Are kids from same school reviewed together for AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real. A poor kid from a disadvantaged area that scores in the 92nd percentile probably has more potential and ability than a high SES kid that scores in the 97th percentile. This is one area where the FCPS model makes a lot of sense. And I say that as a rich mom with privileged kids.

Why do you think this? I mean, assuming the high SES kid wasn't heavily prepped, etc.

Right? Our family is likely considered high SES compared to the average in Fairfax, and I wouldn't even know where to begin with test prep. We simply have no time for that with 3 kids and 2 jobs. To those saying it's outrageous to suggest kids at McLean schools with high test scores and abilities are at a disadvantage by not having access to AAP, I guess until you experience it firsthand, you won't believe it. But it's truly unfair for loads of kids to come to your neighborhood school, to get the most highly qualified teachers in the grade, to have a cohort of motivated, engaged peers with a challenging curriculum, and to see that your kid with at least as high scores and capability as those kids (and probably higher than some), is stuck is a class with kids ranging from the high 90s percentile all the way down to zero, those learning how to speak English, those with learning disabilities and emotional disregulation, and so on. And your child accessing a challenging curriculum is at the complete mercy of the individual teacher and school. Some years they might have a teacher that has the ability and bandwidth to differentiate, or an AART who is committed to regular pullouts for those kids, and other years none of that may happen.

I completely agree and find it disheartening and infuriating. I wish I could afford to go private.

Most people in private schools will tell you that there is less differentiation and that the kids are less advanced in math. I

AAP is not an advanced curriculum, I understand that many of you think that it is but it isn't. We deferred and DS participated in LIII pull outs. He did pretty much everything that I hear parents talking about from LIV. Now many of the LA extensions are no longer being taught because the Teachers have to teach the Benchmark program and only Benchmark. The only area that LIV is further ahead of Gen Ed is in math, and there is Advanced Math to cover that. There are parents that will tell you that the best Teachers are placed in the Gen Ed programs so they can work with the kids who are struggling and that the LIV kids get the Teachers are less effective because the kids are supposed to be able to pick up material quicker and on their own.

I understand the parents at Title 1 schools wanting LIV, there really needs to be a separate class for the students who are on grade level and above grade level. The education gap at Title 1 schools is massive. The kids at UMC schools have less of a need because the gap is nowhere near as large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Seems odd to consider this a disadvantage. Given how advanced the student body is in McLean your child will have opportunities that others will not have if staying in their home school.

[Anonymous]

“People being punished for buying homes in a certain zip code” because of equity??

I mean, GTFO people.

Do you know what the purpose of equitable access is?? It is ensuring ALL kids who have gifted potential, regardless of family income, can have a shot at advanced academics.

No, it’s not denying your child a spot!

Some kids didn’t start off on the same playing field or have the same opportunities, and families still lack resources/time/money to keep advocating— or even know AAP exists for their bright child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

No, the point of AAP is to differentiate curriculum for kids above the average of the school. If all the kids are above average, then everyone gets curriculum at a higher level— which means only kids who are exceptionally gifted need differentiated curriculum in those schools. Your kid is *highly* advantaged to be in the McLean pyramid, whether in AAP or not.

[Anonymous]

Yes and it's stupid and dare I say inequitable? I am confident my child would have gotten into AAP at our old school (lower average income school with a good amount of native Spanish-speakers), but we moved to a wealthier area and my child was rejected (and rejected on appeal) last year despite 130+ on the NNAT and COGAT, 99th percentile scores in iReady math, and good grades. We didn't bother this year. It appears that the only difference nowadays is advanced math anyway, and that's really not a big deal to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes and it's stupid and dare I say inequitable? I am confident my child would have gotten into AAP at our old school (lower average income school with a good amount of native Spanish-speakers), but we moved to a wealthier area and my child was rejected (and rejected on appeal) last year despite 130+ on the NNAT and COGAT, 99th percentile scores in iReady math, and good grades. We didn't bother this year. It appears that the only difference nowadays is advanced math anyway, and that's really not a big deal to us.

Given the watered down nature of AAP now and your experience in two schools with different demographics, do you find the school in the wealthier area offers your child an elevated curriculum as is often asserted? It seems like you might be in a position to evaluate this hypothesis. If your child is in advanced math in the current (wealthier) school, do you supplement in other areas? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

No, the point of AAP is to differentiate curriculum for kids above the average of the school. If all the kids are above average, then everyone gets curriculum at a higher level— which means only kids who are exceptionally gifted need differentiated curriculum in those schools. Your kid is *highly* advantaged to be in the McLean pyramid, whether in AAP or not.

NP. While I absolutely agree with PP that a student in a McLean pyramid is highly advantaged, whether in AAP or not, I disagree with the premise that all kids in this pyramid are above average and thus everyone is receiving curriculum at a higher level. The reality is that there are plenty of students still struggling, even in high SES schools, and with large class sizes, differentiation is still incredibly challenging. The teachers will continue teaching to the students who need the most support, as they should. Students scoring in the 98/99% at these schools should still have access to the advanced countywide curriculum, most notably in math, which puts them a full year ahead by middle school. It makes no sense that a 99% kid at a high SES school can’t access advanced math when a kid scoring 90% can get that curriculum at a different school. And yes, some kids do push in for advanced math only, but it’s an annual process that is cumbersome and misses some very capable students.

Also of note, this new local standard of comparison is only 3-4 years old, as countywide standards of comparison used to be the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.

I am all for giving the top kids at title 1 schools opportunity to advance.

I’m not sure why the kids at UMC have to be hurt in the process.

Your kid is not hurt if they are in a gen ed class at a high income school. Their peer group is already ahead and their teachers are most likely going beyond the required curriculum. You are worried about a label that means nothing and is forgotten by most everyone by the time they are in college and has no impact in HS. Your kids will take Honors and AP/IB classes and will do just fine. YOu are stuck on this nothing that AAP is something that is massively different then Gen Ed. It is not. The only area with a marked difference is in math and kids are pushed in through Advanced Math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

The benefit is that your child will have academic peers in both AAP and Gen Ed. Plus, math is sorted differently, so if your child qualifies for advanced math, they will get. Also, most of the McLean ES schools do the AAP curriculum for social studies and science in the Gen Ed classrooms too. Math is really the most important bit and your kid can be in the advanced math class even if they are not full time AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.

So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.

Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.

The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?

The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.

This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.

I am all for giving the top kids at title 1 schools opportunity to advance.

I’m not sure why the kids at UMC have to be hurt in the process.

Your kid is not hurt if they are in a gen ed class at a high income school. Their peer group is already ahead and their teachers are most likely going beyond the required curriculum. You are worried about a label that means nothing and is forgotten by most everyone by the time they are in college and has no impact in HS. Your kids will take Honors and AP/IB classes and will do just fine. YOu are stuck on this nothing that AAP is something that is massively different then Gen Ed. It is not. The only area with a marked difference is in math and kids are pushed in through Advanced Math.

I know this is the argument but in practice, not nearly as many kids are “pushed in” for math as this forum would have you believe, at least at our school. My kids are at a high SES center school, do you know how many gened kids push into math in my 4th grader’s AAP class? Zero. There are a few by 5th and 6th, but not many, and the school makes these few kids jump through hoops in the fall to gain entry. Admin claims everyone is advanced at our school so you’d think there would be more than just a handful of kids pushing in for the advanced math curriculum. This is why many parents at these high-performing schools still push hard to get their kids into AAP, it’s not just for a label or bragging rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real. A poor kid from a disadvantaged area that scores in the 92nd percentile probably has more potential and ability than a high SES kid that scores in the 97th percentile. This is one area where the FCPS model makes a lot of sense. And I say that as a rich mom with privileged kids.

Why do you think this? I mean, assuming the high SES kid wasn't heavily prepped, etc.

We are higher SES, and we didn't prep our kids. But - we both went to graduate school, organically use higher level English, both are in STEM fields so we can help with homework or connections to the real world, sign our kids up for expensive camps that encourage curiosity, sign our kids up for lots of activities, follow up quickly with the teacher if there are learning or behavior issues, etc etc.

If a low SES kid is getting 92% in a school where the teaching level is lower, and their parents don't have the money/time to do the above, they surely have more potential than a 97% kid with all the support above. It may not make a difference in the long run (rich kids have an easier time staying rich as adults), but I would think if that 92% kid had been in our family, they would be knocking it fully out of the ballpark and more than the standard capable UMC kid.

[Anonymous]

They're going to get rid of the whole program with the Boundary Review. Everyone will go back to their base school. They will track for math only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're going to get rid of the whole program with the Boundary Review. Everyone will go back to their base school. They will track for math only.

Honestly, that is probably better! I do not think this process is working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're going to get rid of the whole program with the Boundary Review. Everyone will go back to their base school. They will track for math only.

They cannot legally do that in the state of Virginia. They can go the APS route and have the "gifted" program be pull-outs or whatever, but they can't legally not have a program that serves the gifted population.

So you don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

We are at a high SES school in Great Falls. My child had higher CoGAT and iReady scores than older sibling who was accepted to AAP before the school comparison change. Last year in 5th grade in the non-AAP class her teacher was giving spelling tests directly from the book 180 days of spelling for 1st grade. My child scored at the highest DSA level and I was told by the principal that she doesn’t need to work on spelling words and should be learning vocabulary instead. Unfortunately she had a new teacher who didn’t do any type of differentiation and said that she had to teach the “commonly misspelled words”. It was ridiculous.

The non-AAP classes at higher SES schools teach the same curriculum as lower SES schools. There are still plenty of kids struggling. If your kid isn’t in AAP they aren’t getting any type of advanced curriculum just because their cohort is richer.