is they really won’t be getting accelerated or advanced reading compared to their gen ed classmates. Furthermore, avid readers will probably find the new basal boring.

I assume this is part of the equity push, but is there an explanation on FCPS website explaining their reasoning?

It is required by state. All VA schools need to use specified reading programs by state. Has nothing to do with FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best to just be at a center school as neighborhood school. Ours does Social studies and science all classes at Level IV. Same material/tests/quizzes/enhancements in both HE and AAP. Language Arts incorporates Level IV material but not everything into GE as well. Major difference is Math. But even with that some of my kids friends who are not “in” AAP are in my kids AAP math class. Center School.

Well it doesn’t really matter now with ne LA curriculum since everyone is getting the same program.

Same program does not equal the same pace and depth of delivery. Non-AAP parents really want to believe it's all the same. But it's not.

All kids will be getting the basal in LA. AAP kids will be doing the same grade level standards as others. They might have some extensions but not the way it has been in the past. I guess my point is they really won’t be getting accelerated or advanced reading compared to their gen ed classmates. Furthermore, avid readers will probably find the new basal boring.

I assume this is part of the equity push, but is there an explanation on FCPS website explaining their reasoning?

It is required by state. All VA schools need to use specified reading programs by state. Has nothing to do with FCPS.

It's because of the recently passed Virginia Literacy Act, which requires that all schools teach using Science of Reading.