Which schools only have LIV kids in their LLIV program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

I mean the same could be said about average kids in a Gen Ed class. Either way someone gets ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Sorry if I was unclear. I understand the difference. Our base school only offers cluster. I would have been 100% fine with a mixed level 3/4 class, and there are enough kids to make it happen—admin just chose cluster instead, so we moved our kid to the center. Fabulous academically, a bummer socially.

Yeah, that is the issue I have with Centers, they are not good socially for kids coming from outside the base school. In our case, the kids who go to the Center are at an ES that will land at a different high school then the one their peers from the base school will attend. The kids who stayed at the base have a stronger group of friends in ES, because they live close by and are in activities together, and they take that group to high school. The kids at the Center don’t have a bond with the kids from the base school and their ES peers are at a different HS. They are starting from scratch. And they end up in classes with the kids from their base school any way because a high percentage of the kids at the base school end up in Algebra 1 H in 7th grade and taking the same advanced classes so it is not like the Center kids were accelerated past their peers at the base school.

So what is the point of the Center? What is the point of a strong cohort if they don’t socialize after school or do things together? Especially when the academics at the base school are pretty solid.

I think the problem you run into with some centers (not all of them) is that by 3rd grade, the kids already have their own friends, parents are focused on a small set of mostly academic extracurriculars, plus a lot of the communities that end up in AAP socialize within their ethnic group, so that takes out maybe half the kids if not more depending on the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

No, she thinks it would be too much work for her in a clustering class. Why is it too much work, you ask? Read previous posts.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

Does your school meet OP's criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

Totally agree. I don’t fault a teacher who feels it is an impossible task to try to teach differentiated learning to a class of 26-30 filled with vastly levels of academic performance. That is ensuring failure and I wouldn’t sign up for it either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Sorry if I was unclear. I understand the difference. Our base school only offers cluster. I would have been 100% fine with a mixed level 3/4 class, and there are enough kids to make it happen—admin just chose cluster instead, so we moved our kid to the center. Fabulous academically, a bummer socially.

Yeah, that is the issue I have with Centers, they are not good socially for kids coming from outside the base school. In our case, the kids who go to the Center are at an ES that will land at a different high school then the one their peers from the base school will attend. The kids who stayed at the base have a stronger group of friends in ES, because they live close by and are in activities together, and they take that group to high school. The kids at the Center don’t have a bond with the kids from the base school and their ES peers are at a different HS. They are starting from scratch. And they end up in classes with the kids from their base school any way because a high percentage of the kids at the base school end up in Algebra 1 H in 7th grade and taking the same advanced classes so it is not like the Center kids were accelerated past their peers at the base school.

So what is the point of the Center? What is the point of a strong cohort if they don’t socialize after school or do things together? Especially when the academics at the base school are pretty solid.

This is unnecessarily dramatic.

1. Enough kids move to centers to find friends from their old ES, if that's a priority. My son is at a center and his best friend is his classmate from the old ES who also made AAP and moved to the center with him.

2. The purpose of the center is not to provide socialization after school or do things together.

3. You are altogether exaggerating the effect a few elementary years have on a kid's social life and school career. They make friends all the time, even if they just met that kid. Spending the first 3 years together is not a guarantee of lifelong bonds, and the absence of these years together does not doom a kid to loneliness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

Absolutely unhinged.

PP, have you not read (in previous posts) the mammoth undertaking it is to teach the level IV curriculum to ALL students? Exposure to the content is one thing, but teaching from it is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

NP but AAP teachers have the sweetest deals. They have the best, most eager to learn kids, and a curriculum already built for them. She doesn't want to deal with the disruptive kids in gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

NP but AAP teachers have the sweetest deals. They have the best, most eager to learn kids, and a curriculum already built for them. She doesn't want to deal with the disruptive kids in gen ed.

What makes you think there are no disruptive kids in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

NP but AAP teachers have the sweetest deals. They have the best, most eager to learn kids, and a curriculum already built for them. She doesn't want to deal with the disruptive kids in gen ed.

What makes you think there are no disruptive kids in AAP?

FEWER dum-dum, not none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

NP but AAP teachers have the sweetest deals. They have the best, most eager to learn kids, and a curriculum already built for them. She doesn't want to deal with the disruptive kids in gen ed.

Spend some time. You'll find that some teachers prefer AAP, some prefer general education, and some go back and forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

This is an unhinged response.

NP but AAP teachers have the sweetest deals. They have the best, most eager to learn kids, and a curriculum already built for them. She doesn't want to deal with the disruptive kids in gen ed.

I have had disruptive kids in AAP. As a whole, AAP kids have better work habits and want to learn, yes. That doesn’t mean we don’t have other issues. My AAP kids are waaay more sensitive to not doing well and the productive struggle. I have had way more crying in AAP than Gen Ed classes.

As for the curriculum- some of it is already built, but a lot needs to be adapted. The pacing guides for ALL subjects Gen Ed and AAP are messy and not user friendly. They give suggestion on lessons, but it is up to teacher to pick/choose what works best for their class. AAP has moved to a concept based instruction but our schedules don’t really always work to implement it the way they envision. They also don’t always stay paced with the Gen Ed curriculum. I much preferred the old pacing guides for each unit of study.