What happened to every elementary school having a dedicated level 4 classroom??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised to learn our Fairfax County Elementary school does not have a dedicated level four classroom. When my first was in kindergarten, we kept being told that this was something that would be happening at all the schools. I’m really disappointed because for other reasons, we would not be willing to switch to a Center school, but I believe that one of my children has a good shot at AAP.
Does anyone have any backstory for why elementary schools Don’t have these classrooms as we were told they would?

EQUITY > ACADEMICS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Centers are not needed anymore. AAP is a joke now with the new basal. EVERYONE is getting the same LA. Adv Math should be offered at all ES at this point.

Science and Social Studies exist, too, my friend. Maybe there was no difference for your DC but mine received Level IV S/SS as well as LA and Advanced Math.

The SS/Science content is the same too. Some schools are teaching the Level 4 curriculum to everyone. The only difference between SS/Science and GenEd are some extensions and quicker pace. Adv Math is offered at base school too. Your child isn’t getting an advanced curriculum that isn’t offered at their base school too.

What you don't know, you don't know.

I am a different poster but the OP above is correct. SS/Science in AAP isn’t anything drastically different and many schools are using the LL4 pacing and resources with all. In fact, some of the AAP lessons the county creates in SS are also on the Gen Ed one. The differences are AAP has a different PBL, and might go more in depth on a topic, but the content is the same. - AAP teacher

Arts and crafts is a ridiculous way to teach history- parent who despises PBL

Like anything, it's all in the planning and execution. Dioramas are not real PBLs, but a 3D timeline representation or making an ancient newspaper might be.

However, the focus on math to the exclusion of all of other subjects is damaging. Kids who are weak in LA or science deserve to have their own class pacing, and kids who are advanced in those deserve appropriate material.

The first is arts and crafts, the second is make believe unless you really think that 4th graders are accessing source material for their articles. Maybe instead of the diorama or the article, they could, and I know this is crazy talk, read a text book that discusses the history they're studying at a grade appropriate level.

You can't make a timeline or a newspaper without reading the text book -- and in order to make them, your understanding of the material has to be deeper than is required for mere class discussion. The point of it being a 3D timeline, for example, is that a key historical event is often preceded not by a linear progression of dates but by a spiral of escalating events, or by a convergence of several seemingly unrelated timelines from different directions. Having to think about how to show that is the point of the exercise.

These are both projects you will find in, e.g., APUSH. Parents of advanced kids should appreciate how and why learning happens beyond textbooks and drills, instead of fixating on the outdated methods of the 70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does anyone have any backstory for why elementary schools Don’t have these classrooms as we were told they would?

DEI and logistical issues, but primarily DEI. As a parent of a non-AAP AND AAP students (both likely borderline and almost equivalent in skills), I both love the clustering model and hate it at the same time. For my non AAP child it provides an opportunity for my child to have peers to look up to, and the teacher provides the "extra" aspects to all students who can handle it such as my child. However, the program seemed watered down (maybe it's just my expectations as I don't have an example of a full time program), and the teacher was still spending the majority of the time with underperforming children, while the higher end of the class was largely learning independently or from eachother. For example, my child consistently says that when he asked for help, he's directed to another student because she is too busy with other children. Not a BAD approach, but I'd not think it's optimal for learning either, and feel bad for the 3-4 students who are constantly being asked to teach instead of learning.

As a parent of one of these kids, I appreciate you recognizing this! But I think it is a bad approach for these kids - it's really hard to have normal social interactions when you are a mini-teacher in the classroom. I support local level 4 but it requires staffing up so that all kids get the support they need, including "level 3" kids who deserve to get as much of the level 4 content as they are ready for.

Mixed classrooms work fine if there are more teachers: the point is not to segregate the AAP kids, the point is to get them time with teachers instead of making them teach themselves. Centers with giant AAP classes have similar problems with kids teaching themselves, btw. It's an unmet staffing need no matter which model you choose.

If its any consolation, there are others in the classroom who come to my child for help as well. I would equate it to a more Montessori learning environment. Again, to your point, not optimal from a furthering of the top end of the class, but I wouldn't say it has any poor social implications as it's normalized broadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Centers are not needed anymore. AAP is a joke now with the new basal. EVERYONE is getting the same LA. Adv Math should be offered at all ES at this point.

Science and Social Studies exist, too, my friend. Maybe there was no difference for your DC but mine received Level IV S/SS as well as LA and Advanced Math.

The SS/Science content is the same too. Some schools are teaching the Level 4 curriculum to everyone. The only difference between SS/Science and GenEd are some extensions and quicker pace. Adv Math is offered at base school too. Your child isn’t getting an advanced curriculum that isn’t offered at their base school too.

What you don't know, you don't know.

I am a different poster but the OP above is correct. SS/Science in AAP isn’t anything drastically different and many schools are using the LL4 pacing and resources with all. In fact, some of the AAP lessons the county creates in SS are also on the Gen Ed one. The differences are AAP has a different PBL, and might go more in depth on a topic, but the content is the same. - AAP teacher

Arts and crafts is a ridiculous way to teach history- parent who despises PBL

Like anything, it's all in the planning and execution. Dioramas are not real PBLs, but a 3D timeline representation or making an ancient newspaper might be.

However, the focus on math to the exclusion of all of other subjects is damaging. Kids who are weak in LA or science deserve to have their own class pacing, and kids who are advanced in those deserve appropriate material.

The first is arts and crafts, the second is make believe unless you really think that 4th graders are accessing source material for their articles. Maybe instead of the diorama or the article, they could, and I know this is crazy talk, read a text book that discusses the history they're studying at a grade appropriate level.

You can't make a timeline or a newspaper without reading the text book -- and in order to make them, your understanding of the material has to be deeper than is required for mere class discussion. The point of it being a 3D timeline, for example, is that a key historical event is often preceded not by a linear progression of dates but by a spiral of escalating events, or by a convergence of several seemingly unrelated timelines from different directions. Having to think about how to show that is the point of the exercise.

These are both projects you will find in, e.g., APUSH. Parents of advanced kids should appreciate how and why learning happens beyond textbooks and drills, instead of fixating on the outdated methods of the 70s.

By APUS, the kids have enough understanding of the background events to do the project. The projects now either have hilarious and obvious inaccuracies or a large degree of parental input because the kids simply have not been taught enough history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Centers are not needed anymore. AAP is a joke now with the new basal. EVERYONE is getting the same LA. Adv Math should be offered at all ES at this point.

Science and Social Studies exist, too, my friend. Maybe there was no difference for your DC but mine received Level IV S/SS as well as LA and Advanced Math.

The SS/Science content is the same too. Some schools are teaching the Level 4 curriculum to everyone. The only difference between SS/Science and GenEd are some extensions and quicker pace. Adv Math is offered at base school too. Your child isn’t getting an advanced curriculum that isn’t offered at their base school too.

What you don't know, you don't know.

I am a different poster but the OP above is correct. SS/Science in AAP isn’t anything drastically different and many schools are using the LL4 pacing and resources with all. In fact, some of the AAP lessons the county creates in SS are also on the Gen Ed one. The differences are AAP has a different PBL, and might go more in depth on a topic, but the content is the same. - AAP teacher

Arts and crafts is a ridiculous way to teach history- parent who despises PBL

Like anything, it's all in the planning and execution. Dioramas are not real PBLs, but a 3D timeline representation or making an ancient newspaper might be.

However, the focus on math to the exclusion of all of other subjects is damaging. Kids who are weak in LA or science deserve to have their own class pacing, and kids who are advanced in those deserve appropriate material.

The first is arts and crafts, the second is make believe unless you really think that 4th graders are accessing source material for their articles. Maybe instead of the diorama or the article, they could, and I know this is crazy talk, read a text book that discusses the history they're studying at a grade appropriate level.

You can't make a timeline or a newspaper without reading the text book -- and in order to make them, your understanding of the material has to be deeper than is required for mere class discussion. The point of it being a 3D timeline, for example, is that a key historical event is often preceded not by a linear progression of dates but by a spiral of escalating events, or by a convergence of several seemingly unrelated timelines from different directions. Having to think about how to show that is the point of the exercise.

These are both projects you will find in, e.g., APUSH. Parents of advanced kids should appreciate how and why learning happens beyond textbooks and drills, instead of fixating on the outdated methods of the 70s.

By APUS, the kids have enough understanding of the background events to do the project. The projects now either have hilarious and obvious inaccuracies or a large degree of parental input because the kids simply have not been taught enough history

+1 million.

My kid did a lot of learning via self-teaching for projects in 4th-6th grade AAP social studies. Now at a private where most of the history learning is via those "outdated 70s methods" and projects are show what you know instead of PBL. Mentioned she's retaining a ton more knowledge now that she's not teaching herself everything and she's regularly assessed on what she learned.

[Anonymous]

Our base school (an immersion school) said for years they couldn't do it because it was too hard with immersion. The school is now are rolling a local full time program out in Fall 2025-2026, starting just with next year's 3rd grade class. and then adding a class a year.

It won't benefit my current 3rd grader, or older kids, but it's something.



I asked last

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our base school (an immersion school) said for years they couldn't do it because it was too hard with immersion. The school is now are rolling a local full time program out in Fall 2025-2026, starting just with next year's 3rd grade class. and then adding a class a year.

It won't benefit my current 3rd grader, or older kids, but it's something.



I asked last

That happened to us as well. The Teachers at our school were given the AAP curriculum for fourth graders a year early so that they had a chance to work with it and better understand it. The kids benefited from the program even though there was no formal class for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Our ES has three classes per grade and one of those is AAP. I would guess that 1/2 of the kids in that class are not actually LLIV. If our school can do it, everyone's can.

[Anonymous]

The Level IV at base school thing was a short-lived experiment. At my DC’s school, it was effective in raising test scores. (Retaining the high test scorers instead of losing them to center school by promising smaller class sizes with a few extra students who were “principal-placed into the class”) But then other problems started popping up. For starters, since research shows that high standardized test scores correlate to income/education level of parents, this created a de facto have/have nots classroom segregation. And then overcrowding! Schools that used to lose 1/6 of their grade level population after 2nd grade were now retaining all those kids and they have to now house 4 classrooms per grade in 3-6 instead of the three per grade level that they had the years prior to setting g up “local level IV”
In the end it simply wasn’t sustainable in terms of equity, morale/culture, overcrowding, etc. so we get “clusters”—-and a lot of families choosing to opt into the Center option again or abandon all of it for private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Level IV at base school thing was a short-lived experiment. At my DC’s school, it was effective in raising test scores. (Retaining the high test scorers instead of losing them to center school by promising smaller class sizes with a few extra students who were “principal-placed into the class”) But then other problems started popping up. For starters, since research shows that high standardized test scores correlate to income/education level of parents, this created a de facto have/have nots classroom segregation. And then overcrowding! Schools that used to lose 1/6 of their grade level population after 2nd grade were now retaining all those kids and they have to now house 4 classrooms per grade in 3-6 instead of the three per grade level that they had the years prior to setting g up “local level IV”
In the end it simply wasn’t sustainable in terms of equity, morale/culture, overcrowding, etc. so we get “clusters”—-and a lot of families choosing to opt into the Center option again or abandon all of it for private school.

PP, just to clarify: your school still offers "LLIV" but it has turned into a cluster wherein it's not really LIV, except in name only because of optics and space/staffing limits? Because I think FCPS is still claiming to offer this, for what's it's worth.

[Anonymous]

Schools need to be open for longer hours a day and more days a year. That’s the only way to increase equity from the ground up.

If middle class parents are teaching their kids above grade level reading daily and poor parents can’t/won’t then that achievement gap will remain. That unofficial instruction time gap needs to be removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Our ES has three classes per grade and one of those is AAP. I would guess that 1/2 of the kids in that class are not actually LLIV. If our school can do it, everyone's can.

We're at a school where the LLIV is a popularity contest. Can't wait until those kids get to middle school and high school and have to go through truly advanced curricula. I really wish that schools-based standards was't a thing and AAP was based solely on test scores. I'm still livid that my child got low scores on the HOPE solely because we were new to the school and the teachers didn't know them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Our ES has three classes per grade and one of those is AAP. I would guess that 1/2 of the kids in that class are not actually LLIV. If our school can do it, everyone's can.

We're at a school where the LLIV is a popularity contest. Can't wait until those kids get to middle school and high school and have to go through truly advanced curricula. I really wish that schools-based standards was't a thing and AAP was based solely on test scores. I'm still livid that my child got low scores on the HOPE solely because we were new to the school and the teachers didn't know them.

I am sorry this happened to you, and I would be livid too.

The use of the new DEI “HOPE” scale is horrible and FCPS should never have done this.

Before the HOPE reaches anything remotely academically-related, it informs the judge/committee of the child’s skin color and SES.

They are literally judging children on the color of their skin instead of the content of their academic record.

[Anonymous]

There’s not much difference between AAP and the other 3 classes at our elementary except that AAP math is advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the anti-AAP/anti-Center poster hasn't shown up yet.

The Center model should stay for precisely this reason. There aren't enough kids at base schools to fill a class in each grade so they will either cluster and/or drop the academic threshold to include more kids in order to fill AAP seats.

Our ES has three classes per grade and one of those is AAP. I would guess that 1/2 of the kids in that class are not actually LLIV. If our school can do it, everyone's can.

We're at a school where the LLIV is a popularity contest. Can't wait until those kids get to middle school and high school and have to go through truly advanced curricula. I really wish that schools-based standards was't a thing and AAP was based solely on test scores. I'm still livid that my child got low scores on the HOPE solely because we were new to the school and the teachers didn't know them.

I am sorry this happened to you, and I would be livid too.

The use of the new DEI “HOPE” scale is horrible and FCPS should never have done this.

Before the HOPE reaches anything remotely academically-related, it informs the judge/committee of the child’s skin color and SES.

They are literally judging children on the color of their skin instead of the content of their academic record.

You are quoting me and I said absolutely nothing about race and the color of my child's skin. Stop twisting other people's words.