How to improve AAP and General Ed Together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are a couple potential solutions:

Level III could be standardized at base schools (schools with neither a Center nor a LLIV) by simply having one classroom in each subject area follow the AAP curriculum. So, if there are 5 classrooms per grade, and the kids are already ability grouped by subject, just have the top grouping be the level III program that follows the AAP curriculum in that subject. Sure, most general education kids couldn't necessarily handle the AAP curriculum, but the Level III kids who are strong in that subject area would be more than capable.

To eliminate having general education kids in the minority at center schools, it might be better to just redraw the district maps such that some schools are AAP only.

OP here. Thanks for putting out some ideas. I've seen some of this done and the it works often is that the teacher teaches like they would in a combination class where there are two different levels because there isn't always an exact number of kids at the same level in the classroom. I think they could definitely be considered by base schools. I'd love to hear more on what you think this change would accomplish.

Would you be willing to also write a counter argument to this and then write why your idea is better? It might flush out some details and help us understand the change better. If this thread achieves nothing more than people starting to argue their opinion while considering others viewpoints, that would be more success than I could hope for.

Here's an article to persuade why offering a counter argument is often better than a one-sided argument.
http://www.writingwithclarity.com/2011/07/are-one-sided-or-two-sided-arguments-more-persuasive/

Careful, OP, you're doing the patronizing school marm thing again. Now you seem to be assigning homework to PP.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. PP. If you don't want to, that's fine. It was just a suggestion which is why I asked a question. My opinion is just that your suggested change or any other will not happen unless you consider a counter argument. I've seen too many comments just escalate into fighting instead of discussion.

[Anonymous]

We ask our children to back up our opinions and explore counter arguments when writing persuasive text. Why wouldn't we as adults do the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Would you be willing to also write a counter argument to this and then write why your idea is better?

Is there even a good counter argument against some sort of standardization of Level III services? As it stands, the whole system is a chaotic mess in which some schools can and will give Level III students access to AAP classes in their areas of strength, while other schools give a 1 hour pull out a couple times a month, with minimal other differentiation available. It's unfortunate that some just-missed-the-cutoff kids receive a near-AAP education, while others get next to nothing.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Maybe yes or maybe no according to the PP. There is a possible counter argument that level 3 services are already standardized through the AART and nothing needs to be done. There is an argument that this is already done at most schools in upper grades with kids switching classrooms and that it should be a school based decision. There is an argument that in early years especially it's better to integrate kids rather than having a very slow class, middle, and high class. There is an argument that this is already done for language arts and doesn't need to change. There is a possible counter argument that even if this is done, the kids wouldn't all be able to be taught at the same level and would need a teacher to differentiate to at least two levels. There is a possible concern that this would leave classrooms of all ESOL children together and they wouldn't learn English as well. I'm not suggesting any of these are better than PP's argument. Just saying yes, there are possible counter arguments that could be made.

[Anonymous]

My middle school Gen Ed kid has a couple of teachers who also handle honors classes. The curriculum for the honors kids always includes what my child is assigned, but often with extra enrichment like brief essays that might previously have been called "extra credit". There are also assignments that Gen Ed kids never see, all adding up to an honors level experience. At a minimum, Level III elementary kids, and really all Gen Ed kids, should be offered regular and optional extra credit items that push their learning experience closer to that in Level IV, especially in areas of strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Maybe yes or maybe no according to the PP. There is a possible counter argument that level 3 services are already standardized through the AART and nothing needs to be done. There is an argument that this is already done at most schools in upper grades with kids switching classrooms and that it should be a school based decision. There is an argument that in early years especially it's better to integrate kids rather than having a very slow class, middle, and high class. There is an argument that this is already done for language arts and doesn't need to change. There is a possible counter argument that even if this is done, the kids wouldn't all be able to be taught at the same level and would need a teacher to differentiate to at least two levels. There is a possible concern that this would leave classrooms of all ESOL children together and they wouldn't learn English as well. I'm not suggesting any of these are better than PP's argument. Just saying yes, there are possible counter arguments that could be made.

These counter arguments can all be applied to AAP as well though. If these are the ones the county actually answers with, they'll be opening themselves up to have to defend how they implement AAP also.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Correct I think that current AAP implementation would be discussed with any new suggestion. Not sure these are the ones the county actually answers with. Don't understand that point you made. I spent about 2 minutes thinking about those counter arguments just to give some examples of analyzing the change from different viewpoints. I'm sure the PP who proposed the change can think of better ones.

[Anonymous]

The counter arguments you suggested were in regards to the standardization of Level 3 across the county. My point was that you can't make those arguments against level 3 changes without taking into consideration that the same arguments can be made against centers. That's all. I wasn't saying that the county would have made those exact same arguments, but if they make similar arguments along the same lines against level 3 standardization (i.e almost anything that damage the integration of GE kids among themselves is bad), they'll have a hard time defending changing level 3 for those reasons but leaving centers exactly as they are. Let's hope they recognize that level 3 standardization is low-hanging fruit, so to speak.

[Anonymous]

^^ sorry, that should read "they'll have a hard time defending NOT changing level 3"

It's Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're going to make a suggestion, I just ask that you give at least anecdotal evidence that shows support for both general ed and AAP. Sorry if that was confusing.

Meet the needs of the student in the program they are receiving services from in the building where it is a best fit for them.

So then, Gen Ed kids who attend centers should be given the choice of attending a different base school that is not a center. Fair is fair, right?

In some cases, why not? If a child's mental or emotional health is truly jeopardized by being outnumbered by AAP kids, it's an issue worthy of a solution. If allowing such a move also relieves some of the parental friction at the center, all the better.

There has not been one person who has disagreed with this suggestion, AAP or non AAP.

OP here. Great. A suggestion to allow base school center kids to go to a different school. I appreciate that you are trying to offer solutions. I think this could help some general ed students and hurt others. I don't really see it affecting AAP kids too much. The only problem I see with this suggestion is that it possibly creates issues for FCPS with boundaries and bussing. Even if they could move, base schools are allowed to have LLIV programs, so would that always solve the issue? Would they always have enough space? I don't know. I would hope that instead of trying to separate AAP and general ed further, that the programs could be more integrated which was the whole reason I started this thread. Also, some parents want to have level 2 and 3 AAP integrated more with level IV students, so separating AAP and general ed further could backfire and those students could get less enrichment than they do now. It's worth bringing up to the school board though if the AAP parents and principals won't agree to make any changes at center schools for the level 2 and 3 students and general ed students.

Are level 2 and 3 students considered AAP or general ed? FCAG and the advanced academic committee touches on them slightly but I mostly read about them here as part of general ed. I have two kids in level IV AAP so I don't know all of the issues within level 2 and level 3 instruction. I've heard enough people complain about it and can see the difference in curriculum myself, so I partially understand when they complain or request change.

One other suggestion I was going to make - I had been waiting till this group listed the problems (yes I have other suggestions besides integrated lunch and recess) would be to have a general education advisory committee. There is one for advanced academics, special education, title 1, minorities, etc. Why not have one for general ed? Their purpose could be to review the local plan for general education. That group could then put out a report of recommendations for the general education curriculum and between them and the advanced academic committee, there might be enough recommendations to help level 2 and level 3 academics. They could also make recommendations on boundary changes to help general ed populations at schools.

https://www.fcps.edu/search?keywords=committee

This is a very revealing post OP. It's clear that your vision of a single solution that helps both APP and Gen Ed involves their greater or total integration. You say so right in your post as bolded above. That's a perfectly valid opinion, so there's no point pretending that you have no ideal end in mind, even if many think it's not a winner. If you'd said this up front, it may have been a very different thread. Instead, you are picking apart others' comments which don't serve this unstated end. Again, this post is a good illustration. You sort of brush off the idea of allowing some Gen Ed kids to evacuate their center because you "don't really see it affecting AAP kids too much" Yet in the same post your propose a "Gen Ed Advisory Committee" which arguably would affect AAP kids even less. Again, nothing wrong with the idea but it doesn't quite fit the criteria you are expecting others to deliver for your review.

I agree. Gen Ed students should absolutely be allowed to leave their center for the next closest school, if they so choose - just as AAP students are allowed to leave their base school for the nearest center. OP, I think you mean well, but you're not really understanding that many of these issues won't be fixed simply by integrating these kids a little more at lunch and recess. I do think that should have been done long ago, in the form of mixed homerooms. Some posters are insisting, very oddly, that this simply would never work, and it's clear they don't *want* it to work.

For once, we need to focus on what would work for the Gen Ed kids, and only the Gen Ed kids. AAP kids have been given their choice of schools and provided transportation to either school, for years and years. The scales have been imbalanced from the beginning. Maybe instead of trying to find solutions that work for everyone, we should instead be looking at what families of Gen Ed kids want and need and have been asking for for a long time - equity in choosing the school that works for them, just as AAP kids can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are a couple potential solutions:

Level III could be standardized at base schools (schools with neither a Center nor a LLIV) by simply having one classroom in each subject area follow the AAP curriculum. So, if there are 5 classrooms per grade, and the kids are already ability grouped by subject, just have the top grouping be the level III program that follows the AAP curriculum in that subject. Sure, most general education kids couldn't necessarily handle the AAP curriculum, but the Level III kids who are strong in that subject area would be more than capable.

To eliminate having general education kids in the minority at center schools, it might be better to just redraw the district maps such that some schools are AAP only.

Regarding the bolded, I'm sorry, but most general education kids most certainly could handle the AAP curriculum. Was that a typo on your part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Maybe yes or maybe no according to the PP. There is a possible counter argument that level 3 services are already standardized through the AART and nothing needs to be done. There is an argument that this is already done at most schools in upper grades with kids switching classrooms and that it should be a school based decision. There is an argument that in early years especially it's better to integrate kids rather than having a very slow class, middle, and high class. There is an argument that this is already done for language arts and doesn't need to change. There is a possible counter argument that even if this is done, the kids wouldn't all be able to be taught at the same level and would need a teacher to differentiate to at least two levels. There is a possible concern that this would leave classrooms of all ESOL children together and they wouldn't learn English as well. I'm not suggesting any of these are better than PP's argument. Just saying yes, there are possible counter arguments that could be made.

Dear God, you are tiresome, with all your talk of "arguments and counter arguments"! The lawyer-act has gone from annoying to truly overdone.

[Anonymous]

To me, OP sounds like a very young person with no practical experience or understanding, who just likes to hear themselves talk and come up with "arguments," as if this is all abstract.

I'll throw out your whole premise now, OP. People need to stop worrying about AAP, stop using it as a scapegoat for all the problems that plague the average student in gen ed, and concentrate on how to fix those problems in gen ed. Hint: it does not involve singing kumbaya with AAP students at lunch or killing off the AAP center program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are a couple potential solutions:

Level III could be standardized at base schools (schools with neither a Center nor a LLIV) by simply having one classroom in each subject area follow the AAP curriculum. So, if there are 5 classrooms per grade, and the kids are already ability grouped by subject, just have the top grouping be the level III program that follows the AAP curriculum in that subject. Sure, most general education kids couldn't necessarily handle the AAP curriculum, but the Level III kids who are strong in that subject area would be more than capable.

To eliminate having general education kids in the minority at center schools, it might be better to just redraw the district maps such that some schools are AAP only.

Regarding the bolded, I'm sorry, but most general education kids most certainly could handle the AAP curriculum. Was that a typo on your part?

Okay. Fair point. But in the interest of not turning this topic into a debate on whether general education kids could or couldn't handle the AAP curriculum, I hope we can agree that schools should at the very least make the AAP curriculum available to their level II and III students in their areas of strength.