AAPAC report to Fairfax County School Board

[Anonymous]

I have been somewhat disappointed in the 3rd grade Level 4 center curriculum. It still doesn't give much opportunity for creativity or problem solving. They just seem to move very quickly. It only looks good compared to what the base rooms are doing. I really wish they had some actual science materials. They're still just reading about science, not doing any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kids at all levels would benefit from are more opportunities to be creative, to problem solve and to work on multi-step projects.

At our base school where the major focus is mastering SOL facts my children never had any opportunities to do any of the above in K-2. I know that's not the same at some other schools -- many of which happen to have a greater percentage of native English speakers/ higher SES.

I believe this is why they are applying the AAP curriculum in some clusters to the entire population. The theory is that if it works for the AAP kids, then it could also work for the general education kids. Anyone have any experience with this in their school? I believe it is the McLean schools.

This theory doesn't seem compatible with the idea that AAP kids learn differently and need to be taught in a different way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NNAT and CogAt supposedly get at a different type/level of thinking than the SOLs. There's a big difference between a high achieving student and a gifted learner. So maybe honors in ES might work. The problem is that it's not good for the lower achieving students to be grouped with only lower achieving students.

Of course theire are children with SN at all levels. What I was saying is that in the education field "tracking" is a bad word.

Probably the best system depends on the goal. Is the goal to bring all students up to a certain level, so that mixing lower-achieving and higher-achieving students would be desirable even if the higher-achieving are "held back" while helping to pull the lower-achieving ahead? Or is the goal to provide special enrichment for the very highest achievers and fastest learners so that they may reach their fullest potential and make future contributions in medicine, literature, energy-efficiency, world peace? It seems that our current system (select few in AAP and mixed group in gen ed) is an attempt to strike a balance in an imperfect world. The high achievers in gen ed are there not because they could not do more but because they are needed to help the slower learners not fall farther behind. These gen ed high achievers were not chosen to run ahead the fastest, but they are playing an essential role in leading and teaching others. I am not saying that I advocate this system but see how we have ended up at this point, given a combination of goals and beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NNAT and CogAt supposedly get at a different type/level of thinking than the SOLs. There's a big difference between a high achieving student and a gifted learner. So maybe honors in ES might work. The problem is that it's not good for the lower achieving students to be grouped with only lower achieving students.

Of course theire are children with SN at all levels. What I was saying is that in the education field "tracking" is a bad word.

The problem is that the advanced but not in aap are not being given the same opportunity; they need higher level thinking and like minded peers. So. Gen. Ed benefits lower achieving kids and screws the hard working, motivated that would do just fine in aap but not in aap. Top wins and bottom wins, the rest, like middle class America, get frucked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been somewhat disappointed in the 3rd grade Level 4 center curriculum. It still doesn't give much opportunity for creativity or problem solving. They just seem to move very quickly. It only looks good compared to what the base rooms are doing. I really wish they had some actual science materials. They're still just reading about science, not doing any.

I agree. Our center has a "science resource teacher" but aside from dissecting owl pellets one day, and watching ladybugs, I haven't heard of any real science, and I think it's absolutely horrific that neither one of my center kids know anything about the scientific method. My 6th grade center kid says that they spend much of their science class time doing math. (they have the same teacher for science and math)

[Anonymous]

We don't even have a science resource teacher and we have a big school. My center kid was doing science SOL practice homework given by the teacher and couldn't answer the simple "Which dissolves in water?" question because she has never been shown science concepts in the real world. She just reads about science concepts on black and white pages xeroxed from books.

We have some means, and hope to find some time, to supplement with a few science experiences but we shouldn't have to and I worry about the families who can't afford to do extra.

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to the AAPAC presentation from last night's work session:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/987R8L6CC090/$file/AAPAC%202013%20SB%20Presentation.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many children with IEPs (learning issues, behavioral issues) in the AAP classes. The SN kids are not segregated into the general ed classes.

+1 You could also have a student who is ESOL and SN and AAP. I know of a few at my DC's Middle School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many children with IEPs (learning issues, behavioral issues) in the AAP classes. The SN kids are not segregated into the general ed classes.

+1

Just curious- are you saying that a lot of AAP students have SN? or a mix of SN and AAP kids in level IV schools?

ESOL, SN and AAP are not two distinct populations. Think of a Venn diagram. Some children are AAP only, some are ESOL and AAP, some are SN and AAP, some are ESOL and SN, some are ESOL,SN and AAP.

[Anonymous]

I meant three distinct populations.

[Anonymous]

Our AART told me that there are typically @ 3-4 dc with IEPs or 504s in 3rd grade AAP at our center school. fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the AAPAC presentation from last night's work session:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/987R8L6CC090/$file/AAPAC%202013%20SB%20Presentation.pdf

12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT? Okay or not okay? Will an official statement ever be made? By "prepping" I would mean practicing repeatedly in advance using practice tests but not exact copies of the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT? Okay or not okay? Will an official statement ever be made? By "prepping" I would mean practicing repeatedly in advance using practice tests but not exact copies of the test.

You get someone knowledgeable about AAP/AAPAC and this, this is the question you want to ask? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:13, you seem knowledgeable about AAPAC. Do you know the position of the AAP office or AAPAC on "prepping" for NNAT and CogAT? Okay or not okay? Will an official statement ever be made? By "prepping" I would mean practicing repeatedly in advance using practice tests but not exact copies of the test.

You get someone knowledgeable about AAP/AAPAC and this, this is the question you want to ask? Really?

There has been a huge amount of debate about this issue so, yes, this is a question I want to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT and CogAt supposedly get at a different type/level of thinking than the SOLs. There's a big difference between a high achieving student and a gifted learner. So maybe honors in ES might work. The problem is that it's not good for the lower achieving students to be grouped with only lower achieving students.

Of course theire are children with SN at all levels. What I was saying is that in the education field "tracking" is a bad word.

Probably the best system depends on the goal. Is the goal to bring all students up to a certain level, so that mixing lower-achieving and higher-achieving students would be desirable even if the higher-achieving are "held back" while helping to pull the lower-achieving ahead? Or is the goal to provide special enrichment for the very highest achievers and fastest learners so that they may reach their fullest potential and make future contributions in medicine, literature, energy-efficiency, world peace? It seems that our current system (select few in AAP and mixed group in gen ed) is an attempt to strike a balance in an imperfect world. The high achievers in gen ed are there not because they could not do more but because they are needed to help the slower learners not fall farther behind. These gen ed high achievers were not chosen to run ahead the fastest, but they are playing an essential role in leading and teaching others. I am not saying that I advocate this system but see how we have ended up at this point, given a combination of goals and beliefs.

That's fine, but then why are students of similar or even in some cases lesser ability in AAP? This is where the program has gone most off the rails, imo. My feelings of dismay at the continued inequities are tempered by the fact that I don't believe grade school is that important and smart kids will catch up -- just as they did with early readers, Kumon artists, etc. But I'd much rather FCPS reserve the "gifted" designation and special treatment for those who actually are.