Someone please explain to me the difference between tracking and the AAP program/centers.

[Anonymous]

All of my children in AAP and I think Gen Ed is a horrible place to be for the bright kids. We should have AAP, Gen ed 1, Gen ed 2, Gen ed 3. Separate all the kids, not just the AAP kid, based upon scores and work. That would be fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of my children in AAP and I think Gen Ed is a horrible place to be for the bright kids. We should have AAP, Gen ed 1, Gen ed 2, Gen ed 3. Separate all the kids, not just the AAP kid, based upon scores and work. That would be fair.

+1

And by course/subject area

[Anonymous]

Not gonna happen, ever. Imagine the lawsuits. Name a school district in the nation that does this now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my children in AAP and I think Gen Ed is a horrible place to be for the bright kids. We should have AAP, Gen ed 1, Gen ed 2, Gen ed 3. Separate all the kids, not just the AAP kid, based upon scores and work. That would be fair.

+1

And by course/subject area

Life isn't fair. Some people fail and others thrive. Sometimes based on merit and sometime just dumb luck and circumstance. You, as an adult, should accept that by now and try to teach your kids the same lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of my children in AAP and I think Gen Ed is a horrible place to be for the bright kids. We should have AAP, Gen ed 1, Gen ed 2, Gen ed 3. Separate all the kids, not just the AAP kid, based upon scores and work. That would be fair.

Stop for a moment and imagine the uproar when a parent realizes their child is in Gen ed. 2 or Gen ed. 3 instead of Gen ed. 1. And how would you separate the kids out of some are strong in math but weak in English or vice versa? What about those who have fine motor/writing issues but otherwise comprehend the material well. Do they get placed in Gen ed. 1 but are given accommodations for a slower work pace? Or are they placed in Gen ed. 2 so they are kept at pace with their peers for what work they actually complete?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where [b]if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

[/b]Not all schools would have enough students for critical mass. They may have just three or five students and not enough for a full class. Even if there are enough for one full class, it is considered undesirable for students to be in just one grouping for several years. At least two classes for mixing is considered best.

I didn't say all, but certainly in McLean and parts of Vienna you would easily have schools with a critical mass. When we start getting into discussions of "well, two classes are optimal," I'd ask "what is optimal for General Education -- whatever is left over after we've dealt with these supposedly gifted kids. At a certain point all this pandering to a population that keeps getting proportionately bigger as more parents work to game their kids in just becomes ridiculous. And I say that as someone who had a child in GT. Note, a child. Not all my children because kids can be extremely smart without the need for a special program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

So how would school look different for those kids if the curriculum were targeted to them instead of being "watered down"? By the end of HS would they know more? Be more competent? More confident? Have more opportunities? By having a GE curriculum that is so easy, as you say, are the students not prepared for college or life experiences?

Time and again people say the GE kids are getting lost in the shuffle but I'm not sure that we are failing them. AAP students have a heavier workload and go more deeply into subjects in addition to the "fun" projects and creative assignments. Is that what the GE kids are missing? Would they benefit from an accelerated pace? A deeper study on individual units? Or do we think they would also like to have science Tuesdays with experiments? Well who wouldn't?

We've been told that the AAP kids learn differently and are in a different place than their peers so are we favoring them or simply meeting their needs as those have been identified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

Regarding the quote bolded above, stating that if more AAP students were in GE then the GE classes would teach to a higher level, I don't think this is true. How many kids are usually selected from a second grade class to be in AAP the following year? Usually not more than five students per class on average throughout the county? Let's say that it became only two students and three of those that would have been pulled will stay in GE. Is the presence of those three in next year's GE class going to make a substantial difference to the curriculum? I would say no. The GE curriculum would stay the same and the teacher would still focus most on those struggling in order to for them to be able to pass the SOLs. Parents would still need to provide outside enrichment as needed. That can even be a benefit since you can target the enrichment in the way you wish, rather than having your child spend time on "in depth" projects that may or may not teach anything of lasting value.

[Anonymous]

Adding to post above, people say that FCPS curriculum in K to 2 is too easy or even "a joke." Future AAP kids are still in those classes and yet they aren't taught at a high level. The teaching is always targeted to help those struggling to meet the minimum requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

In our center the AAP curriculum is very watered down too. I don't think AAP is meeting my children's needs, either . . . welcome to the club. And I partially blame parents like you insisting that you should have the same curriculum for your bright GE kid -- if anything our school is catering to you -- because God forbid if the students in AAP are actually moving ahead!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where [b]if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

[/b]Not all schools would have enough students for critical mass. They may have just three or five students and not enough for a full class. Even if there are enough for one full class, it is considered undesirable for students to be in just one grouping for several years. At least two classes for mixing is considered best.

I didn't say all, but certainly in McLean and parts of Vienna you would easily have schools with a critical mass. When we start getting into discussions of "well, two classes are optimal," I'd ask "what is optimal for General Education -- whatever is left over after we've dealt with these supposedly gifted kids. At a certain point all this pandering to a population that keeps getting proportionately bigger as more parents work to game their kids in just becomes ridiculous. And I say that as someone who had a child in GT. Note, a child. Not all my children because kids can be extremely smart without the need for a special program.

So you would be happy if in schools with enough critical mass to form one AAP class at the base school, those students stayed at the base school? You are arguing for Local Level IV services whenever possible? Many schools do have Local Level IV and families are happier to have their kids stay within their communities (choose LLIV over center school, like at Oakton ES few go to center). It would make a difference to you if it was LLIV and not busing to center?

[Anonymous]

Maybe our current system is the best compromise based on many competing needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

Regarding the quote bolded above, stating that if more AAP students were in GE then the GE classes would teach to a higher level, I don't think this is true. How many kids are usually selected from a second grade class to be in AAP the following year? Usually not more than five students per class on average throughout the county? Let's say that it became only two students and three of those that would have been pulled will stay in GE. Is the presence of those three in next year's GE class going to make a substantial difference to the curriculum? I would say no. The GE curriculum would stay the same and the teacher would still focus most on those struggling in order to for them to be able to pass the SOLs. Parents would still need to provide outside enrichment as needed. That can even be a benefit since you can target the enrichment in the way you wish, rather than having your child spend time on "in depth" projects that may or may not teach anything of lasting value.

It depends on where you live in FFX. In our school, almost 40% of the students are selected for AAP. For us, that was 2 classes out of 5 that were selected into AAP. It is a lot more than a few from a class. To have more than a third of the students moved into the center makes a substantial difference for the remaining students. I do agree with the individual enrichment. As much as I disagree with the current system, I don't see much changing in the near future. We have our child in private tutoring, and we have seen real progress there.