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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our child's 2nd grade class of 26, 18 students were moved to AAP. Hmm. Need I say more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

[Anonymous]

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

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

[Anonymous]

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

Yes to all of the above. Plenty of AAP kids' needs could be met at their local schools in certain parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

If the kids are equally bright why do their parents let them suffer a detrimental situation rather than pushing to get them into AAP too?

[Anonymous]

16:24- what school? do tell and who is the teacher giving out the high GBRS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

If the kids are equally bright why do their parents let them suffer a detrimental situation rather than pushing to get them into AAP too?

Right. Every parent has an equal opportunity to push, nag, bully and threaten the AAP admissions staff. Seems to work from everything I have read.

[Anonymous]

Separate gifted education goes against all that public school should stand for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Separate gifted education goes against all that public school should stand for

Research says you are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Unequal opportunity and the disruption of community

[Anonymous]

Meeting the needs of the student

[Anonymous]

My child did not get into Princeton or any other college to which she applied! It is not fair that she is forced to learn the watered down curriculum at NOVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child did not get into Princeton or any other college to which she applied! It is not fair that she is forced to learn the watered down curriculum at NOVA.

Did she go to The Dalton School?

[Anonymous]

No, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

It is what we do now for AAP kids. So, yes, group the kids by ability, it IS what is already being done for a few, so why not for all?

AAP 1,
AAP 2
AAP 3
AAP 4

Get rid of GE and have everything AAP, and just different levels.