FCPS potential changes to AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should make the entire curriculum all-AAP anyway since it's so watered down in the first place. Then do flexible ability groupings so no one feels "tracked" then there's that equity FCPS seeks.

At some schools, they do this. But there are also students who would not benefit from it, and those students shouldn't have their elementary school experience changed by you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make the entire curriculum all-AAP anyway since it's so watered down in the first place. Then do flexible ability groupings so no one feels "tracked" then there's that equity FCPS seeks.

At some schools, they do this. But there are also students who would not benefit from it, and those students shouldn't have their elementary school experience changed by you.

This is the problem with FCPS. If the AAP curriculum and ability grouping is available at one school, it should be available everywhere. We all pay taxes into the same school system-why is a better education being offered to schools with mostly wealthy kids (where the AAP is available to everyone) vs. schools with mostly poor kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make the entire curriculum all-AAP anyway since it's so watered down in the first place. Then do flexible ability groupings so no one feels "tracked" then there's that equity FCPS seeks.

At some schools, they do this. But there are also students who would not benefit from it, and those students shouldn't have their elementary school experience changed by you.

This is the problem with FCPS. If the AAP curriculum and ability grouping is available at one school, it should be available everywhere. We all pay taxes into the same school system-why is a better education being offered to schools with mostly wealthy kids (where the AAP is available to everyone) vs. schools with mostly poor kids?

It's not a better education if it's not appropriate for the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make the entire curriculum all-AAP anyway since it's so watered down in the first place. Then do flexible ability groupings so no one feels "tracked" then there's that equity FCPS seeks.

At some schools, they do this. But there are also students who would not benefit from it, and those students shouldn't have their elementary school experience changed by you.

This is the problem with FCPS. If the AAP curriculum and ability grouping is available at one school, it should be available everywhere. We all pay taxes into the same school system-why is a better education being offered to schools with mostly wealthy kids (where the AAP is available to everyone) vs. schools with mostly poor kids?

It is not that a better education is offered but a different education is offered. And that is because the students needs are very different.

A school with a high ESOL population need teachers who are trained in bilingual education. The ESOL students need to learn a second language and the core material in that new language. A school with a high FARMs rate, even if it is not ESOL, will likely have a large number of kids who start school not knowing their letters, numbers, shapes and colors. A school with a low FARMs rate is more likely to have a high number of kids whose parents read to their kids regularly, and whose kids know their letters, numbers, colors and shapes. There are probably kids who are starting to read and write before kindergarten. So schools develop programs that the fit the needs of the majority of the kids at their schools because the needs are very different.

Would it be fair to the kids who start school knowing their letters, numbers, shapes and colors to have the same program in kindergarten as the kids who do not know this material? There really is no way to provide the same education to every kid because the schools have different needs. And we know that there is a correlation between SES and kids being read to, attending preschools, and other indicators of kids doing well in early elementary school.

FCPS does offer a variety of ways to move kids from their base schools in Elementary school. Parents can apply for language immersion and magnet school programs. I know that many of those schools have lotteries but parents have to be willing to transport their child to a school outside its boundary.

Each type of specialized program has its own cost and there is no way for any one school to be able to afford all the different possible programs so individual schools focus on the needs of the majority of their students.

This is why people ask about the schools in their area before moving into an area because we know that these differences exist. The differences are not driven by a desire to make one group better then the other but by the needs of the current population. And the hope is that as you help the kids in the ESOL programs learn English, they will be prepared for non-ESOL classes and hopefully honors classes by Junior High and AP/IB by high school.

But there is little that we can do that many of the schools with local Level IV do not have a lot of ESOL kids, so they have the resources for local Level IV while the ESOL school does not.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of the decisions are for the benefit of the teachers and not the students. Example School #1 is high FARMs, with 5 classes per grade and maybe 5 kids in each class who are bright gen ed kids capable of doing the AAP curriculum. The school certainly could group those kids together in a class and offer a quasi-LLIV classroom, but they're not going to do that. All of the teachers are going to want their fair share of the bright kids, and the school does't want to deal with the next 20 kids complaining that they aren't in the smart class. So, they instead choose to give AAP materials to no one and let those 5 kids per class sit there learning next to nothing.

Example school #2 is low FARMS, has 5 classrooms per grade and maybe 20 bright gen ed kids per class capable of handling AAP materials. In this case, it's easier to provide scaffolding for the few kids who aren't ready for AAP curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make the entire curriculum all-AAP anyway since it's so watered down in the first place. Then do flexible ability groupings so no one feels "tracked" then there's that equity FCPS seeks.

At some schools, they do this. But there are also students who would not benefit from it, and those students shouldn't have their elementary school experience changed by you.

This is the problem with FCPS. If the AAP curriculum and ability grouping is available at one school, it should be available everywhere. We all pay taxes into the same school system-why is a better education being offered to schools with mostly wealthy kids (where the AAP is available to everyone) vs. schools with mostly poor kids?

It is not that a better education is offered but a different education is offered. And that is because the students needs are very different.

A school with a high ESOL population need teachers who are trained in bilingual education. The ESOL students need to learn a second language and the core material in that new language. A school with a high FARMs rate, even if it is not ESOL, will likely have a large number of kids who start school not knowing their letters, numbers, shapes and colors. A school with a low FARMs rate is more likely to have a high number of kids whose parents read to their kids regularly, and whose kids know their letters, numbers, colors and shapes. There are probably kids who are starting to read and write before kindergarten. So schools develop programs that the fit the needs of the majority of the kids at their schools because the needs are very different.

Would it be fair to the kids who start school knowing their letters, numbers, shapes and colors to have the same program in kindergarten as the kids who do not know this material? There really is no way to provide the same education to every kid because the schools have different needs. And we know that there is a correlation between SES and kids being read to, attending preschools, and other indicators of kids doing well in early elementary school.

FCPS does offer a variety of ways to move kids from their base schools in Elementary school. Parents can apply for language immersion and magnet school programs. I know that many of those schools have lotteries but parents have to be willing to transport their child to a school outside its boundary.

Each type of specialized program has its own cost and there is no way for any one school to be able to afford all the different possible programs so individual schools focus on the needs of the majority of their students.

This is why people ask about the schools in their area before moving into an area because we know that these differences exist. The differences are not driven by a desire to make one group better then the other but by the needs of the current population. And the hope is that as you help the kids in the ESOL programs learn English, they will be prepared for non-ESOL classes and hopefully honors classes by Junior High and AP/IB by high school.

But there is little that we can do that many of the schools with local Level IV do not have a lot of ESOL kids, so they have the resources for local Level IV while the ESOL school does not.

This is pretty inequitable for the many, many schools with 40-50% FARMS. There are students at those schools capable of doing more who are left to their own devices for much of the day. FCPS needs to provide uniform curriculum opportunities across the board. The solution shouldn't be to tell all the middle class kids or bright, poor kids that they should just move to a better school boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of the decisions are for the benefit of the teachers and not the students. Example School #1 is high FARMs, with 5 classes per grade and maybe 5 kids in each class who are bright gen ed kids capable of doing the AAP curriculum. The school certainly could group those kids together in a class and offer a quasi-LLIV classroom, but they're not going to do that. All of the teachers are going to want their fair share of the bright kids, and the school does't want to deal with the next 20 kids complaining that they aren't in the smart class. So, they instead choose to give AAP materials to no one and let those 5 kids per class sit there learning next to nothing.

Example school #2 is low FARMS, has 5 classrooms per grade and maybe 20 bright gen ed kids per class capable of handling AAP materials. In this case, it's easier to provide scaffolding for the few kids who aren't ready for AAP curriculum.

Agree 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of the decisions are for the benefit of the teachers and not the students. Example School #1 is high FARMs, with 5 classes per grade and maybe 5 kids in each class who are bright gen ed kids capable of doing the AAP curriculum. The school certainly could group those kids together in a class and offer a quasi-LLIV classroom, but they're not going to do that. All of the teachers are going to want their fair share of the bright kids, and the school does't want to deal with the next 20 kids complaining that they aren't in the smart class. So, they instead choose to give AAP materials to no one and let those 5 kids per class sit there learning next to nothing.

Example school #2 is low FARMS, has 5 classrooms per grade and maybe 20 bright gen ed kids per class capable of handling AAP materials. In this case, it's easier to provide scaffolding for the few kids who aren't ready for AAP curriculum.

Disagree. FCPS is a moderately progressive district. That means that they follow the latest educational recommendations, to some extent. And the latest thinking in education is to balance classes. It's not a decision made to benefit the teachers or hurt the students.

AAP is an old-fashioned way of having a GT program. If FCPS becomes more progressive, it might go away. If you prefer Arlington's model, that will sound good to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Disagree. FCPS is a moderately progressive district. That means that they follow the latest educational recommendations, to some extent. And the latest thinking in education is to balance classes. It's not a decision made to benefit the teachers or hurt the students.

It's certainly not helping the brightest students in the classroom, who are then ignored by teachers who need to get the bottom kids to pass state tests. The latest educational buzzword is the achievement gap, so most schools are focusing on closing it by bringing up the bottom and bringing down the top.