AAP parents only, please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 kids in AAP Centers, and yes, they have benefited from the program and we are generally happy with it. But, DS, who is older, clearly needed AAP. He was bored and unhappy in k-2, and he had behavioral problems. He has really flourished in a more demanding academic environment, and moving him was absolutely the right call. DD is a much closer call. She is a kid who has the ability to succeed in AAP, but would have also been fine in a Gen Ed setting. We center tracked her largely because we did not want to send a message that she is less capable than her brother and because having two kids close in age in 2 different elementary school was going to be very difficult. But, if she was a first/only & her base school was strong, and she was thriving there, I honestly don't know what we would have done. I think a lot of it can depend on the strength of the base school, and whether you have a kid who "qualifies" for AAP, or really needs it.

What utter BS! THIS is what's wrong with AAP. Center-tracked her did you? Absurd.

NP. Yes, same situation as above but more because of issues w/base school. Second child doing well with AAP anyway. Need to fix base schools then people won't take their children out. After reading teacher survey from base school we made right decision. www.fcpswcs.org.

No we need to fix parents who are so insecure about their child's intelligence and ability to learn that nothing short of a special program in a different school is good enough for them. There's a reason McLean now offers AAP to all kids and why Vienna schools may start doing that as well. Because of people like you, AAP will be phased out in many parts of FCPS in upcoming years.

If all base schools offered AAP to all kids, that would fix the base schools. Problem solved. Where do I sign up?

How would it help the gen ed kids who do not need or want AAP?

its called differentiated classrooms. It's being done in Some center schools already. Say you have 5, 3rd grade classes. When they are in Math class the kids are all in different classes being taught at different levels(all of which are at least on grade level). They have opportunities to work really hard and move into different levels as units change throughout the year. The kids are being taught to their ability.

Others on this board have talked about proposals of AAP being taught across the board at some schools, to every student. That's what I thought PP was referring to, and that's how I responded. It doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, go to the orientation and then make up your mind. We were 95% sure we were not going to put our DC in AAP (taking him away from our neighborhood school), and the orientation changed our minds. There have been some bumps along with way (1st quarter is a hard adjustment mainly b/c more independence and initiative is required of 3rd graders than 2nd graders whether AAP or not). There is more homework than non-AAP. The schedule is "off" from our other child. But academically, DC in AAP is doing very well and it IS superior to what is happening at our neighborhood school.
[b]
So, we will stay with it b/c we know DC is getting a better education.

Like PP, we knew our kid would just get a better education at the center school.

A lot depends on your base school, OP, but don't let the "keep kids in the neighborhood" drumbeat on DCUM influence you if your base is unable to challenge your kid academically.

Our base school was friendly and nice and had great families there, etc. but at that time, had nothing to offer other than one weekly pull-out class for AAP kids. No level III or IV at that time at all. Teachers were told to "differentiate in the classroom" among different learning levels and what we saw in first and second grades was that it didn't work -- kids who were ahead or ready for more challenges were just given more busy work or told to help other kids. Friendly and cooperative, perhaps, but not challenging. After visiting the AAP center there wasn't really any question of staying at the base.

That was just our experience. Bear in mind -- it was and is a base school with issues and has a lot of work to do with kids who need remedial help, so that got all the focus and we were told by some of the teachers there to move our child to the center in order to find a challenge. If you have a solid Level IV program in the base school and don't have the issues our base school had, it may be fine to stay with the base. But listen to the PP and go to the center orientation and ask for examples of how a center is different from in-base Level IV. It might or might not be better for your particular kid. There is a lot of anti-AAP and anti-center talk all over DCUM but you need to get the information by going in person to your possible center (take your child) and really talking to the teachers for Level IV at your[i] base. Don't let any general sentiments for or against the AAP system sway you.

+100 We were facing this as well and went with the center. I don't think differentiation works well in schools where the majority of students per class are in need of remedial help. Advanced academics takes a backseat.

[Anonymous]

We had the hard decision of staying in Spanish immersion or moving to the AAP Center. We were also 95% sure we'd stay in Spanish immersion until we attended the AAP Open House and immediately decided to go to the center. It has been a wonderful experience and we would not change our decision. Highly recommend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 kids in AAP Centers, and yes, they have benefited from the program and we are generally happy with it. But, DS, who is older, clearly needed AAP. He was bored and unhappy in k-2, and he had behavioral problems. He has really flourished in a more demanding academic environment, and moving him was absolutely the right call. DD is a much closer call. She is a kid who has the ability to succeed in AAP, but would have also been fine in a Gen Ed setting. We center tracked her largely because we did not want to send a message that she is less capable than her brother and because having two kids close in age in 2 different elementary school was going to be very difficult. But, if she was a first/only & her base school was strong, and she was thriving there, I honestly don't know what we would have done. I think a lot of it can depend on the strength of the base school, and whether you have a kid who "qualifies" for AAP, or really needs it.

What utter BS! THIS is what's wrong with AAP. Center-tracked her did you? Absurd.

NP. Yes, same situation as above but more because of issues w/base school. Second child doing well with AAP anyway. Need to fix base schools then people won't take their children out. After reading teacher survey from base school we made right decision. www.fcpswcs.org.

No we need to fix parents who are so insecure about their child's intelligence and ability to learn that nothing short of a special program in a different school is good enough for them. There's a reason McLean now offers AAP to all kids and why Vienna schools may start doing that as well. Because of people like you, AAP will be phased out in many parts of FCPS in upcoming years.

If all base schools offered AAP to all kids, that would fix the base schools. Problem solved. Where do I sign up?

How would it help the gen ed kids who do not need or want AAP?

its called differentiated classrooms. It's being done in Some center schools already. Say you have 5, 3rd grade classes. When they are in Math class the kids are all in different classes being taught at different levels(all of which are at least on grade level). They have opportunities to work really hard and move into different levels as units change throughout the year. The kids are being taught to their ability.

Others on this board have talked about proposals of AAP being taught across the board at some schools, to every student. That's what I thought PP was referring to, and that's how I responded. It doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Just to clarify what I mean by differentiated classrooms. I'm not talking about within classrooms, I'm talking about 5 separate classrooms (at least for language arts and Math). Class 1 being taught on grade level, class 2 some acceleration, class 3 more acceleration and so on. This seems to meet everyone's needs and abilities. Class 5 might have started with 10 kids but by the end of year 20+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^If the student receiving general education services shows gifted potential, the child should receive appropriate services.

That's the problem, you need to show gifted potential, so the child in Gen Ed who is very bright but not gifted gets shafted. That is the whole problem with the system. The "my kid is a genius and yours is not so doesn't need anything beyond basic gen ed" people don't realize that the reason their geniuses have to mixed with so many kids in AAP who are just not up to snuff is because of the huge gap in services. While my DC scored in the 90s on all three section of the CogAT, he's not a genius. If Gen Ed had better services, I would have kept him on our base school and been perfectly happy. Instead, he's in with your kids. While he's "thriving" (sarcasm intended), he's not gifted. If you want only gifted kids with your snowflake, start advocating for better services for the very bright but not gifted kid because otherwise parents will refer and appeal their kid until your kids become the minority in "their" program. Win for kids like me DC, a loss for your kid. I'm ok with that, are you?

[Anonymous]

kid like my DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^If the student receiving general education services shows gifted potential, the child should receive appropriate services.

That's the problem, you need to show gifted potential, so the child in Gen Ed who is very bright but not gifted gets shafted. That is the whole problem with the system. The "my kid is a genius and yours is not so doesn't need anything beyond basic gen ed" people don't realize that the reason their geniuses have to mixed with so many kids in AAP who are just not up to snuff is because of the huge gap in services. While my DC scored in the 90s on all three section of the CogAT, he's not a genius. If Gen Ed had better services, I would have kept him on our base school and been perfectly happy. Instead, he's in with your kids. While he's "thriving" (sarcasm intended), he's not gifted. If you want only gifted kids with your snowflake, start advocating for better services for the very bright but not gifted kid because otherwise parents will refer and appeal their kid until your kids become the minority in "their" program. Win for kids like me DC, a loss for your kid. I'm ok with that, are you?

Not sure who you are posting to, but I can assure you I have been advocating for improved Level II and Level III services, in additition to fidelity of implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 kids in AAP Centers, and yes, they have benefited from the program and we are generally happy with it. But, DS, who is older, clearly needed AAP. He was bored and unhappy in k-2, and he had behavioral problems. He has really flourished in a more demanding academic environment, and moving him was absolutely the right call. DD is a much closer call. She is a kid who has the ability to succeed in AAP, but would have also been fine in a Gen Ed setting. We center tracked her largely because we did not want to send a message that she is less capable than her brother and because having two kids close in age in 2 different elementary school was going to be very difficult. But, if she was a first/only & her base school was strong, and she was thriving there, I honestly don't know what we would have done. I think a lot of it can depend on the strength of the base school, and whether you have a kid who "qualifies" for AAP, or really needs it.

What utter BS! THIS is what's wrong with AAP. Center-tracked her did you? Absurd.

NP. Yes, same situation as above but more because of issues w/base school. Second child doing well with AAP anyway. Need to fix base schools then people won't take their children out. After reading teacher survey from base school we made right decision. www.fcpswcs.org.

No we need to fix parents who are so insecure about their child's intelligence and ability to learn that nothing short of a special program in a different school is good enough for them. There's a reason McLean now offers AAP to all kids and why Vienna schools may start doing that as well. Because of people like you, AAP will be phased out in many parts of FCPS in upcoming years.

If all base schools offered AAP to all kids, that would fix the base schools. Problem solved. Where do I sign up?

How would it help the gen ed kids who do not need or want AAP?

its called differentiated classrooms. It's being done in Some center schools already. Say you have 5, 3rd grade classes. When they are in Math class the kids are all in different classes being taught at different levels(all of which are at least on grade level). They have opportunities to work really hard and move into different levels as units change throughout the year. The kids are being taught to their ability.

Others on this board have talked about proposals of AAP being taught across the board at some schools, to every student. That's what I thought PP was referring to, and that's how I responded. It doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Just to clarify what I mean by differentiated classrooms. I'm not talking about within classrooms, I'm talking about 5 separate classrooms (at least for language arts and Math). Class 1 being taught on grade level, class 2 some acceleration, class 3 more acceleration and so on. This seems to meet everyone's needs and abilities. Class 5 might have started with 10 kids but by the end of year 20+.

But what happens at a school where there are 2 or 3 students needing acceleration by more than one grade level? One teacher for two kids? The budget is tight and such an approach is not practical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of one in AAP now and one in TJ who was in AAP.

Older one was our first experience with this whole process. We moved DC from base school that had just instituted LLIV bc we wanted a larger peer group and the ability to move around in class groupings for the next 4 years due to specific issues at the base school. Younger child was found eligible after we parent referred him into the pool (ie no appeal, but we did ask him to be considered.) We did this to make our lives easier by having both kids at the same school. Flame away on that one. To tell the truth though, younger child excelled in AAP and at the school - more so than older child. Younger may have excelled at base as well. We were not at all impressed with the AAP Center for ES, but LOVE the MS AAP Center.

So my advice is that you really need to figure out what will work best for YOUR child and YOUR family.

AAP parent of MS kid - I am not thrilled with my DS's MS expeirence. The kids are all groups together and so his circle is a smaller one. I was kinda looking forward to him expanding his circle. But he's got the same kids in all his classes except PE and one elective. He's happy and I'm happy. I think it did make middle school easier that he's in a small group of the same kids, but I was expecting the tracking and smaller social cirlce to happen later. The teachers are all great, but they also teach on level classes also. And by great teachers I mean my DS has a schedule of the kind of teachers that you expect to get just 1 a year and he has a whole schedule of teachers. The one teacher he complains about is a "normal" teacher - she's good, just not a super star like the others.

Excuse me while I vomit. A "normal" teacher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 kids in AAP Centers, and yes, they have benefited from the program and we are generally happy with it. But, DS, who is older, clearly needed AAP. He was bored and unhappy in k-2, and he had behavioral problems. He has really flourished in a more demanding academic environment, and moving him was absolutely the right call. DD is a much closer call. She is a kid who has the ability to succeed in AAP, but would have also been fine in a Gen Ed setting. We center tracked her largely because we did not want to send a message that she is less capable than her brother and because having two kids close in age in 2 different elementary school was going to be very difficult. But, if she was a first/only & her base school was strong, and she was thriving there, I honestly don't know what we would have done. I think a lot of it can depend on the strength of the base school, and whether you have a kid who "qualifies" for AAP, or really needs it.

What utter BS! THIS is what's wrong with AAP. Center-tracked her did you? Absurd.

NP. Yes, same situation as above but more because of issues w/base school. Second child doing well with AAP anyway. Need to fix base schools then people won't take their children out. After reading teacher survey from base school we made right decision. www.fcpswcs.org.

No we need to fix parents who are so insecure about their child's intelligence and ability to learn that nothing short of a special program in a different school is good enough for them. There's a reason McLean now offers AAP to all kids and why Vienna schools may start doing that as well. Because of people like you, AAP will be phased out in many parts of FCPS in upcoming years.

If all base schools offered AAP to all kids, that would fix the base schools. Problem solved. Where do I sign up?

EXACTLY. All of these ridiculous problems would be solved - who gets accepted/denied to AAP, who goes to which school, who even has a choice to switch schools, who gets busing outside of neighborhood school boundaries, and much more. Can't FCPS see the mess they've made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 kids in AAP Centers, and yes, they have benefited from the program and we are generally happy with it. But, DS, who is older, clearly needed AAP. He was bored and unhappy in k-2, and he had behavioral problems. He has really flourished in a more demanding academic environment, and moving him was absolutely the right call. DD is a much closer call. She is a kid who has the ability to succeed in AAP, but would have also been fine in a Gen Ed setting. We center tracked her largely because we did not want to send a message that she is less capable than her brother and because having two kids close in age in 2 different elementary school was going to be very difficult. But, if she was a first/only & her base school was strong, and she was thriving there, I honestly don't know what we would have done. I think a lot of it can depend on the strength of the base school, and whether you have a kid who "qualifies" for AAP, or really needs it.

What utter BS! THIS is what's wrong with AAP. Center-tracked her did you? Absurd.

NP. Yes, same situation as above but more because of issues w/base school. Second child doing well with AAP anyway. Need to fix base schools then people won't take their children out. After reading teacher survey from base school we made right decision. www.fcpswcs.org.

No we need to fix parents who are so insecure about their child's intelligence and ability to learn that nothing short of a special program in a different school is good enough for them. There's a reason McLean now offers AAP to all kids and why Vienna schools may start doing that as well. Because of people like you, AAP will be phased out in many parts of FCPS in upcoming years.

If all base schools offered AAP to all kids, that would fix the base schools. Problem solved. Where do I sign up?

How would it help the gen ed kids who do not need or want AAP?

How does the current AAP system help kids who want AAP and aren't allowed? How does it help kids who are in and can't handle it? There will be kids who are not effectively served either way. That's why Gen Ed with elective AAP curriculum makes the most sense, but some genius deemed that a problem, as opposed to say the current system that is worse than any tracking that took place before because it's not fluid, but (for the most part) a one time determination for six years.

Preach. You've hit the nail on the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^If the student receiving general education services shows gifted potential, the child should receive appropriate services.

That's the problem, you need to show gifted potential, so the child in Gen Ed who is very bright but not gifted gets shafted. That is the whole problem with the system. The "my kid is a genius and yours is not so doesn't need anything beyond basic gen ed" people don't realize that the reason their geniuses have to mixed with so many kids in AAP who are just not up to snuff is because of the huge gap in services. While my DC scored in the 90s on all three section of the CogAT, he's not a genius. If Gen Ed had better services, I would have kept him on our base school and been perfectly happy. Instead, he's in with your kids. While he's "thriving" (sarcasm intended), he's not gifted. If you want only gifted kids with your snowflake, start advocating for better services for the very bright but not gifted kid because otherwise parents will refer and appeal their kid until your kids become the minority in "their" program. Win for kids like me DC, a loss for your kid. I'm ok with that, are you?

Not sure who you are posting to, but I can assure you I have been advocating for improved Level II and Level III services, in additition to fidelity of implementation.

Not PP, but I am so sick of hearing bogus labels like "Level II and Level III services". No one even knows exactly what that means, so there's no real way of knowing if any enrichment at all is taking place. There needs to be an advanced curriculum, open to any child capable of doing the work, regardless of test scores like CogAT, etc. Those truly don't tell the whole story and unless you actually let a child try a certain curriculum, you'll never really know if they're capable of it or not. And so, so many kids in Gen Ed are. In addition to advanced classes, open to all, there should be on-level classes. Simplify the whole system - no need for this silly Level II, III, and IV crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^If the student receiving general education services shows gifted potential, the child should receive appropriate services.

That's the problem, you need to show gifted potential, so the child in Gen Ed who is very bright but not gifted gets shafted. That is the whole problem with the system. The "my kid is a genius and yours is not so doesn't need anything beyond basic gen ed" people don't realize that the reason their geniuses have to mixed with so many kids in AAP who are just not up to snuff is because of the huge gap in services. While my DC scored in the 90s on all three section of the CogAT, he's not a genius. If Gen Ed had better services, I would have kept him on our base school and been perfectly happy. Instead, he's in with your kids. While he's "thriving" (sarcasm intended), he's not gifted. If you want only gifted kids with your snowflake, start advocating for better services for the very bright but not gifted kid because otherwise parents will refer and appeal their kid until your kids become the minority in "their" program. Win for kids like me DC, a loss for your kid. I'm ok with that, are you?

Not sure who you are posting to, but I can assure you I have been advocating for improved Level II and Level III services, in additition to fidelity of implementation.

Not PP, but I am so sick of hearing bogus labels like "Level II and Level III services". No one even knows exactly what that means, so there's no real way of knowing if any enrichment at all is taking place. There needs to be an advanced curriculum, open to any child capable of doing the work, regardless of test scores like CogAT, etc. Those truly don't tell the whole story and unless you actually let a child try a certain curriculum, you'll never really know if they're capable of it or not. And so, so many kids in Gen Ed are. In addition to advanced classes, open to all, there should be on-level classes. Simplify the whole system - no need for this silly Level II, III, and IV crap.

Bogus labels? It's part of the continuum of services. Not bogus labels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is in MS. I am not happy with many things about the MS experience. ES was overall excellent -- we did not have a choice on schools as our base is also the AAP center. MS, we had a choice, and chose the center vs. community Level IV.

Her MS is Luther Jackson. My frustrations with LJ are two fold: first, this may have been the only chance for DD to be exposed to people not middle to upper middle class, but all of her exposure has been to the same socio-economic background.

A bigger problem is the workload. She just does not have time to live life and do school work.

Perhaps the AAP work is too hard for her? My kids somehow managed to get their school work done and still have time for plenty of extracurriculars and fun.

And if LJ middle school is the "only" chance for your daughter to get exposed to people in lower classes, that says more about how you've raised her than the school.

I live in an upper middle class neighborhood, in an upper middle class town (Vienna), though we are solidly middle class.. My daughter has gone to public schools -- not elite private schools. She does not realize that we are much better off than most people; I would like her to see it. Her peers have always been at or above our socio-economic background. In high school, she will go to Madison, which is largely Vienna. In college, she will probably go to a state school (Va Tech?). In none of these environments will she be exposed to people that do not have enough....

As for the work load, some teachers seem to give 1 hour per homework per night...5 classes a day, and she get 3-4 hours. Much of it is busy work. She does well on the tests....

Oh, and do you have a kid there, in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 kids in AAP Centers, and yes, they have benefited from the program and we are generally happy with it. But, DS, who is older, clearly needed AAP. He was bored and unhappy in k-2, and he had behavioral problems. He has really flourished in a more demanding academic environment, and moving him was absolutely the right call. DD is a much closer call. She is a kid who has the ability to succeed in AAP, but would have also been fine in a Gen Ed setting. We center tracked her largely because we did not want to send a message that she is less capable than her brother and because having two kids close in age in 2 different elementary school was going to be very difficult. But, if she was a first/only & her base school was strong, and she was thriving there, I honestly don't know what we would have done. I think a lot of it can depend on the strength of the base school, and whether you have a kid who "qualifies" for AAP, or really needs it.

What utter BS! THIS is what's wrong with AAP. Center-tracked her did you? Absurd.

PP here. I think, that if they are being honest, most people would say FCPS has a small cohort of kids who "need" AAP to be successful in school (Because it is a form of special Ed) and a much larger group who "qualify" for AAP, and that much of the great FCPS AAP debate is about how to handle the "qualify" group. So maybe you think that my DD should not have been offered services because she could succeed without them. And that's a legitimate point of view. But she was offered services, and she is also is doing very well (socially and academically) in her third year in a center.-- nobody else's DC is being slowed down because she can't keep up. Since she was given the choice of where to go to school, we opted for what was best for her and our family-- stronger academics and not having 2 kids, one grade apart, in school 20 minutes away from each other. This made sense for our family. And yes, because, she is a girl who loves science, I do worry about confidence erosion and the phenomena of tweenage girls dropping out of math and science. I want her to believe she has the ability to achieve in a STEM career, if that's what she wants-- because she does have the innate talent. None of that's absurd. Absurd would be trying to drop off two kids whose elementary schools started at the same time, but are 20 minute drive apart in rush hour traffic. And trying to be fully involved in 2 PTAs, 2 elementary school communities, etc. And BTW DD is in no way less than DS-- but she does have different strengths, some of them academic (she is reading years above grade level and spends hours peering into her microscope), some of them quasi academic (she has a wonderful imagination) and some of the life skills (she is kind and makes friends easily). Like all kids, and like my DS, she also has some challenges. I realize that haters gonna hate and AAP pushes everyone's buttons, but no one should have to apologize for giving their children access to a high quality education or making educational choices that are a good fit for their families.