FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Easy. Go back to GT center model.

Nothing in that law says that the program should be expanded to other kids.

Also, nothing says that the needs cannot be met in the GenEd classroom.

[Anonymous]

Why do teachers hate working so much??
They had 2 years off from March 13,2020 to 2022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the school board work session, Representative Dunne just said that he expects every high school pyramid to be impacted by the review, and the consultant concurred.

The changes will likely be much broader than the frequently discussed possibilities on DCUM.

Is it because the capacity vs enrollment among the pyramids is so uneven?

Is there a single high school pyramid without a split feeder or out of pyramid AAP feeder?

Yes.

There is no high school that doesn’t get kids from at least one elementary school that is a split feeder.

West Potomac

Riverside splits to West Potomac and Mount Vernon.

Doesn’t riverside have a AAP center?

[Anonymous]

Solution is easy and will benefit everyone:
1. Get rid of IB
2. Get rid of AAP
3. Provide minimum core set of AP courses at every high school
4. Provide enhanced language classes after school for non-English speaking students for 2 hours 3 days a week
5. Accept that some students will learn more and faster than others, focus on having each child reach their maximum potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Solution is easy and will benefit everyone:
1. Get rid of IB
2. Get rid of AAP
3. Provide minimum core set of AP courses at every high school
4. Provide enhanced language classes after school for non-English speaking students for 2 hours 3 days a week
5. Accept that some students will learn more and faster than others, focus on having each child reach their maximum potential.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution is easy and will benefit everyone:
1. Get rid of IB
2. Get rid of AAP
3. Provide minimum core set of AP courses at every high school
4. Provide enhanced language classes after school for non-English speaking students for 2 hours 3 days a week
5. Accept that some students will learn more and faster than others, focus on having each child reach their maximum potential.

+1

Reduce administrative hires and add instructional personnel who actually do face to face with students.

[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.

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.

Except that there would be flexible groupings so that advanced, grade-level, and remedial kids would all be able to receive the appropriate instruction. No one is suggesting just keeping all these levels together in each core class. Teachers would each take a different group. This has been covered already in this thread.

[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.

+1
If what we typically think of/label SPED kids are required to be mainstreamed, then AAP kids should be as well. As you say, AAP is not a "gifted program," so is not beholden to the requirements of gifted programs. That's why they need to bring back GT, for the very few kids who actually need a special learning environment.

[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. You're talking to different people. There are several posters on this thread who have advocated getting rid of AAP centers. And the PP is correct - AAP is NOT a gifted program. If FCPS keeps braying about "equity," then this is a huge, glaring example of INequity.

[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

DP. Once again, AAP is NOT a gifted program. Nowhere on the AAP page is the word "gifted" even used. They clearly state that AAP is for "advanced learners" - deliberately not using the "gifted" descriptor. I would actually prefer FCPS had a (very small) GT program, like the one they used to have, and then have advanced groupings open to ALL kids. Many/most Gen Ed kids are advanced in at least one subject - they should have the opportunity to excel as well.
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

[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

DP. Once again, AAP is NOT a gifted program. Nowhere on the AAP page is the word "gifted" even used. They clearly state that AAP is for "advanced learners" - deliberately not using the "gifted" descriptor. I would actually prefer FCPS had a (very small) GT program, like the one they used to have, and then have advanced groupings open to ALL kids. Many/most Gen Ed kids are advanced in at least one subject - they should have the opportunity to excel as well.
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/advanced-academic-programs

Nah. I like DC in the top 10-20% group rather than the other 98% that a small GT model would provide. The other 98% 20 years ago is much different than it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100

[Anonymous]

Loudoun County appears to do gifted education the right way - within each school. No centers. ALL students benefit.

"The FUSION program is school-based and integrated into the regular classroom. As a result, the gifted resource teacher and classroom teacher collaborate to raise the rigor for all students."

[Anonymous]

https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/4461/dtl/4323672/Website_Copy_LCPS_Gifted_Plan_24-29_1.25.24.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy. Go back to GT center model.

Nothing in that law says that the program should be expanded to other kids.

Also, nothing says that the needs cannot be met in the GenEd classroom.

Exactly.