FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

FCPS switched from GT to AAP in the hope of "equity."

Didn't work. It never does when they do these things. See TJ changes.

Boundary study won't work either.

If it is not broke, don't "fix" it.

Address the problems, don't cover them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I can't believe you are arguing this.

AAP is FCPS' gifted program as detailed in the "FCPS Local Plan for the Gifted 2022-2027" as required by the State of Virginia.

Here is the link to the PDF in Board Focs.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CKU3K4072A18/$file/Web%20Accessible%20Local%20Plan%20for%20the%20Gifted%202022-2027_f.pdf

The document mentions multiple times that AAP is FCPS' gifted program.

Regardless of the minutia of who and what you think constitutes a "gifted" student, and back to the original point of refuting the argument the original poster made that FCPS should removed ESL and 504/IEP kids from the mainstream classroom, eliminate AAP and replace the ESL/504/IEP kids with the former AAP kids, that cannot happen because it will violate federal law.

If FCPS even attempts to do what she wants, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Of the 3 groups of special ed students of AAP, 504/IEP and ESL (all 3 classified as Special Education by Virginia law) the only one of the three that can legally be moved into specialized classrooms are the gifted students (designated as AAP based on the Plan for the Gifted submitted to Virginia by FCPS)

DP. You said all this before and are just repeating yourself now.

You cannot seriously contend that FCPS can only satisfy its obligations under state law by continuing to operate AAP in its current form. It’s very clear other jurisdictions satisfy those obligations through programs that do not entail the creation of a bloated, formal two-track system that distorts school boundaries and enrollments.

You are not reading what I wrote.

I never said that in any of my posts.

If you read what I wrote, instead of just going to the "cancel AAP" screed, you would see that everything I am writing is 100% correct. My only points are that AAP falls under special ed as designated by FCPS Plan for the Gifted based on the Virginia gifted special education laws, just like 504/IEPs and ESL are classified as special ed, and of the 3 special ed groups, AAP is the only one that can legally be segregated into a special program. It is illegal, based on federal law to segregate 504/IEP students and ESL students, based on Least Restrictive Environment, but perfectly legal to segregate gifted students to fulfill Least Restrictive Environment for the gifted kids. (in this case AAP students based off FCPS designation of who qualified for gifted in their 2022-2027 Plan for the Gifted)

FCPS designated AAP as their gifted program, at least until 2027. Rezoning is happening in 2025. If you want to blow up AAP, you need to wait until after the first round of rezoning.

If you want to push to move the ESL kids out to a special school. Or the 504/IEP kids to self-contained classrooms and out of your kids mainstream class, you are out of luck.

What you want is illegal.

Those 2 groups are protected by special ed federal laws. Gifted Ed is protected by Virginia law, and FCPS Plan for the Gifted, at least until 2027. All 3 have LRE protections, which mean different things to these students on an individual level.

You cannot move ESL and 504/IEP kidsout of your kids class even if it makes sense. AAP kids are the only group of special ed kids who can legally be separated.

Should they be segregated? I am not arguing that and can see benefits and drawbacks to both scenarios. But I am not arguing "should" AAP be segregated. I am explaining "why" AAP is able to be segregated, when the other 2 special ed groups can not be legally segregated except under very specific, individual level LRE situations for the most severe cases.

If you want FCPS to change AAP classifications, focus on the 2028-33 document process and attack cemters the next rezoning cycle in 2029.

Give up on the segregation of ESL kids, unless you can lobby your federal reps to change the law.

Could you be a bigger bore? All people have said is that FCPS should have landed on the future of AAP - how LLIV services are delivered - before it undertook a comprehensive boundary review. In the vernacular, they are putting the cart before the horse.

It’s a shame that they no doubt put people like you on the BRAC. FCPS is so screwed.

You can't debate facts, so you go right to insults.

You might be surprised by what my views are on this.

If I were waving the magic restructuring wand over FCPS, this is what I would do:

1) Delay the rezoning until IB and AP are fixed.

2) Tie 8130 rezoning to the Census, with 10 year rezoning cycles instead of 5 years, the year after the census, using cerified census data, only looking at areas with notable population shifts of the under 18 demographic counts in the census.

3) Eliminate IB at all but 2 schools this year and replace IB with a full slate of AP classes starting Fall 2025. Leave IB at the 2 highest performing IB schools, making those schools the 2 IB magnets. Only allow AP/IB transfers for IB magnet placement or for students from those 2 schools to a neighboring AP school. Eliminating IB will immediately fix MV and Lewis' enrollment issues and will immediately improve their test scores.

4) Put an AAP program at every middle school. Eliminate the ability to go to a middle school outside of your pyramid zone. This will help with high school enrollment and test scores/rankings.

5) Keep 1 AAP center elementary school in every pyramid, but revert the evaluation criteria to pre-NNAT era (I think class of 2020 and earlier was pre NNAT, and class of 2025 was post NNAT. Class of 2025 was when we saw the huge bloat in AAP numbers.) Returning to pre- NNAT standards will drop the center population by at least 1/3.

6) Make the top cut off for elementary AAP to be 98% on one of these four test metrics: FCPS administered test based off national percentiles to maintain continuity for our transient student population, 98% on an independently administered IQ test, transfer student currently enrolled in a GT program from another school district, and the top 98% of scores at your local elementary class (sending the top 2% from all elementary schools will help build excellence in the poorer and low performing pyramid.

7) Eliminate split feeders.

8) Move the 3 most decrepit high schools to the top of the reno queue, taking advantage of current low enrollment at Lewis and prioritizing Annandale and McLean.

9) Remove the special interest groups from BRAC, except for the special ed groups (they have some serious zoning related transportation issues and LRE legal issues) and the military families representative (also some unique issues, including the Ft. Belvoir mandates) Rezoning should not be based on race or sexual orientation, so those groups should not have an outsized voice in the process over any other group of citizens.

10) Prioritize maintaining communities and limiting rezoning to only as a last resort, to provide continuity and stability for students and homeowners.

11) Require grandfathering of current high school students, with limited grandfathering of younger siblings who provide their own transportation.

12) Lobby congress to update and change education laws for non English speaking students, to update them to our post 2020 immigration situation, instead of the organized immigration the laws were written for.

13) Leave special ed alone, except to fix elementary school school assignments to adhere to LRE so our most severe special needs kids no longer have to endure 1 hour bus rides to school.

14) Stop doing things that violate law and get FCPS sued, such as your suggstion to segregate 504/IEP and ESL kids. Work within the law or lobby for changes.

[Anonymous]

Someone has a lot of time on their hands.

[Anonymous]

We are all snowed in. We all have time on our hands!

[Anonymous]

Get rid of AAP.

[Anonymous]

14) Stop doing things that violate law and get FCPS sued, such as your suggstion to segregate 504/IEP and ESL kids. Work within the law or lobby for changes.

I think the suggestion was to use the same model for GT as for special needs. You don't think we could easily "mainstream" GT kids? That is what most systems do.

And, once more, AAP is NOT GT--no matter what you or FCPS claim. For all our SB talks about "equity," this is not it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

14) Stop doing things that violate law and get FCPS sued, such as your suggstion to segregate 504/IEP and ESL kids. Work within the law or lobby for changes.

I think the suggestion was to use the same model for GT as for special needs. You don't think we could easily "mainstream" GT kids? That is what most systems do.

And, once more, AAP is NOT GT--no matter what you or FCPS claim. For all our SB talks about "equity," this is not it.

It doesn't matter what you or I consider gifted education to be.

It only matters what FCPS considers gifted education to be, approved by the state of Virginia.

FCPS considers AAP to be the district's model for gifted education, and Virginia approved the AAP model.

AAP is not going to be changed before rezoning. Since "equity" is the mantra for rezoning, the most likely change to AAP as part of rezoning might be adding AAP to every middle school.

It is incredibly unlikely that FCPS will do more than tinker with eliminating AAP centers because the Gifted Plan goes through 2027, and also because closing centers will result in MASSIVE rezoning of most if not all of the elementary schools, affecting tens of thousands of students, most of which are not AAP, due to secondary effects of sending thousands of kids back to their base elementary schools.

Be practical and push for changes that make sense. Closing AAP centers do not make sense, unless you want to blow up every elementary school boundary in the county

[Anonymous]

Closing AAP centers wouldn’t blow up every ES boundary. You’d have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I can think of multiple centers that could close with no impacts on boundaries other than possibly relieving overcrowding at the center.

[Anonymous]

AAP in middle needs to end. The elementary can go local. The writing is on the wall for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP in middle needs to end. The elementary can go local. The writing is on the wall for this.

Sure but can we return to gatekeeping honors then? Like back in the day when a counselor was required to sign off on GT middle school classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP in middle needs to end. The elementary can go local. The writing is on the wall for this.

FCPS should extend AAP to high school. Track those kids all the way to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I can't believe you are arguing this.

AAP is FCPS' gifted program as detailed in the "FCPS Local Plan for the Gifted 2022-2027" as required by the State of Virginia.

Here is the link to the PDF in Board Focs.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CKU3K4072A18/$file/Web%20Accessible%20Local%20Plan%20for%20the%20Gifted%202022-2027_f.pdf

The document mentions multiple times that AAP is FCPS' gifted program.

Regardless of the minutia of who and what you think constitutes a "gifted" student, and back to the original point of refuting the argument the original poster made that FCPS should removed ESL and 504/IEP kids from the mainstream classroom, eliminate AAP and replace the ESL/504/IEP kids with the former AAP kids, that cannot happen because it will violate federal law.

If FCPS even attempts to do what she wants, FCPS will get sued and lose.

Of the 3 groups of special ed students of AAP, 504/IEP and ESL (all 3 classified as Special Education by Virginia law) the only one of the three that can legally be moved into specialized classrooms are the gifted students (designated as AAP based on the Plan for the Gifted submitted to Virginia by FCPS)

DP. You said all this before and are just repeating yourself now.

You cannot seriously contend that FCPS can only satisfy its obligations under state law by continuing to operate AAP in its current form. It’s very clear other jurisdictions satisfy those obligations through programs that do not entail the creation of a bloated, formal two-track system that distorts school boundaries and enrollments.

+100
See LCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1 the parents who want to burn down the entire program because their kid can't even make it into an expanded version of an advanced learners program is really really lame.

Speaking of lame… if you had bothered to read the thread, you would see that no one is advocating getting rid of gifted education. Just CENTER SCHOOLS. If other states and counties can provide a small gifted program within each school, then so can we.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1 the parents who want to burn down the entire program because their kid can't even make it into an expanded version of an advanced learners program is really really lame.

Or, maybe they have a gifted kid and want only other gifted kids in the program.

Nah, the ones complaining are very vocal about their kids being made fun of for not getting in. It's bitterness.

DP. Not always. The AAP parents I know complain that the program is totally watered down to accommodate the non-gifted kids who are widely placed in it. Must be very frustrating for a highly gifted kid to have to wait for the slower kids in AAP to catch up/keep up. And those kids (non-gifted) - as we all know - make up the bulk of AAP kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP in middle needs to end. The elementary can go local. The writing is on the wall for this.

Sure but can we return to gatekeeping honors then? Like back in the day when a counselor was required to sign off on GT middle school classes?

I’m in the camp that kids need to be tested more frequently for AAP. And it should end in middle if they have honors.