Too many in AAP and the new F.A.T.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most kids have the necessary cognitive ability to handle the AAP curriculum, if they and/or their parents get their priorities straight. I say raise the bar and make AAP the standard. Kids who really are not able to make it in such a program can be placed in a less rigorous one.

I have two kids who went through the so called "gifted" program and ended up at TJ. Frankly, I don't see much difference, in terms of mental abilities, between my kids and their "gifted" peers and most of the so called "general ed" kids.

Can we get an FB-like, "Like" button on DCUM. Raise the bar!

100% agree, raise the bar!!!

I'm confused. I grew up in MoCo, and in E.S. we had kids in groups for basic, remedial, and advanced Math and Reading/Writing, but that did not constitute the gifted program. The gifted program was separate from the more advanced curriculum.

So, in FFX County, is that all the kids get - just having more advanced reading and math instruction (and maybe science)?

[Anonymous]

When 20% of ES kids are in AAP, I'm not quite sure how anyone could call it a "closely guarded gate."

I have one kid who was in AAP when the percentage was around 10% and another there now that it is around 20% and they're cohorts are completely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If there is such little difference in the curriculum, what would the problem be with offering to everyone?

AAP is not that difficult or challenging compared to the baseline progam but being in a peer group of eclectic, bright, accademically motivated kids makes a huge difference.

ES teacher here. My experience has been that we over identify students for AAP. Last year, 1/3 of my third graders were pulled weekly for school based AAP. That's not counting those who left for the center. It doesn't seem to be very difficult to qualify for AAP. For example, I had a student new to FCPS last year. A week after AAP students started to be pulled from my classroom, I received an email saying that X Student would begin AAP the next week. When I asked how he qualified (no screening, teacher input, etc.), the answer was, "His ____ score was high enough". That was it.

The County has a BIG push for all students to be remediated and enriched within their own classroom. The new teacher evaluation process requires us to show how each and every child is improving. We should not be teaching to the middle of the class. If every child's education can be enriched within their base classroom, I see no need to continue with AAP centers.

The first I heard of this FAT placement test was in this thread. Perhaps I'll hear more about it once we return to work next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there is such little difference in the curriculum, what would the problem be with offering to everyone?

AAP is not that difficult or challenging compared to the baseline progam but being in a peer group of eclectic, bright, accademically motivated kids makes a huge difference.

ES teacher here. My experience has been that we over identify students for AAP. Last year, 1/3 of my third graders were pulled weekly for school based AAP. That's not counting those who left for the center. It doesn't seem to be very difficult to qualify for AAP. For example, I had a student new to FCPS last year. A week after AAP students started to be pulled from my classroom, I received an email saying that X Student would begin AAP the next week. When I asked how he qualified (no screening, teacher input, etc.), the answer was, "His ____ score was high enough". That was it.

The County has a BIG push for all students to be remediated and enriched within their own classroom. The new teacher evaluation process requires us to show how each and every child is improving. We should not be teaching to the middle of the class. If every child's education can be enriched within their base classroom, I see no need to continue with AAP centers.

The first I heard of this FAT placement test was in this thread. Perhaps I'll hear more about it once we return to work next week.

Personalized education? Sounds great. But, with so many kids in each class, how to do you get it done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there is such little difference in the curriculum, what would the problem be with offering to everyone?

AAP is not that difficult or challenging compared to the baseline progam but being in a peer group of eclectic, bright, accademically motivated kids makes a huge difference.

ES teacher here. My experience has been that we over identify students for AAP. Last year, 1/3 of my third graders were pulled weekly for school based AAP. That's not counting those who left for the center. It doesn't seem to be very difficult to qualify for AAP. For example, I had a student new to FCPS last year. A week after AAP students started to be pulled from my classroom, I received an email saying that X Student would begin AAP the next week. When I asked how he qualified (no screening, teacher input, etc.), the answer was, "His ____ score was high enough". That was it.

The County has a BIG push for all students to be remediated and enriched within their own classroom. The new teacher evaluation process requires us to show how each and every child is improving. We should not be teaching to the middle of the class. If every child's education can be enriched within their base classroom, I see no need to continue with AAP centers.

The first I heard of this FAT placement test was in this thread. Perhaps I'll hear more about it once we return to work next week.

Personalized education? Sounds great. But, with so many kids in each class, how to do you get it done?

PP here. That's a good question. It has become tougher that past few years, and will continue to get tougher with the new progress reports, but this is what FCPS is pushing. Standards will continually be retaught to those who are not demonstrating mastery, while we continue with the curriculum according to the Pacing Guide. Those who already "get it" will have their instruction enriched. Actually, by FCPS's expectations, all students are receiving enrichment. Starting this year, 40% of a teacher's evaluation will be based on student progress, not on the SOLs, but on the students' SMARTR goals. Maybe another teacher can weigh in, but last year I became overwhelmed with the prepping, assessing, and record keeping required for each student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there is such little difference in the curriculum, what would the problem be with offering to everyone?

AAP is not that difficult or challenging compared to the baseline progam but being in a peer group of eclectic, bright, accademically motivated kids makes a huge difference.

ES teacher here. My experience has been that we over identify students for AAP. Last year, 1/3 of my third graders were pulled weekly for school based AAP. That's not counting those who left for the center. It doesn't seem to be very difficult to qualify for AAP. For example, I had a student new to FCPS last year. A week after AAP students started to be pulled from my classroom, I received an email saying that X Student would begin AAP the next week. When I asked how he qualified (no screening, teacher input, etc.), the answer was, "His ____ score was high enough". That was it.

The County has a BIG push for all students to be remediated and enriched within their own classroom. The new teacher evaluation process requires us to show how each and every child is improving. We should not be teaching to the middle of the class. If every child's education can be enriched within their base classroom, I see no need to continue with AAP centers.

The first I heard of this FAT placement test was in this thread. Perhaps I'll hear more about it once we return to work next week.

Personalized education? Sounds great. But, with so many kids in each class, how to do you get it done?

PP here. That's a good question. It has become tougher that past few years, and will continue to get tougher with the new progress reports, but this is what FCPS is pushing. Standards will continually be retaught to those who are not demonstrating mastery, while we continue with the curriculum according to the Pacing Guide. Those who already "get it" will have their instruction enriched. Actually, by FCPS's expectations, all students are receiving enrichment. Starting this year, 40% of a teacher's evaluation will be based on student progress, not on the SOLs, but on the students' SMARTR goals. Maybe another teacher can weigh in, but last year I became overwhelmed with the prepping, assessing, and record keeping required for each student.

Really? I have a rising 2nd grader and have been somewhat frustrated with the lack of differentiation/progress made during the year. Her 1st grade teacher was wonderful, but I would get reports like "DC scored at this DRA, it is very likely higher, but I am only allowed to test up to that level at this point in the year." That kind of thing bothered me - why the ceiling? To the school's credit, DC was pulled out weekly for math and reading, but I felt like it was very little advanced exposure/instruction. It took a couple of months from the start of school for the pull outs to begin and then they ended at 6 weeks or so before the year ended - so it was a hour or two a week and not the whole school year. The math curriculum seemed not much more than what they did in K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Really? I have a rising 2nd grader and have been somewhat frustrated with the lack of differentiation/progress made during the year. Her 1st grade teacher was wonderful, but I would get reports like "DC scored at this DRA, it is very likely higher, but I am only allowed to test up to that level at this point in the year." That kind of thing bothered me - why the ceiling? To the school's credit, DC was pulled out weekly for math and reading, but I felt like it was very little advanced exposure/instruction. It took a couple of months from the start of school for the pull outs to begin and then they ended at 6 weeks or so before the year ended - so it was a hour or two a week and not the whole school year. The math curriculum seemed not much more than what they did in K.

Maybe see how second grade goes. When my child was in second grade, they pre-tested before each new chapter and then divided the kids up into eight different math groupings. They also differentiated within the classroom for reading, spelling and writing. There was a wiiide range of abilities in that classroom and that teacher had to work really hard to provide appropriate instruction for each child. She did do it, God bless her, but it really is easier to provide suitable instruction when children are divided up into different ability groupings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really? I have a rising 2nd grader and have been somewhat frustrated with the lack of differentiation/progress made during the year. Her 1st grade teacher was wonderful, but I would get reports like "DC scored at this DRA, it is very likely higher, but I am only allowed to test up to that level at this point in the year." That kind of thing bothered me - why the ceiling? To the school's credit, DC was pulled out weekly for math and reading, but I felt like it was very little advanced exposure/instruction. It took a couple of months from the start of school for the pull outs to begin and then they ended at 6 weeks or so before the year ended - so it was a hour or two a week and not the whole school year. The math curriculum seemed not much more than what they did in K.

Maybe see how second grade goes. When my child was in second grade, they pre-tested before each new chapter and then divided the kids up into eight different math groupings. They also differentiated within the classroom for reading, spelling and writing. There was a wiiide range of abilities in that classroom and that teacher had to work really hard to provide appropriate instruction for each child. She did do it, God bless her, but it really is easier to provide suitable instruction when children are divided up into different ability groupings.

PP, here. DC's class was divided into reading and math groups. It just appeared that there is a range of material and you can't go past the high end of that range. Teachers, is this accurate? DC was in the highest math group, but never got beyond adding and subtracting, not even to regrouping. DC asked to learn this at home - also asked to learn how to multiply. Even the top group only gets to a certain level it seems - and that level is not determined by how far the individual student can go.

[Anonymous]

Here's what I think is also behind more and more kids getting designated as AAP. Please don't think I'm being insensitive or racist. One of the reasons we chose our neighborhood is the diversity in our school. More kids seem to stand out as advanced now, when they wouldn't have before, because they are being compared to the large number of kids in their class who are still learning English. I know many parents in my neighborhood who brag about how far ahead their children are based solely on the fact that their child seems bored. The reason the child seems bored is because teachers are teaching to the SOL tests and must go slowly and repeat themselves to help the English learners.

Moms tell me their child is in the top of the class and think that means their kid should go to a center but really that child seems like the top of the class because at our school 70% of kids are ESL students. (Obviously this isn't the case at every school but more and more schools have this profile.) I'm NOT saying the English learners aren't smart and talented too, of course they are, they just aren't comfortable with English yet. Two of my friends have rising 2nd graders and are already super intense kabout getting their kids into the center. Neither of these kids is above grade level in any area and they would NEVER stand out at a school like Mantua or at a school in McLean.

[Anonymous]

I am always so surprised by posters who seem to know so much about how smart, how above (or not) grade level, how naturally gifted or obviously prepped other people's kids are. I mean, I know what reading/math groups my DC is in and I know the kids that sit at her table- otherwise, I have NO clue where all or any of her friends fall on the spectrum.

PP above for example, assumes she understands what her neighbor's kid needs more than her neighbor. Just so bizarre to me.

Do you quiz your kids' friends when they come over for playdates? Just how do you evaluate? Do you tell jokes to see if they get them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am always so surprised by posters who seem to know so much about how smart, how above (or not) grade level, how naturally gifted or obviously prepped other people's kids are. I mean, I know what reading/math groups my DC is in and I know the kids that sit at her table- otherwise, I have NO clue where all or any of her friends fall on the spectrum.

PP above for example, assumes she understands what her neighbor's kid needs more than her neighbor. Just so bizarre to me.

Do you quiz your kids' friends when they come over for playdates? Just how do you evaluate? Do you tell jokes to see if they get them?

Some of the parents volunteer in the classroom. Depending on the school, they may be testing the kids as part of that volunteer work, so they know how the various kids are doing. Of course, it's a violation of federal law for them to be discussing it, but . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I think is also behind more and more kids getting designated as AAP. Please don't think I'm being insensitive or racist. One of the reasons we chose our neighborhood is the diversity in our school. More kids seem to stand out as advanced now, when they wouldn't have before, because they are being compared to the large number of kids in their class who are still learning English. I know many parents in my neighborhood who brag about how far ahead their children are based solely on the fact that their child seems bored. The reason the child seems bored is because teachers are teaching to the SOL tests and must go slowly and repeat themselves to help the English learners.

Moms tell me their child is in the top of the class and think that means their kid should go to a center but really that child seems like the top of the class because at our school 70% of kids are ESL students. (Obviously this isn't the case at every school but more and more schools have this profile.) I'm NOT saying the English learners aren't smart and talented too, of course they are, they just aren't comfortable with English yet. Two of my friends have rising 2nd graders and are already super intense kabout getting their kids into the center. Neither of these kids is above grade level in any area and they would NEVER stand out at a school like Mantua or at a school in McLean.

I agree with you 100 precent. That has been my experience at my base school. I think some of the parents who push for AAP in base schools like these do so just to get their kids in a more challenging environment, and maybe would not push if they were in a school where the teachers didn't have to spend as much time getting other kids up to speed--which has nothing to do with the intellectual capacity of the other kids, they are just starting at a different point and will all catch up with proper instruction. I'm also convinced that some of the magnet parents at my base school send their kids there so they can stand out and get into AAP when their kids likely wouldn't stand out in a school with less ESL students.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I don't assume to know all about my friends' kids. I'm sure they have many talents and strengths. I'm an ex-FCPS teacher so my friends ask me over and over about their kids' DRA scores, math groupings, and report cards.

I used to teach at a school in a high income area back when many fewer kids were accepted into the centers. We were told to look for children who truly stood out from the pack and who were consistently 'outside the box' thinkers. In my classes, I would always have several kids who were working above grade level in all subjects but who were NOT outside of the box thinkers. They were high achievers but they did not need an AAP program. At my local school, where the majority of the class is English learners, my friends' kids do seem to stick out when they would have probably been middle of the pack or lower at the school where I worked.

Another issue is that if these schools didn't slow the curriculum down so much in order to teach to the test then more parents would be content with gen-ed and wouldn't feel so desperate to get their kids into AAP.

[Anonymous]

At our school they are not implementing their advanced math program anywhere near like it was advertised. Once a week is not the same as every day advanced instruction. The reading program is less than stellar as well. The whole idea of differentiated learning within one classroom is a joke especially with FCPS's ultra large class sizes. I've never seen it work well this way. Children need to switch classrooms for this to happen at the very least and have an advanced curriculum to go with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our school they are not implementing their advanced math program anywhere near like it was advertised. Once a week is not the same as every day advanced instruction. The reading program is less than stellar as well. The whole idea of differentiated learning within one classroom is a joke especially with FCPS's ultra large class sizes. I've never seen it work well this way. Children need to switch classrooms for this to happen at the very least and have an advanced curriculum to go with it.

What FCPS expects us to do, and what is actually doable are two totally different things.