FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

This is sarcastic, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

This is sarcastic, right?

Having a school with 6-8th graders operating at 170% capacity may seem like an obviously bad idea, but we should spend some more money to make sure since the community clearly wants this outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

It is about AAP and IB and 6-8 MS. FCPS needs to decide how they are going handle these issues first. See how that impacts home school numbers and then make boundary decisions.

This is a simple math problem that any 7th grade student could do once you make the core decisions. Most of the people commenting here must be products of FCPS’s declining educational system or Gatehouse shills who have made a career out of failing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the state to step in and take over FCPS. Forget about trying to keep schools from failing. The comprehensive boundary review effort has demonstrated beyond doubt that the entire district has failed.

Get out of here. Seems like what you really want is a voucher charter school situation because that is exactly what will happen.

DP. As late as 2023, I would’ve been on your side. The school board has quickly and unfortunately converted me into one of those parents who would prefer a voucher charter school model.

I want all Fairfax kids to have a great education, but I need to look out for my kids first. If it’s either let the school board use my kids as pawns in a socially equity experiment or have them go to a charter school (which may be to the detriment of lower SES kids), I unfortunately would go with the latter.

It’s a real shame because I’ve always been a public school supporter, but this school board has taken things too far, and it’s driven, and will continue to drive, families like mine out of the system.

How could you be a public school supporter if the prospect of having your kids attend school with actual general public kids drives you away? Sounds like you were a fan of public school with a touch of economic segregation. Maybe pay for private instead of having the taxpayer pay for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

I teach at a LL4 with my own class. Every kid is doing benchmark in LA. Some AAP classes are able to do some extensions but AAP LA is nothing like it was in the past. There is no reason for centers anymore. Also, my Level 4 kids are not all acing the benchmark unit tests either, just FYI. I am hoping with the boundary adjustments, centers are a thing of the past.

I have a question for you. I taught first grade for a number of years. During that time, I taught a diverse group of kids. During that time, I taught two extremely bright boys who tested as being dyslexic. I referred them for testing because they displayed great intellectual curiosity. (One was a middle class child and the other was living in extreme poverty.) One of those boys could calculate math problems very quickly in his head. Both wanted to learn to read. When stories were read to them they asked intelligent questions.

I may have taught other kids who had mild dyslexia, but, in the case of both of these boys, it was extreme. I was not successful in teaching them to read. And, they wanted to read so badly.

My question: How do you accommodate twice exceptional students in an AAP class? I've always understood that the purpose of AAP was that the kids could move faster without remediation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

I teach at a LL4 with my own class. Every kid is doing benchmark in LA. Some AAP classes are able to do some extensions but AAP LA is nothing like it was in the past. There is no reason for centers anymore. Also, my Level 4 kids are not all acing the benchmark unit tests either, just FYI. I am hoping with the boundary adjustments, centers are a thing of the past.

I have a question for you. I taught first grade for a number of years. During that time, I taught a diverse group of kids. During that time, I taught two extremely bright boys who tested as being dyslexic. I referred them for testing because they displayed great intellectual curiosity. (One was a middle class child and the other was living in extreme poverty.) One of those boys could calculate math problems very quickly in his head. Both wanted to learn to read. When stories were read to them they asked intelligent questions.

I may have taught other kids who had mild dyslexia, but, in the case of both of these boys, it was extreme. I was not successful in teaching them to read. And, they wanted to read so badly.

My question: How do you accommodate twice exceptional students in an AAP class? I've always understood that the purpose of AAP was that the kids could move faster without remediation.

DP but I’d assume they would either get an IEP and a 504 with an accommodation for a screen reader + extra pull outs with the reading specialist (probably what should be done) orrrrrr the school would do nothing, maybe put the one kid in advanced math, and say they aren’t on level for reading so they can’t be in LIV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the state to step in and take over FCPS. Forget about trying to keep schools from failing. The comprehensive boundary review effort has demonstrated beyond doubt that the entire district has failed.

Get out of here. Seems like what you really want is a voucher charter school situation because that is exactly what will happen.

DP. As late as 2023, I would’ve been on your side. The school board has quickly and unfortunately converted me into one of those parents who would prefer a voucher charter school model.

I want all Fairfax kids to have a great education, but I need to look out for my kids first. If it’s either let the school board use my kids as pawns in a socially equity experiment or have them go to a charter school (which may be to the detriment of lower SES kids), I unfortunately would go with the latter.

It’s a real shame because I’ve always been a public school supporter, but this school board has taken things too far, and it’s driven, and will continue to drive, families like mine out of the system.

How could you be a public school supporter if the prospect of having your kids attend school with actual general public kids drives you away? Sounds like you were a fan of public school with a touch of economic segregation. Maybe pay for private instead of having the taxpayer pay for you.

Good news for you is that we pay far more taxes than average, so you’re basically just trying to mooch off of us with your last sentence.

I am for educating the county’s kids, I am not for using my kids as pawns offered up on the sacrificial equitable altar that is One Fairfax.

When you say “actual general public kids,” you of course realize that is not about the kids but about the school board interfering with our choice of school pyramid, without any compelling reason to do so. You’re just trying to make it an us vs. them proposition. You’ll bleed UMC support for public schools - a critical block that has historically supported public schools. You’ll have to live with whatever ensues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

She clearly cares about 6-8 middle schools. Even if it takes a couple of months to fully flesh out, we should allow her to present the full scenario of what this looks like. And BRAC should fully analyze it.

She hasn’t convinced me yet, and I doubt she will, but let’s get her best offer on the table, not just some glib every school is full one page of a PowerPoint dismissal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

She clearly cares about 6-8 middle schools. Even if it takes a couple of months to fully flesh out, we should allow her to present the full scenario of what this looks like. And BRAC should fully analyze it.

She hasn’t convinced me yet, and I doubt she will, but let’s get her best offer on the table, not just some glib every school is full one page of a PowerPoint dismissal.

No PP, this “let’s get a full offer” person is trying to spread out the time it takes to make the boundary changes happen. Perhaps their child is a sophomore in high school or something and waiting longer to have the changes will ensure their kid is out of FCPS or guaranteed Grandfathering.
It isn’t a bad strategy at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

She clearly cares about 6-8 middle schools. Even if it takes a couple of months to fully flesh out, we should allow her to present the full scenario of what this looks like. And BRAC should fully analyze it.

She hasn’t convinced me yet, and I doubt she will, but let’s get her best offer on the table, not just some glib every school is full one page of a PowerPoint dismissal.

No PP, this “let’s get a full offer” person is trying to spread out the time it takes to make the boundary changes happen. Perhaps their child is a sophomore in high school or something and waiting longer to have the changes will ensure their kid is out of FCPS or guaranteed Grandfathering.
It isn’t a bad strategy at this point.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

She clearly cares about 6-8 middle schools. Even if it takes a couple of months to fully flesh out, we should allow her to present the full scenario of what this looks like. And BRAC should fully analyze it.

She hasn’t convinced me yet, and I doubt she will, but let’s get her best offer on the table, not just some glib every school is full one page of a PowerPoint dismissal.

No PP, this “let’s get a full offer” person is trying to spread out the time it takes to make the boundary changes happen. Perhaps their child is a sophomore in high school or something and waiting longer to have the changes will ensure their kid is out of FCPS or guaranteed Grandfathering.
It isn’t a bad strategy at this point.

I think it’s very important to hear out the CEO of our school system on her marquee proposed change. I’m not concerned about the timing, even if it takes a few months to flesh out.

I don’t have a strong opinion about 6-8 or 7-8, but she clearly does, and I’d like to get more info

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

She clearly cares about 6-8 middle schools. Even if it takes a couple of months to fully flesh out, we should allow her to present the full scenario of what this looks like. And BRAC should fully analyze it.

She hasn’t convinced me yet, and I doubt she will, but let’s get her best offer on the table, not just some glib every school is full one page of a PowerPoint dismissal.

No PP, this “let’s get a full offer” person is trying to spread out the time it takes to make the boundary changes happen. Perhaps their child is a sophomore in high school or something and waiting longer to have the changes will ensure their kid is out of FCPS or guaranteed Grandfathering.
It isn’t a bad strategy at this point.

I think it’s very important to hear out the CEO of our school system on her marquee proposed change. I’m not concerned about the timing, even if it takes a few months to flesh out.

I don’t have a strong opinion about 6-8 or 7-8, but she clearly does, and I’d like to get more info

We should also consider 6-9th in middle school. Then we wouldn’t have overcrowding in any high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

Owe it to who in the community? This thing should have had 3 scenarios plus estimated cost ranges costs to implement each:
1.Divert funds to expand middle schools after all include AAP
2. which elementary schools would close and reopen as middle schools.
3. sync Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe with the rest of the school division.

She clearly cares about 6-8 middle schools. Even if it takes a couple of months to fully flesh out, we should allow her to present the full scenario of what this looks like. And BRAC should fully analyze it.

She hasn’t convinced me yet, and I doubt she will, but let’s get her best offer on the table, not just some glib every school is full one page of a PowerPoint dismissal.

No PP, this “let’s get a full offer” person is trying to spread out the time it takes to make the boundary changes happen. Perhaps their child is a sophomore in high school or something and waiting longer to have the changes will ensure their kid is out of FCPS or guaranteed Grandfathering.
It isn’t a bad strategy at this point.

I think it’s very important to hear out the CEO of our school system on her marquee proposed change. I’m not concerned about the timing, even if it takes a few months to flesh out.

I don’t have a strong opinion about 6-8 or 7-8, but she clearly does, and I’d like to get more info

But exactly why would this take months? Reid's marque change would drive this process and what doesn't fit based on proximity, geography has to go somewhere for grade 6. IMHO that Thru slide show gave no more info than the general public could compile in 1/2 a day. FCPS basic capacity and membership numbers are about:
program capacity 30,588 remove 2 modulars est 30,258
membership all MS 27,892 = 92%
minus grade 6 26,740 = 88%
plus grade 6 40,172 = 133%

Kilmer 10 room modular adds more capacity than the 10 room Glasgow modular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

I teach at a LL4 with my own class. Every kid is doing benchmark in LA. Some AAP classes are able to do some extensions but AAP LA is nothing like it was in the past. There is no reason for centers anymore. Also, my Level 4 kids are not all acing the benchmark unit tests either, just FYI. I am hoping with the boundary adjustments, centers are a thing of the past.

I have a question for you. I taught first grade for a number of years. During that time, I taught a diverse group of kids. During that time, I taught two extremely bright boys who tested as being dyslexic. I referred them for testing because they displayed great intellectual curiosity. (One was a middle class child and the other was living in extreme poverty.) One of those boys could calculate math problems very quickly in his head. Both wanted to learn to read. When stories were read to them they asked intelligent questions.

I may have taught other kids who had mild dyslexia, but, in the case of both of these boys, it was extreme. I was not successful in teaching them to read. And, they wanted to read so badly.

My question: How do you accommodate twice exceptional students in an AAP class? I've always understood that the purpose of AAP was that the kids could move faster without remediation.

Twice-exceptionality is far more common than you'd think. It is the responsibility of the educational program to meet the needs of both exceptionalities.

If a child needed glasses and crutches, we wouldn't say they can have one or the other. If a child needed an ASL interpreter and AFO braces, we wouldn't say they can have one or the other. So why would we not give children both access to advanced curriculum as well as accommodations for a learning disability?