Raising AAP standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would love to hear from the teachers and administrators what their solutions are to providing a challenging environment for every child so they all can work at an accelerated pace for them. Wouldn't differentiation by subject alone make far better sense? I have yet to see a really gifted math student be awesome in English too, for example.

These are the kids that belong at, and succeed at AAP centers. There are plenty of them at our center.

[Anonymous]

I am a product of the 70s, we never had special ed or ESOL in the main classroom. If you really want differentiated services, get rid of inclusion. In AAP and General Ed there are too many kids that are a distraction. I don't see us going back to the 70s school model, but the reality is that with kids on the spectrum, kids barely speaking English, kids with ADD or ADHD in a class with other, non-issue kids, there is no way a teacher can differentiate. In fact, the non-issue kids get very little in terms of actual time from the teacher. Differentiated services is a good idea in theory, though. Personally, in my years at FCPS, I have yet to see it in practice. Can you imagine working in an office cubicle with a coworker who acts out and grasps at the air, another one who doesn't understand what the others are saying, another who hits other kids, and another who acts out due to the inability to focus and then there is you, trying your best to get it done amid the confusion. I give my kids a high 5 every day, for dealing with this reality 6.5 hours a day. Where I work, the aforementioned behavior would not be tolerated by HR. I applaud FCPS teachers, there jobs seriously are hard! I applaud the kids that deal with this everyday, even more applause!

[Anonymous]

Inclusion for special ed and esol isn't going anywhere. It would be a much bigger fight and FCPS would lose. They will just have to figure out how to teach everyone with inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you for being honest!!! I think our principal has a PC agenda. I'm not unsympathetic that the kids in the lower groups feels stuck there (and one of my kids sometimes ends up in the lower groups) and I think the teachers need to be flexible about grouping, but to entirely eliminate ability grouping and then try to tell me that there will still be differentiation is insulting to my intelligence.

I teach elementary students for FCPS. I have two classes (one during each half of the day), so let's compare:

Class one has 24 students. The LD teacher comes into the classroom for an hour during language arts. The ESOL teacher is in for a half hour (and it overlaps the LD teacher's hour, so there are three adults in the room at one point). During the half hour when three teachers are in the room, we are able to meet with 3 guided reading (lower reading) and literature discussion groups (higher reading). The LD and ESOL teachers do not work solely with LD and ESOL students, so we are able to group kids with similar needs. The LD teacher then pulls her students to her room for an additional 45 minutes and they work with a language program. One day a week, at the same time the LD students are out of the room, my AAP students leave. That leaves me with about 13 students with whom I can do an additional reading or writing lesson. There is a wide range of abilities in this class, but we have noted progress and I am genuinely excited about how well they are doing. I fell like I know this class well.

Class two has 29 students. While there is still a range of reading levels, none of these students get additional support, so the student:teacher ratio remains 29:1. I have yet to be able to effectively manage small groups with this class. It's more "mass instruction". I don't feel I know the students as well as it is tougher to touch base with them individually. With this class I feel as though I am teaching more towards the middle.

Class one gets more differentiation, no question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20% of all kids in grades 3-8 are in AAP.

They should go to a straight IQ test, and limit it to no more than the top 1%. Return the rest to gen ed. The teachers already provide differentiated services in the classroom, and will simply continue to do so.

Definitely not. In NYC kids are prepping for IQ tests and parents are buying the actual tests even though it's not allowed. You need a test where the questions are different each year. I actually know of a case where the kid did average on the school tests ands mom prepped him for the IQ and low and behold he's exceptionally gifted. Things have gotten so corrupt that I venture to say the WISC WPPSI are becoming useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a product of the 70s, we never had special ed or ESOL in the main classroom. If you really want differentiated services, get rid of inclusion. In AAP and General Ed there are too many kids that are a distraction. I don't see us going back to the 70s school model, but the reality is that with kids on the spectrum, kids barely speaking English, kids with ADD or ADHD in a class with other, non-issue kids, there is no way a teacher can differentiate. In fact, the non-issue kids get very little in terms of actual time from the teacher. Differentiated services is a good idea in theory, though. Personally, in my years at FCPS, I have yet to see it in practice. Can you imagine working in an office cubicle with a coworker who acts out and grasps at the air, another one who doesn't understand what the others are saying, another who hits other kids, and another who acts out due to the inability to focus and then there is you, trying your best to get it done amid the confusion. I give my kids a high 5 every day, for dealing with this reality 6.5 hours a day. Where I work, the aforementioned behavior would not be tolerated by HR. I applaud FCPS teachers, there jobs seriously are hard! I applaud the kids that deal with this everyday, even more applause!

I too applaud FCPS teachers and agree their jobs are hard, but that seems to be the only area where you and I see eye to eye. I too am a child of the 70s. I tested out gifted. My high functioning autistic child is one of the better behaved kids in his mainstream classroom-better than I was and I wasn't a troublemaker. He is years ahead in reading and math. I can assure you his academic performance is years above what mine was at the same age and he doesn't test out as well as I did on IQ tests. His memory is amazing and far exceeds mine. As per his IEP je gets some support with motor skills and language-using appropriate tenses, etc. I wonder how you think my child could be holding yours back?

You do know there are kids in wheelchairs and/or kids with CP who have zero learning issues right?

What is a child has serious learning issues? Are you familiar with the research? Everyone benefits from inclusion if it is done right. I see no issue with a child with cognitive challenges learning in the same classroom as mine, in fact I applaud it, because at a good public school that child with have supports in place. Furthermore, I want my child to learn to appreciate and value all of his peers regardless of their challenges and strengths. Every child has something to offer to the classroom community.

Now if a kid with behavior issues is impacting the other children's ability to learn, ideally that child often ends up getting more self-contained classroom support and is gradually reintegrated. I know this is not always the case. I also know sometimes the kids with the worst behaviors are the kids without an IEP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a product of the 70s, we never had special ed or ESOL in the main classroom. If you really want differentiated services, get rid of inclusion. In AAP and General Ed there are too many kids that are a distraction. I don't see us going back to the 70s school model, but the reality is that with kids on the spectrum, kids barely speaking English, kids with ADD or ADHD in a class with other, non-issue kids, there is no way a teacher can differentiate. In fact, the non-issue kids get very little in terms of actual time from the teacher. Differentiated services is a good idea in theory, though. Personally, in my years at FCPS, I have yet to see it in practice. Can you imagine working in an office cubicle with a coworker who acts out and grasps at the air, another one who doesn't understand what the others are saying, another who hits other kids, and another who acts out due to the inability to focus and then there is you, trying your best to get it done amid the confusion. I give my kids a high 5 every day, for dealing with this reality 6.5 hours a day. Where I work, the aforementioned behavior would not be tolerated by HR. I applaud FCPS teachers, there jobs seriously are hard! I applaud the kids that deal with this everyday, even more applause!

I too applaud FCPS teachers and agree their jobs are hard, but that seems to be the only area where you and I see eye to eye. I too am a child of the 70s. I tested out gifted. My high functioning autistic child is one of the better behaved kids in his mainstream classroom-better than I was and I wasn't a troublemaker. He is years ahead in reading and math. I can assure you his academic performance is years above what mine was at the same age and he doesn't test out as well as I did on IQ tests. His memory is amazing and far exceeds mine. As per his IEP je gets some support with motor skills and language-using appropriate tenses, etc. I wonder how you think my child could be holding yours back?

You do know there are kids in wheelchairs and/or kids with CP who have zero learning issues right?
What is a child has serious learning issues? Are you familiar with the research? Everyone benefits from inclusion if it is done right. I see no issue with a child with cognitive challenges learning in the same classroom as mine, in fact I applaud it, because at a good public school that child with have supports in place. Furthermore, I want my child to learn to appreciate and value all of his peers regardless of their challenges and strengths. Every child has something to offer to the classroom community.

Now if a kid with behavior issues is impacting the other children's ability to learn, ideally that child often ends up getting more self-contained classroom support and is gradually reintegrated. I know this is not always the case. I also know sometimes the kids with the worst behaviors are the kids without an IEP.

Amen! As a parent of a 5th grade student in AAP with ADHD, and a 1st grader who also has high functioning autism, but is very, very well behaved, and is also receiving AAP pull outs, I am tired of people on these boards jumping in and blaming all the problems in AAP on the children with special needs. I can tell you, from the perspective of a teacher, and a parent, if all special needs students were pulled out of General Ed. and AAP, the "peer group" that everyone touts as being so important in AAP would not be nearly as robust. My son's good friend's mom has mentioned numerous times how wonderful it is, even as a child without challenges to be in the inclusion classroom for the exact reasons mentioned above.

[Anonymous]

Have you never heard of people such as Albert Einstein, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, Steve Jobs, etc? Most of them had ADHD or some sort of DSM-IV psychological diagnosis that people on this forum wouldn't have tolerated-and I daresay, they certainly would have thrived in AAP! Get a life!

The well behaved stepford kids are exactly what the local privates are looking for and God forbid if the kids have a scratch on them-we don't need those attitudes in public school, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Should be like FSIQ over around 140.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should be like FSIQ over around 140.

exactly how do you propose the measure the FSIQ? This is the primary problem. At six or seven, the measurements are unstable: kids may not be able to sit still, they may have had a bad day, they may be sick, etc. When I was in grad school, I participated in an experiment that was designed to measure IQ variability. My baseline measurement was 147. When sleep deprived, the number dropped to 119. When distracted, the number was lower (distraction by placing me in a noisy environment).

A single measurement at a single point in time does not represent ability. Teacher observations are integrated over the year, and can realize if the scores are incosistant with the student. And some people prep to get a higher score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would love to hear from the teachers and administrators what their solutions are to providing a challenging environment for every child so they all can work at an accelerated pace for them. Wouldn't differentiation by subject alone make far better sense? I have yet to see a really gifted math student be awesome in English too, for example.

These are the kids that belong at, and succeed at AAP centers. There are plenty of them at our center.

Yes, I've seen lots of AAP kids who are gifted in math but are also awesome in English.

Off topic, but this is the misunderstanding I think some people have in regard to the TJ application process. People advocate for getting rid of the essays and basing admissions only on math test scores, but they don't realize that in Fairfax County we have lots of kids who are equally awesome in math and English. When there are two applicants who are equally gifted in math, it makes sense to accept the one who also can read and write at a high level.

These kids can do the math and science and then write about it and explain it to the rest of us! Just what we need for our high tech future.

[Anonymous]

School provided info: GBRS + CogAt/NNAT
Based on that, parents make decision to have their kids to take IQ test on non-sick/non-sleep deprived/good day at non-noisy place.

FSIQ override GBRS + CogAT/NNAT on appeal anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be like FSIQ over around 140.

exactly how do you propose the measure the FSIQ? This is the primary problem. At six or seven, the measurements are unstable: kids may not be able to sit still, they may have had a bad day, they may be sick, etc. When I was in grad school, I participated in an experiment that was designed to measure IQ variability. My baseline measurement was 147. When sleep deprived, the number dropped to 119. When distracted, the number was lower (distraction by placing me in a noisy environment).

A single measurement at a single point in time does not represent ability. Teacher observations are integrated over the year, and can realize if the scores are incosistant with the student. And some people prep to get a higher score.

Great explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be like FSIQ over around 140.

exactly how do you propose the measure the FSIQ? This is the primary problem. At six or seven, the measurements are unstable: kids may not be able to sit still, they may have had a bad day, they may be sick, etc. When I was in grad school, I participated in an experiment that was designed to measure IQ variability. My baseline measurement was 147. When sleep deprived, the number dropped to 119. When distracted, the number was lower (distraction by placing me in a noisy environment).

A single measurement at a single point in time does not represent ability. Teacher observations are integrated over the year, and can realize if the scores are incosistant with the student. And some people prep to get a higher score.

Great explanation.

No, like I said on 12:16, you can pick non-sick/non-sleep deprived/good day to take FSIQ test.

[Anonymous]

So you are suggesting that to get into AAP, everyone should be required to spend the money on the WISC? There are a lot of people that can not afford the WISC. But, they have smart kids. The point is, for 95% of the kids, the system as is works. for the other 5%, there is an appeal process.

In DD's 5th grade classroom, I have not seen any child that clearly does not belong. There is one or two that have serious behavioral issues (e.g., aspergers/aad), but they are smart kids. No child is holding the class back.

IMHO, the deciding factor for AAP should be to ensure that th kids can keep up. You can not know which 2nd grader is the super genious.

Putting the upper 20% in the classroom means the teacher is not spending 80% of the time getting two to three slow learners up to speed. I think, if you go for a single number, it should be 1 standard deviation above mean (or about 115). As it is implimented now, it is 1.75-2 Standard deviations above mean independent of anything else, and as low as 1 standard deviation above mean if the child has a good GBRS (which may mean good behavior).