AAP parents only, please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well boo hoo for your child that he's only getting "normal" teachers in a public middle school. Do you expect that just because someone teaches an AAP class they're going to be great? The funny thing is, good teachers are important, but motivated, critically thinking students who love learning are important to the process as well. This isn't about getting spoon-fed from some great mind, or some special formula. It's about trying to expose extremely bright kids to more advanced material. My GT kid complained about some of his teachers too, but if he was interested in the area he did plenty of exploring and learning on his own.

Let me clarify - I do not support my child in his complaining about his one "normal" teacher. The teachers my kid has are all great - he has a whole schedule of the kinds of teachers that you usually only get one or two teachers a year. These great teachers are not just AAP teachers, they also teach on level classes, so on level kids also get these teachers. You do not have to be AAP to get the good teachers. I am thrilled with the teachers and school (base school), I just don't like the fact that the kids don't mix with the general population. We didn't go off to middle school and have a "normal" time, they are still segmented. It could just be a fluke of the schedule, but the same group of kids go to all their core classes together and 1/2 of them are in the same Hr. Alegebra class (reminder, Hr. Alegebra isn't an AAP class).

They have the same core classes together -- but don't they mix with other kids in things like PE, orchestra/band/chorus, art classes, language classes, etc.? My AAP middle schooler knows plenty of kids who aren't in AAP, through this kind of mixing. It is exactly how it was done in her ES AAP, with AAP core classes and everyone in Gen Ed and AAP mixed in all the specials, music, recess, field trips, whatever. If your child's ES was like that, why did you anticipate that MS would be different, PP? If your MS is not mixing up the kids in the non-core academics classes, that would seem odd, but I'd bet that your child does specials, PE or electives with a mixed group.

PP, is it possible that your son's MS AAP program is organized into "teams" as many middle schools are, both AAP and Gen Ed students? The teams are just a way to group students administratively and it means that sometimes kids on the same team are in a lot of the same classes together. It's done for easier scheduling, that's all. That's just a function of the team concept in MS in general, not an issue with AAP in MS in particular. It does mean some of the same kids are in the same classes together because they're on the same team that year. But your child has other opportunities to be with other kids, all the time, just not in core academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's bogus because what level II or level III means varies by school and by teacher. It's bogus because level III in some places means kids get pulled out 1 hour per week to do "special projects" while level IV kids get full time advanced instruction. I'm not sure I would call that a "continuum" of services given the huge gap between the two. Look up the definition of continuum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well boo hoo for your child that he's only getting "normal" teachers in a public middle school. Do you expect that just because someone teaches an AAP class they're going to be great? The funny thing is, good teachers are important, but motivated, critically thinking students who love learning are important to the process as well. This isn't about getting spoon-fed from some great mind, or some special formula. It's about trying to expose extremely bright kids to more advanced material. My GT kid complained about some of his teachers too, but if he was interested in the area he did plenty of exploring and learning on his own.

Let me clarify - I do not support my child in his complaining about his one "normal" teacher. The teachers my kid has are all great - he has a whole schedule of the kinds of teachers that you usually only get one or two teachers a year. These great teachers are not just AAP teachers, they also teach on level classes, so on level kids also get these teachers. You do not have to be AAP to get the good teachers. I am thrilled with the teachers and school (base school), I just don't like the fact that the kids don't mix with the general population. We didn't go off to middle school and have a "normal" time, they are still segmented. It could just be a fluke of the schedule, but the same group of kids go to all their core classes together and 1/2 of them are in the same Hr. Alegebra class (reminder, Hr. Alegebra isn't an AAP class).

They have the same core classes together -- but don't they mix with other kids in things like PE, orchestra/band/chorus, art classes, language classes, etc.? My AAP middle schooler knows plenty of kids who aren't in AAP, through this kind of mixing. It is exactly how it was done in her ES AAP, with AAP core classes and everyone in Gen Ed and AAP mixed in all the specials, music, recess, field trips, whatever. If your child's ES was like that, why did you anticipate that MS would be different, PP? If your MS is not mixing up the kids in the non-core academics classes, that would seem odd, but I'd bet that your child does specials, PE or electives with a mixed group.

PP, is it possible that your son's MS AAP program is organized into "teams" as many middle schools are, both AAP and Gen Ed students? The teams are just a way to group students administratively and it means that sometimes kids on the same team are in a lot of the same classes together. It's done for easier scheduling, that's all. That's just a function of the team concept in MS in general, not an issue with AAP in MS in particular. It does mean some of the same kids are in the same classes together because they're on the same team that year. But your child has other opportunities to be with other kids, all the time, just not in core academics.

This may depend on which MS. Our DD's MS had several AAP center schools feed into it. So even though only AAP kids on her team were in her core classes, there were so many different kids from the various AAP centers that she rarely had more than a few from her ES. Then between the electives, language, and PE she was always mixed with kids from all academic areas. She was able to meet a ton of different kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's bogus because what level II or level III means varies by school and by teacher. It's bogus because level III in some places means kids get pulled out 1 hour per week to do "special projects" while level IV kids get full time advanced instruction. I'm not sure I would call that a "continuum" of services given the huge gap between the two. Look up the definition of continuum.

What you just described is fidelity of implementation. And I know about the continuum -- I have been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years.

Level II, Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. How it is implemented varies from school to school -- "fidelity of implementation" is the issue.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade3.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade4.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade5.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade6.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's bogus because what level II or level III means varies by school and by teacher. It's bogus because level III in some places means kids get pulled out 1 hour per week to do "special projects" while level IV kids get full time advanced instruction. I'm not sure I would call that a "continuum" of services given the huge gap between the two. Look up the definition of continuum.

+100
Honestly, I think FCPS uses these labels to appease pushy parents who insist that their kids get extra enrichment. Level II and III really means an hour of busy work once a week in our school. It's such a sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's bogus because what level II or level III means varies by school and by teacher. It's bogus because level III in some places means kids get pulled out 1 hour per week to do "special projects" while level IV kids get full time advanced instruction. I'm not sure I would call that a "continuum" of services given the huge gap between the two. Look up the definition of continuum.

What you just described is fidelity of implementation. And I know about the continuum -- I have been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years.

Level II, Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. How it is implemented varies from school to school -- "fidelity of implementation" is the issue.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade3.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade4.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade5.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade6.pdf

Thanks for stating that you've been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years. You clearly have the party line down about Level II , Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. That is the lip service that FCPS feeds parents so they can sit on their hands about fixing the huge disparity among the levels. You can show as much paperwork as you want, and call is fidelity of implementation as many time as you'd like, I call it utter BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's bogus because what level II or level III means varies by school and by teacher. It's bogus because level III in some places means kids get pulled out 1 hour per week to do "special projects" while level IV kids get full time advanced instruction. I'm not sure I would call that a "continuum" of services given the huge gap between the two. Look up the definition of continuum.

What you just described is fidelity of implementation. And I know about the continuum -- I have been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years.

Level II, Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. How it is implemented varies from school to school -- "fidelity of implementation" is the issue.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade3.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade4.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade5.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade6.pdf

Thanks for stating that you've been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years. You clearly have the party line down about Level II , Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. That is the lip service that FCPS feeds parents so they can sit on their hands about fixing the huge disparity among the levels. You can show as much paperwork as you want, and call is fidelity of implementation as many time as you'd like, I call it utter BS.

+1000
I love all the buzzwords FCPS puts out there about AAP - "fidelity of implementation, continuum of services, 21st century thinking skills, ongoing opportunities for reflection and self-assessment that develop an understanding of the characteristics, demands, and responsibilities of advanced intellectual development" It's really all just a bunch of BS, but the AAP parents eat it right up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's bogus because what level II or level III means varies by school and by teacher. It's bogus because level III in some places means kids get pulled out 1 hour per week to do "special projects" while level IV kids get full time advanced instruction. I'm not sure I would call that a "continuum" of services given the huge gap between the two. Look up the definition of continuum.

What you just described is fidelity of implementation. And I know about the continuum -- I have been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years.

Level II, Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. How it is implemented varies from school to school -- "fidelity of implementation" is the issue.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade3.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade4.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade5.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/famework/Grade6.pdf

Thanks for stating that you've been heavily involved in AAP for the past 10 years. You clearly have the party line down about Level II , Level III, and Level IV have access to the same curriculum and resources. That is the lip service that FCPS feeds parents so they can sit on their hands about fixing the huge disparity among the levels. You can show as much paperwork as you want, and call is fidelity of implementation as many time as you'd like, I call it utter BS.

I call it site - based management.

There are principals and others higher up that do not want advanced math at specific schools, never mind AAP.

FCPS central office has zero authority on telling a principal they must offer advanced math. The regional superintendents have to do that, and some will not.

[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.

My DD is at LJ AAP like my older DD was, they both declined Thoreau. I agree if the workload is too much then she needs to perhaps be in Gen ed because my DDs have what we consider to be a pretty light workload and no trouble maintaining straight As. That seems such an odd thing to say about LJ as there is plenty of socio-economic diversity there and if your DD feels unexposed to that then I can only fathom she must spend all her time hiding in a corner. I know my DDs feel plenty of exposure to that diversity, always in hallways, in electives, and even in AAP classes. I'm sure they would have had a lot less of that at Thoreau.