What is so special about AAP?

[Anonymous]

I am just looking for simple clarification.
No BS or political answers or why FCPS is spending on this .... plain simple bullet points on why AAP is better then the regular curriculum. What are the advantages in the long run?

[Anonymous]

In my mind- and I'm unsure what we'll do if DC is "accepted" is that there is a difference when you have 25-30 kids that can handle accelerated material- and the other option is to have them in a class of 25-30 kids that are all over the map. And I think it is too hard for teachers to differentiate in all subjects 3 ways.

If DC doesn't do AAP the other alternative is a 1 or 2x 30 minute pullout with the AART.

I don't like the current model of moving kids around- but I am concerned about DC spending another year without having been challenged- gone without reading groups, etc.

All the schools say they differentiate, but I haven't noticed much difference, especially in math or science.

[Anonymous]

Who are you? The boss?

[Anonymous]

The curriculum is not "better"--it is appropriate for the kids who are at that particular learning level.

A curriculum designed for English Language Learners is not "better" or "worse" than the standard curriculum. It is the appropriate curriculum for the child with those particular learning requirements.

If testing results indicate that the student would benefit from AAP, they will benefit from it. If testing results don't indicate that, they will be served by the standard curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just looking for simple clarification.
No BS or political answers or why FCPS is spending on this .... plain simple bullet points on why AAP is better then the regular curriculum. What are the advantages in the long run?

There is no advantages. End of the story.

[Anonymous]

The teachers and school system think your kid is smarter. Good things happen. And the kid grows up believing they are smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The teachers and school system think your kid is smarter. Good things happen. And the kid grows up believing they are smarter.

That would be a BS answer - feeling clever though, aren't you?

[Anonymous]

People,stop replying to the OP. This is the same troll who constantly rants about AAP program in another thread. I guess she has some mental problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The curriculum is not "better"--it is appropriate for the kids who are at that particular learning level.

A curriculum designed for English Language Learners is not "better" or "worse" than the standard curriculum. It is the appropriate curriculum for the child with those particular learning requirements.

If testing results indicate that the student would benefit from AAP, they will benefit from it. If testing results don't indicate that, they will be served by the standard curriculum.

This is fair and pretty accurate statement. There is accelerated math as well, supporting Level III services (Gen Ed students attending AAP math lessons). The testing results and GBRS are used for identification/selection - controversial as seen in past forum threads.

[Anonymous]

It's better because it utilizes curricula that encourages critical thinking and problem solving skills.

It uses more 'real life' projects and examples for students to more fully engage in the problem solving challenge.

The English/Vocab curriculum encourages greater understanding of the English language by utilizing methods to understanding via stem words.

This also greatly increases the child's ability for later standardized tests such as the SATs.

The teachers in AAP have more training and are skilled at making learning easily accessible for different types of learners.

They learn techniques and strategies to help a child think more deeply and use these strategies in classroom lessons.

Instead of simply instructing, Socratic seminars are more common to get kids talking, debating and learning.



In a nutshell, AAP is better because it is an empirically greater method of learning and teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People,stop replying to the OP. This is the same troll who constantly rants about AAP program in another thread. I guess she has some mental problems.

OP here:

First of all I am a guy and was just searching about AAP because my 1st grader got a letter in his folder last week that he will be taking NAT this week.

Bumped into this forum and noticed that about half of the posts are complete nonsense.

It's an honest question ... what so special about AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's better because it utilizes curricula that encourages critical thinking and problem solving skills.

It uses more 'real life' projects and examples for students to more fully engage in the problem solving challenge.

The English/Vocab curriculum encourages greater understanding of the English language by utilizing methods to understanding via stem words.

This also greatly increases the child's ability for later standardized tests such as the SATs.

The teachers in AAP have more training and are skilled at making learning easily accessible for different types of learners.

They learn techniques and strategies to help a child think more deeply and use these strategies in classroom lessons.

Instead of simply instructing, Socratic seminars are more common to get kids talking, debating and learning.



In a nutshell, AAP is better because it is an empirically greater method of learning and teaching.

Thanks a lot for the reply. Does it mean that the kids in the regular curricula do not get exposed to these things at school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just looking for simple clarification.
No BS or political answers or why FCPS is spending on this .... plain simple bullet points on why AAP is better then the regular curriculum. What are the advantages in the long run?

It depends on where you are in the county. In some schools the gen-ed classrooms are using the AAP curriculum and they have wide and deep numbers of children who are from Lake Wobegon. SO the difference is small. In other schools, advanced/accelerated math is just not offered, so the center AP program offers a high level math option (one-three years difference by the time the student enters 7th grade) and faster paces and more in depth curriculum in the other three core subjects. Then, there are more schools that are between the two extremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better because it utilizes curricula that encourages critical thinking and problem solving skills.

It uses more 'real life' projects and examples for students to more fully engage in the problem solving challenge.

The English/Vocab curriculum encourages greater understanding of the English language by utilizing methods to understanding via stem words.

This also greatly increases the child's ability for later standardized tests such as the SATs.

The teachers in AAP have more training and are skilled at making learning easily accessible for different types of learners.

They learn techniques and strategies to help a child think more deeply and use these strategies in classroom lessons.

Instead of simply instructing, Socratic seminars are more common to get kids talking, debating and learning.



In a nutshell, AAP is better because it is an empirically greater method of learning and teaching.

Thanks a lot for the reply. Does it mean that the kids in the regular curricula do not get exposed to these things at school?

It depends on the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's better because it utilizes curricula that encourages critical thinking and problem solving skills.

It uses more 'real life' projects and examples for students to more fully engage in the problem solving challenge.

The English/Vocab curriculum encourages greater understanding of the English language by utilizing methods to understanding via stem words.

This also greatly increases the child's ability for later standardized tests such as the SATs.

The teachers in AAP have more training and are skilled at making learning easily accessible for different types of learners.

They learn techniques and strategies to help a child think more deeply and use these strategies in classroom lessons.

Instead of simply instructing, Socratic seminars are more common to get kids talking, debating and learning.



In a nutshell, AAP is better because it is an empirically greater method of learning and teaching.

Thanks a lot for the reply. Does it mean that the kids in the regular curricula do not get exposed to these things at school?

For the most part no. But there are some schools that use the Level IV curriculum with all the kids so in those schools the kids do get that in the curricula.