Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.
I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.
No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.
Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?
The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.
I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.
The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.
And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.
+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP
This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.
But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.
DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.
Segregation and tracking are two different words.
And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.
Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.
FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.
BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary
I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.
Hahahahahaha, jokes on you, PP.
You wish. Truth hurts.
You do know that in any given LLIV class, 1/3 or more of the class has been pushed in because otherwise they wouldn't have enough kids to form an entire class, right? And that some of those kids are getting pull outs because they can't handle advanced math? I have two kids in AAP. One of them is principal placed and we have a twice a week tutor for math so that he can stay in. We'll do honors for middle school.
We are not a Center school, I don't know if center schools have to add in other kids to balance out the class sizes or not, but I wonder if their AAP kids get advanced math pull outs, too.
Your experience is skewed by how a LLIV class works. At a center school, no additional principal-placed students are added to the classroom (most centers pull in students from 2 other schools, in addition to the base). My child is in grade 5 and there have been no pull-outs, only teacher swapping for different subjects. There are two AAP classes in his grade.
Aren't they trying to put LLIV in most schools now, though? So this is only going to become more common?
Students currently have the option to go to the center or stay at LLIV. IME, the center is the best opportunity for full-time immersion into the program. A lot of people want to see centers dissolved but there hasn't been a plan announced for that as of yet. I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.
DP. Yet another example of FCPS preaching "equity" but not actually practicing it. Kids with AAP in their base school should not get a choice of switching to a center - period. Either one or the other. Gen Ed kids have no such choice presented to them - they are stuck in whatever school they are assigned.
I think center schools should definitely be dissolved, especially if LLIV is offered at all base schools. They are redundant, wasteful, and inequitable (to speak FCPS language ).
No, they should not do away with centers. When my kid went, only 8 from our Title 1 school went to the center. I know of a few more who opted to stay in language immersion but 8 out of appr 150 kids went. Approx. less than 10% were found center eligible. There were less than 20 students in the one AAP class at the center for that grade level. All the feeder schools are Title 1 as well. In these cases, it's better to cluster the students at the center.
Wouldn’t make a difference in the new “cluster model” where 3-5 AAP kids are put in a regular classroom.
I agree with you that self contained classrooms are preferable, but I think they are fading away. All the new LLIV programs are “cluster model”. My child’s base school had 19 kids center eligible who wanted to stay at the base and they split them into 5 classrooms.
I teach in one of these classrooms and I’d prefer if the kids were out of the class. It’s one more level to plan. When they finish early, I have to create another activity for them. Sometimes, they become talkative/disruptive, affecting my ability to help the kids who really need the 1:1 attention because their 3 grades below in reading and/or math.
It amazes me that parents of gen ed high-performers on here want to add yet another layer of planning onto teachers. Next they'll be complaining that only the kids below grade level and the kids above grade level (formerly AAP) are getting all the attention, and kid (now mid-level) is still being ignored.
To the PP, it doesn't make any sense to divide 19 kids across 5 classrooms. It's like they opted out of the program entirely instead of LLIV clustering.
Parents of gen Ed high performers know their kids are ignored regardless. Bringing in more kids near the top of the class at least gives them more of a cohort. I’d prefer aap be it’s own thing and the kids at the bottom have their own classes too, but that will never happen
Genuinely asking, why is it better for your child to be middle of the pack versus top of the gen ed classroom? If the top performers are moved back into the regular classroom, it pushes everyone down. What am I missing?
The top of the class is more likely to little to no time with the teacher. Even if the still get no time with the teacher, the group of two that gets ignored my turn into 5 or 6 which then gives the kids a cohort.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
These kids tend to be ESOL and SPED students.
At least for the ESOL students, they're not getting anything out of sitting in an upper ES classroom when they have such little understanding of English. They'd be much better served in a special program, and the regular classroom would be much better served if the teacher didn't have to devote so much time to the kids who are so far behind.
This isn't accurate, as long as the number is low (one or two students). When the number is my much higher, a third of the class or more, then you're right that very little learning, of the language or subject matter, will happen.
Again, welcome to Title I schools. The number of ESOL kids who speak and understand very little English in 4th-6th grade is much higher.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
These kids tend to be ESOL and SPED students.
At least for the ESOL students, they're not getting anything out of sitting in an upper ES classroom when they have such little understanding of English. They'd be much better served in a special program, and the regular classroom would be much better served if the teacher didn't have to devote so much time to the kids who are so far behind.
But neither of those 2 things happen in public education, so….
Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.
I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.
No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.
Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?
The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.
I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.
The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.
And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.
+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP
This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.
But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.
DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.
Segregation and tracking are two different words.
And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.
Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.
FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.
BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary
I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.
Hahahahahaha, jokes on you, PP.
You wish. Truth hurts.
You do know that in any given LLIV class, 1/3 or more of the class has been pushed in because otherwise they wouldn't have enough kids to form an entire class, right? And that some of those kids are getting pull outs because they can't handle advanced math? I have two kids in AAP. One of them is principal placed and we have a twice a week tutor for math so that he can stay in. We'll do honors for middle school.
We are not a Center school, I don't know if center schools have to add in other kids to balance out the class sizes or not, but I wonder if their AAP kids get advanced math pull outs, too.
Your experience is skewed by how a LLIV class works. At a center school, no additional principal-placed students are added to the classroom (most centers pull in students from 2 other schools, in addition to the base). My child is in grade 5 and there have been no pull-outs, only teacher swapping for different subjects. There are two AAP classes in his grade.
Aren't they trying to put LLIV in most schools now, though? So this is only going to become more common?
Students currently have the option to go to the center or stay at LLIV. IME, the center is the best opportunity for full-time immersion into the program. A lot of people want to see centers dissolved but there hasn't been a plan announced for that as of yet. I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.
DP. Yet another example of FCPS preaching "equity" but not actually practicing it. Kids with AAP in their base school should not get a choice of switching to a center - period. Either one or the other. Gen Ed kids have no such choice presented to them - they are stuck in whatever school they are assigned.
I think center schools should definitely be dissolved, especially if LLIV is offered at all base schools. They are redundant, wasteful, and inequitable (to speak FCPS language ).
No, they should not do away with centers. When my kid went, only 8 from our Title 1 school went to the center. I know of a few more who opted to stay in language immersion but 8 out of appr 150 kids went. Approx. less than 10% were found center eligible. There were less than 20 students in the one AAP class at the center for that grade level. All the feeder schools are Title 1 as well. In these cases, it's better to cluster the students at the center.
Wouldn’t make a difference in the new “cluster model” where 3-5 AAP kids are put in a regular classroom.
I agree with you that self contained classrooms are preferable, but I think they are fading away. All the new LLIV programs are “cluster model”. My child’s base school had 19 kids center eligible who wanted to stay at the base and they split them into 5 classrooms.
I teach in one of these classrooms and I’d prefer if the kids were out of the class. It’s one more level to plan. When they finish early, I have to create another activity for them. Sometimes, they become talkative/disruptive, affecting my ability to help the kids who really need the 1:1 attention because their 3 grades below in reading and/or math.
It amazes me that parents of gen ed high-performers on here want to add yet another layer of planning onto teachers. Next they'll be complaining that only the kids below grade level and the kids above grade level (formerly AAP) are getting all the attention, and kid (now mid-level) is still being ignored.
To the PP, it doesn't make any sense to divide 19 kids across 5 classrooms. It's like they opted out of the program entirely instead of LLIV clustering.
Parents of gen Ed high performers know their kids are ignored regardless. Bringing in more kids near the top of the class at least gives them more of a cohort. I’d prefer aap be it’s own thing and the kids at the bottom have their own classes too, but that will never happen
Genuinely asking, why is it better for your child to be middle of the pack versus top of the gen ed classroom? If the top performers are moved back into the regular classroom, it pushes everyone down. What am I missing?
The top of the class is more likely to little to no time with the teacher. Even if the still get no time with the teacher, the group of two that gets ignored my turn into 5 or 6 which then gives the kids a cohort.
But now those 5-6 students are sitting there together not being enriched together. Your argument makes no sense. Now 6 students don’t get attention from the teacher versus 2?
Anonymous wrote:^I am speaking from personal experience. It wasn’t an advanced class but a class only offered at the school virtually. It was a simple “Sorry, it’s filled.” They gave my kid two other completely unrelated options that would fit in his schedule. It’s about what fits in, not what you want at that point. We certainly weren’t demanding a class spot and bus transportation. Lesson learned, we are already researching other virtual options outside of FCPS for next year.
I firmly think they need to stop the transportation for AAP centers and one of mine went through AAP but stayed at the base school. There are so many other things to spend the money on.
No way they’re going to do this. It’s an equity issue. You’d basically be excluding all the kids whose parents don’t have the resources to drive them every day.
Okay. But there are centers that have every school with a Local Level 4. For example, every school that sends to Westbriar has a Local Level 4. Why should we be bussing kids when they can get a Level 4 class at their own school?
The argument is that the Center schools allow for more classrooms so that the kids can be mixed up every year, just like the Gen Ed classes are shuffled every year. It is better for socialization for kids to have a larger cohort of kids and gives room to keep kids who clash apart.
I think the solution is that you have Advanced Math and Advanced LA in every school. Maybe it is Advanced Math and Science and Advanced LA and Social Studies since there are overlapping skill sets in the classes. Allow kids to move classes based on their areas of strength. Since many schoolshave 3 or more classrooms for each grade, you should be able to keep classes balanced in size and skill set. It would allow more kids to be challenged in their areas of strength. For even larger schools you would end up with 2 advanced classrooms for each of the areas.
The fluidity would be good for all kids and you wouldn’t have to worry about the cohort issues. You could also adjust the kids in each group annually so that kids who start to advance later in ES. It would also allow kids who were on the cusp and are struggling to be moved back into a group that works for them. You also remove the designation and hence the competitive aspect of LIV, that is ridiculous. LIII goes away, since there is Advanced LA, which allows the AART to do more with the LII type kids in K-2 and to provide support for the truly gifted kids who need more then Advanced Math or LA provides.
And you get rid of the Centers and busses and relieve over crowding at some of the Center schools.
+100
I've been wishing they would do something like this for years.
DP
This was how my podunk ES did it in the 80's in of those open concept schools. And by golly it worked.
But this is tracking which is deemed Inequitable. There should be some sort of testing to determine who gets what but my suspicion is that it will be ignored. Fcps has already called out the low numbers of POC and low income in AAP and the goal is to even it out.
DP. Isn't AAP simply tracking as well - but on a much greater scale? In fact, sorting very young kids into two groups at age 7 is the very definition of tracking. Flexible grouping would allow ALL children to progress at the pace that is right for them - moving up when ready, moving down when the work is too challenging. AAP - and especially center schools - are blatant segregation.
Segregation and tracking are two different words.
And unfortunately, the state of Virginia requires a gifted program and this is how FCPS implements theirs. So they have cover from your attack of tracking and segregation.
Except that it's not a "gifted" program and they very deliberately do not call it one. And it is the very definition of segregation.
FCPS is absolutely guilty of segregation, but that is accomplished by pyramid boundaries. I wouldn't fault AAP for that. If anything, AAP Centers are a temporary way out for capable kids that are stuck in hyper-segregated ES/MS zones.
BS. Our Level IV center had equal numbers of kids in AAP and in gen ed. That's not gifted or more capable kids . . . it's separating kids out for very little reason, creating division and stereotyping, and is just unnecessary
I can assure you that the kids in Level IV aren't there for "very little reason." They are the higher-performers who have proven that they can handle a faster, more advanced workload. If your kid can't, they can't, and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem with "creating division" comes from parent responses, not kid perceptions.
Hahahahahaha, jokes on you, PP.
You wish. Truth hurts.
You do know that in any given LLIV class, 1/3 or more of the class has been pushed in because otherwise they wouldn't have enough kids to form an entire class, right? And that some of those kids are getting pull outs because they can't handle advanced math? I have two kids in AAP. One of them is principal placed and we have a twice a week tutor for math so that he can stay in. We'll do honors for middle school.
We are not a Center school, I don't know if center schools have to add in other kids to balance out the class sizes or not, but I wonder if their AAP kids get advanced math pull outs, too.
Your experience is skewed by how a LLIV class works. At a center school, no additional principal-placed students are added to the classroom (most centers pull in students from 2 other schools, in addition to the base). My child is in grade 5 and there have been no pull-outs, only teacher swapping for different subjects. There are two AAP classes in his grade.
Aren't they trying to put LLIV in most schools now, though? So this is only going to become more common?
Students currently have the option to go to the center or stay at LLIV. IME, the center is the best opportunity for full-time immersion into the program. A lot of people want to see centers dissolved but there hasn't been a plan announced for that as of yet. I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.
DP. Yet another example of FCPS preaching "equity" but not actually practicing it. Kids with AAP in their base school should not get a choice of switching to a center - period. Either one or the other. Gen Ed kids have no such choice presented to them - they are stuck in whatever school they are assigned.
I think center schools should definitely be dissolved, especially if LLIV is offered at all base schools. They are redundant, wasteful, and inequitable (to speak FCPS language ).
No, they should not do away with centers. When my kid went, only 8 from our Title 1 school went to the center. I know of a few more who opted to stay in language immersion but 8 out of appr 150 kids went. Approx. less than 10% were found center eligible. There were less than 20 students in the one AAP class at the center for that grade level. All the feeder schools are Title 1 as well. In these cases, it's better to cluster the students at the center.
Wouldn’t make a difference in the new “cluster model” where 3-5 AAP kids are put in a regular classroom.
I agree with you that self contained classrooms are preferable, but I think they are fading away. All the new LLIV programs are “cluster model”. My child’s base school had 19 kids center eligible who wanted to stay at the base and they split them into 5 classrooms.
I teach in one of these classrooms and I’d prefer if the kids were out of the class. It’s one more level to plan. When they finish early, I have to create another activity for them. Sometimes, they become talkative/disruptive, affecting my ability to help the kids who really need the 1:1 attention because their 3 grades below in reading and/or math.
It amazes me that parents of gen ed high-performers on here want to add yet another layer of planning onto teachers. Next they'll be complaining that only the kids below grade level and the kids above grade level (formerly AAP) are getting all the attention, and kid (now mid-level) is still being ignored.
To the PP, it doesn't make any sense to divide 19 kids across 5 classrooms. It's like they opted out of the program entirely instead of LLIV clustering.
Parents of gen Ed high performers know their kids are ignored regardless. Bringing in more kids near the top of the class at least gives them more of a cohort. I’d prefer aap be it’s own thing and the kids at the bottom have their own classes too, but that will never happen
Genuinely asking, why is it better for your child to be middle of the pack versus top of the gen ed classroom? If the top performers are moved back into the regular classroom, it pushes everyone down. What am I missing?
The top of the class is more likely to little to no time with the teacher. Even if the still get no time with the teacher, the group of two that gets ignored my turn into 5 or 6 which then gives the kids a cohort.
But now those 5-6 students are sitting there together not being enriched together. Your argument makes no sense. Now 6 students don’t get attention from the teacher versus 2?
This. If you have a class of 28 with 5 above grade level, they can be left to their own devices. If that 5 turns into 10, then they are getting some attention now
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
These kids tend to be ESOL and SPED students.
At least for the ESOL students, they're not getting anything out of sitting in an upper ES classroom when they have such little understanding of English. They'd be much better served in a special program, and the regular classroom would be much better served if the teacher didn't have to devote so much time to the kids who are so far behind.
This isn't accurate, as long as the number is low (one or two students). When the number is my much higher, a third of the class or more, then you're right that very little learning, of the language or subject matter, will happen.
Again, welcome to Title I schools. The number of ESOL kids who speak and understand very little English in 4th-6th grade is much higher.
Not PP, but we're also in Title 1 schools. I volunteered at one point and the majority of students in class are not at grade level. Don't forget the number of SPEd students that need assistance as well. I know they get clustered (5 such students were in my DC's class) and do get a small slice of specialist's time. Even with smaller class sizes, there just aren't enough resources to go around.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
But now additional high achievers don’t get any attention because the teacher still has to help the 8-10 kids that are low. All of the data we collect (and admin) tells us to help those students with more frequent groups and 1:1 attention. Leaving those additional high-achievers to silent read and go on Lexia and ST Math.
I'm the PP with the DD in gen ed who was always a year ahead in reading and got perfect scores on the SOLs. I also have another kid who attended the center. In 4th grade, the gen ed title I program had kids reading from K-5th* grade level. In AAP 4th grade, my kid's class had kids reading from 3rd-5th* grade level. Neither the gen ed program nor the AAP one tested kids beyond one year above grade level, nor did they teach groups more than one year above grade level.
Yes, the best thing would be to have all of the kids reading one year above in a separate program. This isn't happening though. The gen ed teacher needed to provide reading groups for kids reading a year above grade level. Meanwhile, the AAP teacher needed groups spanning below grade level through above. Most of the AAP kids could have been folded back into the gen ed program without adding any burden to the gen ed teacher, as she was already providing 3rd-5th grade reading groups.
In the last 6 years, we have been directed to create reading groups where the students are at, so in 4th grade that was often groups from 1-5. Your school is doing something different than many, many schools in FCPS. How can you have a 3rd grade reading group for kids with 50-80 sight words? It makes no sense.
It's an AAP center class. No body has 50-80 sight words in 4th grade AAP. My point was that if a gen ed 4th grade classroom had groupings from K-5 and the AAP 4th grade classroom had groupings from 5-8, keeping them separate makes sense. If the gen ed classroom has groupings from K-5 and the AAP one has groupings from 3-5, there's no real reason for the separation. FCPS is doing something very wrong here, both in letting kids below grade level into AAP, keeping some kids above grade level out of AAP, and only providing groupings up to 1 year above grade level in AAP.
Do glad our center school doesn't do all this grouping nonsense.
I don't know how you know all of those levels in different classes and I don't want to know.
Either PP doesn't know and is concocting this entire scenario based upon her own perceptions (which are likely wrong), or she's a sub in the classroom who is way too nosey and blabbing information she shouldn't. I could see it going either way TBH.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
But now additional high achievers don’t get any attention because the teacher still has to help the 8-10 kids that are low. All of the data we collect (and admin) tells us to help those students with more frequent groups and 1:1 attention. Leaving those additional high-achievers to silent read and go on Lexia and ST Math.
I'm the PP with the DD in gen ed who was always a year ahead in reading and got perfect scores on the SOLs. I also have another kid who attended the center. In 4th grade, the gen ed title I program had kids reading from K-5th* grade level. In AAP 4th grade, my kid's class had kids reading from 3rd-5th* grade level. Neither the gen ed program nor the AAP one tested kids beyond one year above grade level, nor did they teach groups more than one year above grade level.
Yes, the best thing would be to have all of the kids reading one year above in a separate program. This isn't happening though. The gen ed teacher needed to provide reading groups for kids reading a year above grade level. Meanwhile, the AAP teacher needed groups spanning below grade level through above. Most of the AAP kids could have been folded back into the gen ed program without adding any burden to the gen ed teacher, as she was already providing 3rd-5th grade reading groups.
In the last 6 years, we have been directed to create reading groups where the students are at, so in 4th grade that was often groups from 1-5. Your school is doing something different than many, many schools in FCPS. How can you have a 3rd grade reading group for kids with 50-80 sight words? It makes no sense.
It's an AAP center class. No body has 50-80 sight words in 4th grade AAP. My point was that if a gen ed 4th grade classroom had groupings from K-5 and the AAP 4th grade classroom had groupings from 5-8, keeping them separate makes sense. If the gen ed classroom has groupings from K-5 and the AAP one has groupings from 3-5, there's no real reason for the separation. FCPS is doing something very wrong here, both in letting kids below grade level into AAP, keeping some kids above grade level out of AAP, and only providing groupings up to 1 year above grade level in AAP.
Do glad our center school doesn't do all this grouping nonsense.
I don't know how you know all of those levels in different classes and I don't want to know.
Either PP doesn't know and is concocting this entire scenario based upon her own perceptions (which are likely wrong), or she's a sub in the classroom who is way too nosey and blabbing information she shouldn't. I could see it going either way TBH.
Neither is true. The inappropriately talkative 4th grade AAP teacher stated at conferences that she was sad to get to spend so little time with my kid's reading group, since she had a below grade level reading group that needed a lot more of her time. It was annoying to be told that my kid would still be ignored in AAP, but it was also awful that the teacher was sharing details like that with parents.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
But now additional high achievers don’t get any attention because the teacher still has to help the 8-10 kids that are low. All of the data we collect (and admin) tells us to help those students with more frequent groups and 1:1 attention. Leaving those additional high-achievers to silent read and go on Lexia and ST Math.
I'm the PP with the DD in gen ed who was always a year ahead in reading and got perfect scores on the SOLs. I also have another kid who attended the center. In 4th grade, the gen ed title I program had kids reading from K-5th* grade level. In AAP 4th grade, my kid's class had kids reading from 3rd-5th* grade level. Neither the gen ed program nor the AAP one tested kids beyond one year above grade level, nor did they teach groups more than one year above grade level.
Yes, the best thing would be to have all of the kids reading one year above in a separate program. This isn't happening though. The gen ed teacher needed to provide reading groups for kids reading a year above grade level. Meanwhile, the AAP teacher needed groups spanning below grade level through above. Most of the AAP kids could have been folded back into the gen ed program without adding any burden to the gen ed teacher, as she was already providing 3rd-5th grade reading groups.
In the last 6 years, we have been directed to create reading groups where the students are at, so in 4th grade that was often groups from 1-5. Your school is doing something different than many, many schools in FCPS. How can you have a 3rd grade reading group for kids with 50-80 sight words? It makes no sense.
It's an AAP center class. No body has 50-80 sight words in 4th grade AAP. My point was that if a gen ed 4th grade classroom had groupings from K-5 and the AAP 4th grade classroom had groupings from 5-8, keeping them separate makes sense. If the gen ed classroom has groupings from K-5 and the AAP one has groupings from 3-5, there's no real reason for the separation. FCPS is doing something very wrong here, both in letting kids below grade level into AAP, keeping some kids above grade level out of AAP, and only providing groupings up to 1 year above grade level in AAP.
Do glad our center school doesn't do all this grouping nonsense.
I don't know how you know all of those levels in different classes and I don't want to know.
Either PP doesn't know and is concocting this entire scenario based upon her own perceptions (which are likely wrong), or she's a sub in the classroom who is way too nosey and blabbing information she shouldn't. I could see it going either way TBH.
Neither is true. The inappropriately talkative 4th grade AAP teacher stated at conferences that she was sad to get to spend so little time with my kid's reading group, since she had a below grade level reading group that needed a lot more of her time. It was annoying to be told that my kid would still be ignored in AAP, but it was also awful that the teacher was sharing details like that with parents.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
But now additional high achievers don’t get any attention because the teacher still has to help the 8-10 kids that are low. All of the data we collect (and admin) tells us to help those students with more frequent groups and 1:1 attention. Leaving those additional high-achievers to silent read and go on Lexia and ST Math.
I'm the PP with the DD in gen ed who was always a year ahead in reading and got perfect scores on the SOLs. I also have another kid who attended the center. In 4th grade, the gen ed title I program had kids reading from K-5th* grade level. In AAP 4th grade, my kid's class had kids reading from 3rd-5th* grade level. Neither the gen ed program nor the AAP one tested kids beyond one year above grade level, nor did they teach groups more than one year above grade level.
Yes, the best thing would be to have all of the kids reading one year above in a separate program. This isn't happening though. The gen ed teacher needed to provide reading groups for kids reading a year above grade level. Meanwhile, the AAP teacher needed groups spanning below grade level through above. Most of the AAP kids could have been folded back into the gen ed program without adding any burden to the gen ed teacher, as she was already providing 3rd-5th grade reading groups.
In the last 6 years, we have been directed to create reading groups where the students are at, so in 4th grade that was often groups from 1-5. Your school is doing something different than many, many schools in FCPS. How can you have a 3rd grade reading group for kids with 50-80 sight words? It makes no sense.
It's an AAP center class. No body has 50-80 sight words in 4th grade AAP. My point was that if a gen ed 4th grade classroom had groupings from K-5 and the AAP 4th grade classroom had groupings from 5-8, keeping them separate makes sense. If the gen ed classroom has groupings from K-5 and the AAP one has groupings from 3-5, there's no real reason for the separation. FCPS is doing something very wrong here, both in letting kids below grade level into AAP, keeping some kids above grade level out of AAP, and only providing groupings up to 1 year above grade level in AAP.
Do glad our center school doesn't do all this grouping nonsense.
I don't know how you know all of those levels in different classes and I don't want to know.
Either PP doesn't know and is concocting this entire scenario based upon her own perceptions (which are likely wrong), or she's a sub in the classroom who is way too nosey and blabbing information she shouldn't. I could see it going either way TBH.
Neither is true. The inappropriately talkative 4th grade AAP teacher stated at conferences that she was sad to get to spend so little time with my kid's reading group, since she had a below grade level reading group that needed a lot more of her time. It was annoying to be told that my kid would still be ignored in AAP, but it was also awful that the teacher was sharing details like that with parents.
My 6th grader is so frustrated that she keep track of when her reading and and math groups meet with the teacher. Two times a week per group is a busy week, none is more common.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
But now additional high achievers don’t get any attention because the teacher still has to help the 8-10 kids that are low. All of the data we collect (and admin) tells us to help those students with more frequent groups and 1:1 attention. Leaving those additional high-achievers to silent read and go on Lexia and ST Math.
I'm the PP with the DD in gen ed who was always a year ahead in reading and got perfect scores on the SOLs. I also have another kid who attended the center. In 4th grade, the gen ed title I program had kids reading from K-5th* grade level. In AAP 4th grade, my kid's class had kids reading from 3rd-5th* grade level. Neither the gen ed program nor the AAP one tested kids beyond one year above grade level, nor did they teach groups more than one year above grade level.
Yes, the best thing would be to have all of the kids reading one year above in a separate program. This isn't happening though. The gen ed teacher needed to provide reading groups for kids reading a year above grade level. Meanwhile, the AAP teacher needed groups spanning below grade level through above. Most of the AAP kids could have been folded back into the gen ed program without adding any burden to the gen ed teacher, as she was already providing 3rd-5th grade reading groups.
In the last 6 years, we have been directed to create reading groups where the students are at, so in 4th grade that was often groups from 1-5. Your school is doing something different than many, many schools in FCPS. How can you have a 3rd grade reading group for kids with 50-80 sight words? It makes no sense.
It's an AAP center class. No body has 50-80 sight words in 4th grade AAP. My point was that if a gen ed 4th grade classroom had groupings from K-5 and the AAP 4th grade classroom had groupings from 5-8, keeping them separate makes sense. If the gen ed classroom has groupings from K-5 and the AAP one has groupings from 3-5, there's no real reason for the separation. FCPS is doing something very wrong here, both in letting kids below grade level into AAP, keeping some kids above grade level out of AAP, and only providing groupings up to 1 year above grade level in AAP.
This ^^. It absolutely boggles the mind that there are ANY kids reading below grade level in AAP, when there are advanced readers still in GE. None of this makes any sense.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
Let me guess, I wonder where you think your kid would be.
PP here. My kid wouldn’t be in GT. He’s smart, but not that smart. Most kids aren’t. And that includes most kids currently in AAP. Congratulations on missing the point entirely.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is a joke. At this point, we all know it. FCPS should either return to a very small GT program or have flexible groupings for all. Or both.
I teach Gen Ed and already do flexible groupings. Adding the AAP kids back in would make my 6 reading groups possibly jump to 8. Meaning less time for everyone. How does that make sense?
How do you have 6 reading group levels? Even in AAP, the teachers capped the kids at one year above grade level materials. To have 6 levels, you would need 1 year above grade level through 4 years below grade level. Adding AAP kids would just add kids to your 1 year above grade level group (and sadly, to your on grade level and one year below grade level groups). If classes were still maintained at around 25 kids, you'd end up with fewer kids who need extensive support, which should make teaching much easier.
In 6th grade we have kids reading at every level K-8.
In grades 4-6 you can have a ton of groups!
Wow. Kids reading at a K-3rd grade level don’t belong in a 6th grade classroom. They wouldn’t be able to understand any of the science or social studies materials, and they’re too far behind for the classroom teacher to handle without shortchanging everyone else in the class.
Welcome to today's classrooms, which is why basically every teacher will tell you pulling AAP kids back into a gen ed classroom and calling it a cluster model is a terrible idea.
You're ignoring the suggestion in bold. Having a very small and VERY selective GT program would keep the highest achievers separate. That leaves the rest, the vast majority of whom are very similar. The existing flexible groupings could remain, as the really advanced kids would not be mixed back in.
But now additional high achievers don’t get any attention because the teacher still has to help the 8-10 kids that are low. All of the data we collect (and admin) tells us to help those students with more frequent groups and 1:1 attention. Leaving those additional high-achievers to silent read and go on Lexia and ST Math.
I'm the PP with the DD in gen ed who was always a year ahead in reading and got perfect scores on the SOLs. I also have another kid who attended the center. In 4th grade, the gen ed title I program had kids reading from K-5th* grade level. In AAP 4th grade, my kid's class had kids reading from 3rd-5th* grade level. Neither the gen ed program nor the AAP one tested kids beyond one year above grade level, nor did they teach groups more than one year above grade level.
Yes, the best thing would be to have all of the kids reading one year above in a separate program. This isn't happening though. The gen ed teacher needed to provide reading groups for kids reading a year above grade level. Meanwhile, the AAP teacher needed groups spanning below grade level through above. Most of the AAP kids could have been folded back into the gen ed program without adding any burden to the gen ed teacher, as she was already providing 3rd-5th grade reading groups.
In the last 6 years, we have been directed to create reading groups where the students are at, so in 4th grade that was often groups from 1-5. Your school is doing something different than many, many schools in FCPS. How can you have a 3rd grade reading group for kids with 50-80 sight words? It makes no sense.
It's an AAP center class. No body has 50-80 sight words in 4th grade AAP. My point was that if a gen ed 4th grade classroom had groupings from K-5 and the AAP 4th grade classroom had groupings from 5-8, keeping them separate makes sense. If the gen ed classroom has groupings from K-5 and the AAP one has groupings from 3-5, there's no real reason for the separation. FCPS is doing something very wrong here, both in letting kids below grade level into AAP, keeping some kids above grade level out of AAP, and only providing groupings up to 1 year above grade level in AAP.
This ^^. It absolutely boggles the mind that there are ANY kids reading below grade level in AAP, when there are advanced readers still in GE. None of this makes any sense.
You can be a great reader and not do well on the cogats, you can be a terrible reader and do well on the quantitive and non-verbal sections
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
