FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

You balance it by removing IB so the families that purchased homes zoned for Lewis fill those "wealthy l" spots, instead of rezoning kids whose families paid an arm and leg to attend a different school.

You start with the people who chose Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

This doesn't work either. It sort of works at the lower elementary level and FCPS pretends it works in middle school because no one is allowed to be retained and everyone is encouraged to try an Honors level course even if they can't handle it. The truth comes out by 9th grade. A 14 year old who can't add two digit numbers and who is reading at a K or 1st grade level shouldn't be mainstreamed. High schools straight up track students by ability and it's more beneficial for everyone.

DP. This is true to, so it seems the only fair solution is this: if advanced learners are to be pulled out of mainstream classes for separate instruction, then remedial/SPED/ELL should *also* be pulled out into separate classrooms. As the PP said, it's not ok to leave the kids with deep learning issues in with the GenEd kids. GenEd kids deserve just as much targeted learning as AAP kids are getting, without the distractions of kids who need aides and intervention.

It is illegal to pull ESL and special ed kids out of their classes and put them in a self contained class. What you want violates federal law.

Learn education laws and lobby Connolly for changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

Or maybe they will shift some boundaries and send kids to stone or Herndon?

No. That would not be necessary.

Plenty of AAP kids would remain at Carson: I'm not positive, but I think: Coates; McNair; Floris; Fox Mill; Crossfield; and, Navy? I think the only ones that would go back to Franklin would be Oak Hill and Lees Corner. That would not overcrowd Franklin. The center at Oak Hill said it had 180 kids last year (according to the profile.) That would put, maybe 90? back to Franklin.
I'm not sure where Navy feeds. It may be Franklin rather than Carson, so it could mean more kids at Franklin.

273 students transferred from Franklin to Carson this year.

The above posts are a prime example of just how convoluted the whole AAP center nonsense is. No one even knows how many students are assigned to the BASE schools. AAP centers need to end, and everyone needs to return to their base school. Only then should new boundaries be redrawn, based on those numbers.

You don't need to physically move kids to count them. FCPS knows where every student lives and can count them for each base school just fine.

Your hatred for AAP is overtaking your common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

This doesn't work either. It sort of works at the lower elementary level and FCPS pretends it works in middle school because no one is allowed to be retained and everyone is encouraged to try an Honors level course even if they can't handle it. The truth comes out by 9th grade. A 14 year old who can't add two digit numbers and who is reading at a K or 1st grade level shouldn't be mainstreamed. High schools straight up track students by ability and it's more beneficial for everyone.

DP. This is true to, so it seems the only fair solution is this: if advanced learners are to be pulled out of mainstream classes for separate instruction, then remedial/SPED/ELL should *also* be pulled out into separate classrooms. As the PP said, it's not ok to leave the kids with deep learning issues in with the GenEd kids. GenEd kids deserve just as much targeted learning as AAP kids are getting, without the distractions of kids who need aides and intervention.

Agree. But I don’t see why the solution to this is to ruin AAP process for the kids it’s working well for rather than fixing the gen ed experience. Simply shoving the AAP kids back into gen ed will not magically fix it. It will just be like 2’s grade again where the brighter kids are mostly left to their own devices a lot of the time.

[Anonymous]

Is there an estimated/approximate date given when they plan to release the rough draft of the new boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there an estimated/approximate date given when they plan to release the rough draft of the new boundaries?

April/May

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

You balance it by removing IB so the families that purchased homes zoned for Lewis fill those "wealthy l" spots, instead of rezoning kids whose families paid an arm and leg to attend a different school.

You start with the people who chose Lewis.

If imbalances in capacity exist, and the school board is hell bent on addressing them, this is clearly the right first step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

DP. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your continued assertion that G&T is just a form of special ed is a laughable assertion. Sure, you can find examples of kids acting out in G&T, but it’s frankly absurd to equate the two. I suspect that you’re just intentionally trying to provoke others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

DP. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your continued assertion that G&T is just a form of special ed is a laughable assertion. Sure, you can find examples of kids acting out in G&T, but it’s frankly absurd to equate the two. I suspect that you’re just intentionally trying to provoke others.

You don't know Virginia education law.

It has nothing to do what my opinion is.

By Virginia law, 8 VAC 20-40-60A , [u]giftededucation is classified under special education.[i]

It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion is, it is state law.

Gifted education is the only special ed that can be broadly fulfilled by separate, segregated classes.

Virginia schools cannot, by federal law, pull ESL or IEP/504 kids from the mainstream classrooms. It violates least restrictive environment. If they try to, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Gifted education can be segregated, because the AAP classes are the least restrictive environment.

FCPS would be better served by making sure each pyramid has an independent AAP program, before rezoning or eliminating AAP.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/gifted-education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

DP. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your continued assertion that G&T is just a form of special ed is a laughable assertion. Sure, you can find examples of kids acting out in G&T, but it’s frankly absurd to equate the two. I suspect that you’re just intentionally trying to provoke others.

You don't know Virginia education law.

It has nothing to do what my opinion is.

By Virginia law, 8 VAC 20-40-60A , [u]giftededucation is classified under special education.[i]

It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion is, it is state law.

Gifted education is the only special ed that can be broadly fulfilled by separate, segregated classes.

Virginia schools cannot, by federal law, pull ESL or IEP/504 kids from the mainstream classrooms. It violates least restrictive environment. If they try to, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Gifted education can be segregated, because the AAP classes are the least restrictive environment.

FCPS would be better served by making sure each pyramid has an independent AAP program, before rezoning or eliminating AAP.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/gifted-education

Once more: GT and AAP are NOT the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

DP. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your continued assertion that G&T is just a form of special ed is a laughable assertion. Sure, you can find examples of kids acting out in G&T, but it’s frankly absurd to equate the two. I suspect that you’re just intentionally trying to provoke others.

You don't know Virginia education law.

It has nothing to do what my opinion is.

By Virginia law, 8 VAC 20-40-60A , [u]giftededucation is classified under special education.[i]

It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion is, it is state law.

Gifted education is the only special ed that can be broadly fulfilled by separate, segregated classes.

Virginia schools cannot, by federal law, pull ESL or IEP/504 kids from the mainstream classrooms. It violates least restrictive environment. If they try to, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Gifted education can be segregated, because the AAP classes are the least restrictive environment.

FCPS would be better served by making sure each pyramid has an independent AAP program, before rezoning or eliminating AAP.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/gifted-education

Most pedantic post I’ve ever seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The original GT model was not a "tiny GT program in each school." It was a center-based model, but far fewer kids participated. Springfield Estates was one of the first, if not the first, schools in FCPS where GT kids were sent.

These kids were truly gifted. AAP is not the same. The idea was kind of like the old TJ model. The kids learned quickly and moved much faster. There may have been speech therapy, but there were no other special needs.

Though, I have never understood how it was okay to pull out gifted kids into a "special class," but we had to mainstream the other end of the spectrum with our GenEd kids.

Get rid of centers. Smart kids will still be smart. If we can "mainstream" struggling students, we can certainly mainstream high achievers.

You are completely wrong

The highest IQ kids have disproportionately high behavior related special needs such as ADHD, Aspergers, and general behavior problems.

The highest IQ kids tend to have many struggles in school and a higher amount of failure to launch than the general population and your average smart "good student"

That is why gifted programs exist.

Not for the well behaved bright kid that turns everything in and makes teachers happy. They exist for the boy with the 150 IQ that won't quit arguing with classmates and interrupting the teacher, the girl with the 140 IQ who keeps crying because she can't do her work unless it is perfect, and the kid with a photographic memory that doesn't turn in their homework and spends class sneaking books and math games because they know the answers before being taught.

A class full of "truly gifted" kids is going to have way more behavior problems and special needs than a regular classroom.

Once more: AAP is NOT a "gifted program." And, if there are so many kids with special needs, then shouldn't they be mainstreamed? It makes no sense.

Gifted is a different kind of special ed.

You are being irrational.

The hurt and fixation over your kid not qualifying for AAP wanes around 5th grade, and disappears by middle/high school

You don't rezone over hurt feelings.

DP. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but your continued assertion that G&T is just a form of special ed is a laughable assertion. Sure, you can find examples of kids acting out in G&T, but it’s frankly absurd to equate the two. I suspect that you’re just intentionally trying to provoke others.

You don't know Virginia education law.

It has nothing to do what my opinion is.

By Virginia law, 8 VAC 20-40-60A , [u]giftededucation is classified under special education.[i]

It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion is, it is state law.

Gifted education is the only special ed that can be broadly fulfilled by separate, segregated classes.

Virginia schools cannot, by federal law, pull ESL or IEP/504 kids from the mainstream classrooms. It violates least restrictive environment. If they try to, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Gifted education can be segregated, because the AAP classes are the least restrictive environment.

FCPS would be better served by making sure each pyramid has an independent AAP program, before rezoning or eliminating AAP.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/gifted-education

Most pedantic post I’ve ever seen.

For someone lecturing about state law relating to gifted education, PP isn't very nimble.

They cite state requirements that indicate that local schools need to meet the needs of gifted students through 12th grade, and quickly imply this calls for not only the retention, but expansion, of the existing AAP programs in FCPS.

This ignores the fact that there's no massive stand-alone "AAP" program either in HS in FCPS or in ES/MS in other local jurisdictions.

Lecturing us on what FCPS can do is not the same as figuring out what FCPS should do with a bloated AAP program before it embarks on county-wide redistricting. The folks in charge of FCPS today are too committed to a disguised political agenda (equity redistricting passed off as an exercise in efficiency) and too big a bunch of cowards to sort that out.