Are all AAP centers (including LLIVs) created equal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

I think you are forgetting that bright kids can also not speak much English, cant read anywhere near grade level, have severe behavioral, attention issues and learning challenges. AAP does not exclude for those issues. If you want that, go private.

Exactly. The AAP classes at our center are just as much a "hot mess" of kids with behavioral issues, ESOL, and learning challenges as any other class. In fact, the AAP classes are the ones that consistently have kids getting in trouble and being lectured out in the hall by either the teacher or the principal.

It's such a myth to say that AAP kids are somehow better behaved than Gen Ed kids. They most definitely are not.

Do yo have a child in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2:51 Your post is exceptionally misguided and very insulting to kids in general ed.

And on a side note, you obviously have no clue what AAP classes are like. It is not some well behaved, perfect student utopia. There are plenty of kids with behavior problems or special needs in AAP. Lots of 2E kids. If you think AAP segregates your kid from that faction of student, you are dead wrong. You are searching for the wrong thing in the wrong program.

+1
I was talking to someone whose child got into AAP. This mom was complaining about the other kids who also got in, because she somehow thought AAP kids would all be so "well-behaved". Shocker!

And you are you also 20:54?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are missing the point I was trying to make in favor of AAP centers vs gen ed for a bright child. Of course there are kids in AAP centers with issues. Our kids have been in various AAP centers (as we moved around the county) for quite a few years. We've seen it all. There are now a few too many kids who were prepped and who struggle in AAP centers, who would be better served staying in a good gen. ed setting, with flexible ability tracking in place.

However, we are "poors," and have had our kids in several base schools with the highest FARMS and non-English speaking rates in the area. Our kids weren't taught much of anything new in school until they left for AAP centers. The difference in the amount of attention and challenge the kids got at their various AAP centers has been much higher than the base schools had been able to offer. If you go from one higher SES school to its AAP center, you're not going to see how big a difference it makes for less privileged children to get to go to AAP centers.

i think this is completely true. I also think this is why there probably should be centers that pull primarily from low SES schools. That's where you'll find the kids missing a critical mass of intellectual peers to challenge them. Not in McLean or Vienna, where AAP has basically become a very disruptive form of getting bragging rights.

[Anonymous]

I would agree that McLean and Vienna and other comparable districts could get by with local Level IV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would agree that McLean and Vienna and other comparable districts could get by with local Level IV.

And fcps won't consider this....why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree that McLean and Vienna and other comparable districts could get by with local Level IV.

And fcps won't consider this....why?

Because those parent are the most vocal, will organize their protest, and will vote. Think about what would have happened if a McLean school were as overcrowded as Bailey's Elementary used to be. There is no way the overcrowding would have lasted as long as it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree that McLean and Vienna and other comparable districts could get by with local Level IV.

And fcps won't consider this....why?

Because those parent are the most vocal, will organize their protest, and will vote. Think about what would have happened if a McLean school were as overcrowded as Bailey's Elementary used to be. There is no way the overcrowding would have lasted as long as it did.

this

[Anonymous]

Which just shows how effed up our system is - screw those poor people, who cares if they are overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which just shows how effed up our system is - screw those poor people, who cares if they are overcrowded.

This, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are missing the point I was trying to make in favor of AAP centers vs gen ed for a bright child. Of course there are kids in AAP centers with issues. Our kids have been in various AAP centers (as we moved around the county) for quite a few years. We've seen it all. There are now a few too many kids who were prepped and who struggle in AAP centers, who would be better served staying in a good gen. ed setting, with flexible ability tracking in place.

However, we are "poors," and have had our kids in several base schools with the highest FARMS and non-English speaking rates in the area. Our kids weren't taught much of anything new in school until they left for AAP centers. The difference in the amount of attention and challenge the kids got at their various AAP centers has been much higher than the base schools had been able to offer. If you go from one higher SES school to its AAP center, you're not going to see how big a difference it makes for less privileged children to get to go to AAP centers.

i think this is completely true. I also think this is why there probably should be centers that pull primarily from low SES schools. That's where you'll find the kids missing a critical mass of intellectual peers to challenge them. Not in McLean or Vienna, where AAP has basically become a very disruptive form of getting bragging rights.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

I think you are forgetting that bright kids can also not speak much English, cant read anywhere near grade level, have severe behavioral, attention issues and learning challenges. AAP does not exclude for those issues. If you want that, go private.

Exactly. The AAP classes at our center are just as much a "hot mess" of kids with behavioral issues, ESOL, and learning challenges as any other class. In fact, the AAP classes are the ones that consistently have kids getting in trouble and being lectured out in the hall by either the teacher or the principal.

It's such a myth to say that AAP kids are somehow better behaved than Gen Ed kids. They most definitely are not.

Who thinks AAP kids are somehow better behaved than Gen Ed kids? There is no correlation between intellectual ability and good behavior. If people think that, they will be in for a rude awakening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree that McLean and Vienna and other comparable districts could get by with local Level IV.

And fcps won't consider this....why?

Actually, I think they're moving in that direction, particularly in McLean. A number of the school board members believe kids should be at their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

I hope so. Will make things easier if a couple members actually are on the side of sane solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope so. Will make things easier if a couple members actually are on the side of sane solutions.

+1
I'd like to know the names of these board members so I can vote for them in the future.

[Anonymous]

The correct answer to the OPs question is NO. Having moved within the county twice, the AAP centers are definitely not created equal.