Is FCPS getting rid of AAP?

[Anonymous]

The new superintendent needs to reevaluate the program.

[Anonymous]

The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new superintendent needs to reevaluate the program.

Garza, like her or not, stood in the way of those who wanted to get rid of AAP. What's-his-name didn't care one way or the other, which explains why we now have LLIV in every school. Now, the new superintendent gets to do what she wants with it, which is probably more LLIV and less AAP and no more centers. We'll see in the next few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Crappy gen Ed is the natural result of pulling out the top 20% of students out of the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Crappy gen Ed is the natural result of pulling out the top 20% of students out of the program.

No, the problem with gen ed is increasing demographic change and the legacy of NCLB. AAP isn't part of it but is easy to point at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Crappy gen Ed is the natural result of pulling out the top 20% of students out of the program.

Yes, if they'd stop segregating kids and offer opportunities at all schools none of this would be necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Crappy gen Ed is the natural result of pulling out the top 20% of students out of the program.

Yes, if they'd stop segregating kids and offer opportunities at all schools none of this would be necessary.

Let's get rid of the 'side entrance' first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Why yes, let’s just separate out all the poor children. Make them all sit in a separate class. We could even put them in separate schools. They’re holding back those smart middle class kids from getting into honors classes and UVa and Harvard.

Watch out. Your thinly veiled racism might tarnish the image of yourself as a progressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Why yes, let’s just separate out all the poor children. Make them all sit in a separate class. We could even put them in separate schools. They’re holding back those smart middle class kids from getting into honors classes and UVa and Harvard.

Watch out. Your thinly veiled racism might tarnish the image of yourself as a progressive.

I don't understand this take. Why would you not want a class targeted to your kids ability? How are less prepared kids served by being surrounded with kids who already mastered something and are bored? If the problem is that the slower track classes don't get attention and resources, then let's fix that part.

I don't like AAP centers or AAP as it exists today, but I do like leveling. Kids should move between levels as needed, not be on a track. For example, not everybody who is advanced in math is also advanced in writing: decouple those. More advanced classes should go deeper not faster - none of this race to get to algebra asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Why yes, let’s just separate out all the poor children. Make them all sit in a separate class. We could even put them in separate schools. They’re holding back those smart middle class kids from getting into honors classes and UVa and Harvard.

Watch out. Your thinly veiled racism might tarnish the image of yourself as a progressive.

I don't understand this take. Why would you not want a class targeted to your kids ability? How are less prepared kids served by being surrounded with kids who already mastered something and are bored? If the problem is that the slower track classes don't get attention and resources, then let's fix that part.

I don't like AAP centers or AAP as it exists today, but I do like leveling. Kids should move between levels as needed, not be on a track. For example, not everybody who is advanced in math is also advanced in writing: decouple those. More advanced classes should go deeper not faster - none of this race to get to algebra asap.

Because it’s not appropriate at the elementary level. The research doesn’t support it. There’s differentiation happening within the classroom. And also, I just don’t buy this argument that kids are “bored to death.” For every single kid, there will be times when school isn’t exciting or fun. That doesn’t mean that they’re incorrectly placed in a class or not being challenged appropriately.

-ES teacher in FCPS for over 15 years

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I am over the idea that we need to keep kids on the same track because we are worried about segregation.

There is nothing that I can do about the fact that different parts of the County attract people with different incomes. Title 1 schools exist because there are parts of the County that are less expensive to live. Families who don’t make as much live in those areas. We are not going to build affordable housing in McLean or Langley or in the middle of Vienna.

I can’t do a damn thing about the fact that families that are lower SES tend not to be as involved in their kids education as parents with higher incomes. We have tried free preschhol. We have tried programs to get lower income families engaged at school. It hasn’t worked. Some kids have greatly benefited from those programs but most kids follow their parents example. Mom and Dad don’t care if the kid does homework or reads or practices math or attends school, why should the kid?

Until we find a solution for generational poverty and apathy surrounding education, there isn’t a damn thing we are going to do to improve scores and the performance of lower SES kids.

And the answer is not to water down school for the kids whose parents are MC and UMC.

We are not going to bus kids from lower performing schools to higher performing schools. We tried that and it didn’t work. It didn’t work because the parents either are not focused on their kids doing well in school (due to exhaustion from working so many hours or not being able to help their kids or issues with drugs/alcohol or whatever the reason is) or because the kids don’t feel like a part of the school.

We have tried free preschool and head start programs which have a short term gain but that goes away at some point. Why? Because parents are not reinforcing what is being taught at school at home.

I am not willing to sacrifice my kids education because there are kids who are not able to meet the established standard. It sucks but sacrificing my kid is not the solution. Why don’t you tell us how to help low income Black kids and Hispanic kids succeed that doesn’t include lowering the standard for my kid. Title 1 schools get more money, more staff, and more support and we have not made much of a dent in the issue. It isn’t for lack of trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Why yes, let’s just separate out all the poor children. Make them all sit in a separate class. We could even put them in separate schools. They’re holding back those smart middle class kids from getting into honors classes and UVa and Harvard.

Watch out. Your thinly veiled racism might tarnish the image of yourself as a progressive.

I don't understand this take. Why would you not want a class targeted to your kids ability? How are less prepared kids served by being surrounded with kids who already mastered something and are bored? If the problem is that the slower track classes don't get attention and resources, then let's fix that part.

I don't like AAP centers or AAP as it exists today, but I do like leveling. Kids should move between levels as needed, not be on a track. For example, not everybody who is advanced in math is also advanced in writing: decouple those. More advanced classes should go deeper not faster - none of this race to get to algebra asap.

Because it’s not appropriate at the elementary level. The research doesn’t support it. There’s differentiation happening within the classroom. And also, I just don’t buy this argument that kids are “bored to death.” For every single kid, there will be times when school isn’t exciting or fun. That doesn’t mean that they’re incorrectly placed in a class or not being challenged appropriately.

-ES teacher in FCPS for over 15 years

+1. The truly gifted and advanced children would fill up one, maybe two centers. I'd be okay with that, but I'm not okay with taking 20% of the top performers out of each ES and then NOT differentiating between the remaining children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I am over the idea that we need to keep kids on the same track because we are worried about segregation.

There is nothing that I can do about the fact that different parts of the County attract people with different incomes. Title 1 schools exist because there are parts of the County that are less expensive to live. Families who don’t make as much live in those areas. We are not going to build affordable housing in McLean or Langley or in the middle of Vienna.

I can’t do a damn thing about the fact that families that are lower SES tend not to be as involved in their kids education as parents with higher incomes. We have tried free preschhol. We have tried programs to get lower income families engaged at school. It hasn’t worked. Some kids have greatly benefited from those programs but most kids follow their parents example. Mom and Dad don’t care if the kid does homework or reads or practices math or attends school, why should the kid?

Until we find a solution for generational poverty and apathy surrounding education, there isn’t a damn thing we are going to do to improve scores and the performance of lower SES kids.

And the answer is not to water down school for the kids whose parents are MC and UMC.

We are not going to bus kids from lower performing schools to higher performing schools. We tried that and it didn’t work. It didn’t work because the parents either are not focused on their kids doing well in school (due to exhaustion from working so many hours or not being able to help their kids or issues with drugs/alcohol or whatever the reason is) or because the kids don’t feel like a part of the school.

We have tried free preschool and head start programs which have a short term gain but that goes away at some point. Why? Because parents are not reinforcing what is being taught at school at home.

I am not willing to sacrifice my kids education because there are kids who are not able to meet the established standard. It sucks but sacrificing my kid is not the solution. Why don’t you tell us how to help low income Black kids and Hispanic kids succeed that doesn’t include lowering the standard for my kid. Title 1 schools get more money, more staff, and more support and we have not made much of a dent in the issue. It isn’t for lack of trying.

So let's just drop all the UMC kids in AAP and ignore everyone else is your solution? That makes zero sense, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The program is not the problem. What they do with the middle level kids is the issue. They are not being well served by pretending that teaching them on the same level as the slowest learners works. The way to improve thing is not to tear down a program working well for many kids but rather to fix the parts of the system NOT working well. Gen Ed is what is NOT working for many MC kids.

Why yes, let’s just separate out all the poor children. Make them all sit in a separate class. We could even put them in separate schools. They’re holding back those smart middle class kids from getting into honors classes and UVa and Harvard.

Watch out. Your thinly veiled racism might tarnish the image of yourself as a progressive.

I don't understand this take. Why would you not want a class targeted to your kids ability? How are less prepared kids served by being surrounded with kids who already mastered something and are bored? If the problem is that the slower track classes don't get attention and resources, then let's fix that part.

I don't like AAP centers or AAP as it exists today, but I do like leveling. Kids should move between levels as needed, not be on a track. For example, not everybody who is advanced in math is also advanced in writing: decouple those. More advanced classes should go deeper not faster - none of this race to get to algebra asap.

Because it’s not appropriate at the elementary level. The research doesn’t support it. There’s differentiation happening within the classroom. And also, I just don’t buy this argument that kids are “bored to death.” For every single kid, there will be times when school isn’t exciting or fun. That doesn’t mean that they’re incorrectly placed in a class or not being challenged appropriately.

-ES teacher in FCPS for over 15 years

+1. The truly gifted and advanced children would fill up one, maybe two centers. I'd be okay with that, but I'm not okay with taking 20% of the top performers out of each ES and then NOT differentiating between the remaining children.

The program was originally designed for the top 2-5% IQ kids and then some additional 5-10% kids to make a good size cohort. It was expanded to try to capture more undiscovered students, but didn't really succeed at that.

The problems with gen ed are separate.

[Anonymous]

Maybe let each ES (and same for MS) to have their own AAP class ( based on each school’s cut off so AAP central committee can decide how many class at each school). No transfer AAP in between schools without reevaluate if they move. This way get rid of principal placement and prevent people get into AAP from low cut off score school then move to high cut off school.