New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system fails many kids.

I agree. FCPS (as well as other school systems) cannot effectively meet the needs of every child attending school 100% of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many kids could not handle the AAP program materials all the time if we have so many students in ESOL, special ed, and failing SOL tests. Do the people who post that all FCPS kids can handle AAP all live in Mclean? Yes the level 3 and level 2 kids can handle the AAP materials wherever they are strong. This is happening at many schools already either through pull outs, differentiation in general, compacted math, or LLIV push in. All of the Mclean schools teach advanced academics to many more students beyond just the AAP kids.

Students are not in separate silos of AAP, special Ed, ESOL and gen Ed. Some can be a mix of all four.

+100
Which is why it's mind-boggling that FCPS sees fit to divide students into two groups. Instead of all the different Levels (I, II, III, IV) B.S., which no one really understands or implements consistently, just offer the best, highest quality curriculum to all, as previously suggested. Those who need help would have help, but the vast majority of kids would be just fine. AAP isn't neurosurgery, for crying out loud.

FCPS does not divide kids into 2 groups only. There are many kids not ready to take instuction a year above their grade. What is wrong with wanting schools to teach them on level. Not everyone wants an accelerated curriculum.

AAP is not "instruction a year above grade". Only math is that accelerated - everything else is the same grade-level curriculum, but going a bit deeper into topics. With the exception of math (and plenty of LLIV kids aren't even in AAP math), the AAP curriculum is certainly doable by the vast majority of kids. Our center's principal has been very candid about this.

Our local parochial school teaches the systems of the body in 4th grade. In FCPS it's taught much later. That doesn't mean the parochial school is ahead of the public school. They just teach a subject a different year. Another science topic is taught earlier in FCPS and later at the parochial school. "Deeper" means "more advanced". Higher level thinking. As you move up in grades, school includes more higher level thinking activities. Not all children can handle "Deeper" and "more advanced" than the standard curriculum nor should they. They should be able to be taught and graded on grade level assignments and not feel like they're behind. The problem is that some schools aren't implementing a LLII and LLIII program for those kids who can't handle a full day of advanced instruction but can handle it at some level. They are only catering to their LLIV students. All students should receive advanced instruction if they can handle it, but it shouldn't be a requirement. You are a at a center school, so I'm going to guess that there aren't a lot of children behind grade level at your school, but many schools do have plenty of children behind grade level and it would do them a disservice to be given advanced work when they first need to master the on grade level work.

What about LLIV kids who aren't in LLIV math? Or conversely, what about those kids who aren't able to keep up with LLIV language arts? Why are they in LLIV to begin with if that program is full-time AAP for kids who are supposedly "advanced" in all four core subjects? Most kids are not advanced across the board, and most kids have one or two subjects they excel in. With flexible grouping, rather than an "either/or" approach, all kids could be met where they are. The current system fails many kids.

You are changing the subject. I was merely responding to your comment that in your opinion AAP wasn't a full year ahead. In my opinion it is or at least tries to be in all subjects.

I did not like the flexible grouping of K-2. I never knew why my child's teacher was and could never ask any questions since my child's teacher changed monthly as did all the students. If there were to be flexible grouping, I think it should be done on a yearly basis and a main contact given to the parents. Really what you're proposing already exists for level 2 and 3 kids. So I guess you're only annoyed about the couple of children who might struggle a bit in one subject in AAP one year? Why would you care as long as your child was receiving services at their level in the subject they excelled at?

[Anonymous]

I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

In DC's school, there is no room in the AAP classes for LLII and LLIII kids since those classes are already over 30 kids, but the LLII and LLIII kids get the same AAP curriculum materials given to them in the general ed classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

Virginia Department of Education regulations require multiple criteria for identification, and not just test scores:

The school division’s identification/placement committee, whose
membership is outlined in the Local Plan for the Education of the
Gifted, determines the eligibility of each referred student. “The
identification process shall include at least three measures from the
following categories:
• Assessment of appropriate student products, performance,
or portfolio;
• Record of observation of in-classroom behavior;
• Appropriate rating scales, checklists, or questionnaires;
• Individual interview;
• Individually administered or group-administered,
nationally norm-referenced aptitude and/or achievement
tests;
• Record of previous accomplishments (such as awards,
honors, grades, etc); or
• Additional valid and reliable measures of procedures.”
(8VAC20-40-40D.3)
For general intellectual aptitude identification, a nationally normreferenced
aptitude test shall be included.
For specific academic aptitude identification, a nationally normreferenced
aptitude or achievement test shall be included.
For visual and performing arts or career and technical aptitude,
a portfolio or other performance assessment measure shall be
included.
The identification process must ensure that no single criterion either
makes a student eligible or ineligible for the school division’s gifted
education program. For each identified student, the identification/
placement committee shall determine which service option offered
by the division most effectively meets the learning needs of the
student. Parents and legal guardians must be notified of the
committee’s decision within 90 instructional days of the receipt of
parental consent for assessment.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/ed_services_plans/understanding_the_regs.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

Virginia Department of Education regulations require multiple criteria for identification, and not just test scores:

The school division’s identification/placement committee, whose
membership is outlined in the Local Plan for the Education of the
Gifted, determines the eligibility of each referred student. “The
identification process shall include at least three measures from the
following categories:
• Assessment of appropriate student products, performance,
or portfolio;
• Record of observation of in-classroom behavior;
• Appropriate rating scales, checklists, or questionnaires;
• Individual interview;
• Individually administered or group-administered,
nationally norm-referenced aptitude and/or achievement
tests;
• Record of previous accomplishments (such as awards,
honors, grades, etc); or
• Additional valid and reliable measures of procedures.”
(8VAC20-40-40D.3)
For general intellectual aptitude identification, a nationally normreferenced
aptitude test shall be included.
For specific academic aptitude identification, a nationally normreferenced
aptitude or achievement test shall be included.
For visual and performing arts or career and technical aptitude,
a portfolio or other performance assessment measure shall be
included.
The identification process must ensure that no single criterion either
makes a student eligible or ineligible for the school division’s gifted
education program. For each identified student, the identification/
placement committee shall determine which service option offered
by the division most effectively meets the learning needs of the
student. Parents and legal guardians must be notified of the
committee’s decision within 90 instructional days of the receipt of
parental consent for assessment.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/ed_services_plans/understanding_the_regs.pdf

I know what is required. I was stating my opinion on what I believe the system should look like. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

First, the majority of AAP kids are in the top 1-2% of the nation. Second, how would that help anything? Do a scenario of a high level, medium level, and title 1 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

First, the majority of AAP kids are in the top 1-2% of the nation. Second, how would that help anything? Do a scenario of a high level, medium level, and title 1 school.

The majority of the AAP kids ARE NOT in the top 1-2%. It's closer to 10-15%. Then maybe the cut off should be the top 1% or even IQ over 140-145.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

First, the majority of AAP kids are in the top 1-2% of the nation. Second, how would that help anything? Do a scenario of a high level, medium level, and title 1 school.

The majority of the AAP kids ARE NOT in the top 1-2%. It's closer to 10-15%. Then maybe the cut off should be the top 1% or even IQ over 140-145.

While the numbers of AAP kids may be 10-15% of the FCPS population, their scores are in the top 1-2% nationally. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't make it untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the flexible grouping our LLIV did AAP in 3-6. The Level IV students were in AAP for all four core classes. The Level III students were in the AAP core classes for which they qualified and in Gen ED or SPecial Ed for the core subjects in which they qualified for those. It made for more mixing during the class changes and kids were not necessarily stuck with the same kids in all four classes regardless of where they stood.

This was for the entire year though correct? If so, it's not flexible grouping. Your principal hand picked some kids to attend AAP core classes because there was space and probably did so party to make class sizes more even. This is different than flexible grouping which is often grouping of children on a monthly basis.

Okay, whatever it is called, I liked it and it worked very well. Some students were moved during the year, but not many.

Great, but what's your point related to eliminating AAP busing and centers? Those students only go into those classes when there's room in the AAP class and then people get upset because those non level 4 students are hand picked at the discretion of the teacher and principal verses having a set metric like a testing score. It's not a system that can be used across the county without some better parameters for placing kids.

The parameters should be: the kids that test the top 1-2% in both NNAT and COGAT. The rest should stay at the base schools and be grouped by subject based on their abilities. End of story!

GBRS scoring by teachers should be eliminated.

First, the majority of AAP kids are in the top 1-2% of the nation. Second, how would that help anything? Do a scenario of a high level, medium level, and title 1 school.

The majority of the AAP kids ARE NOT in the top 1-2%. It's closer to 10-15%. Then maybe the cut off should be the top 1% or even IQ over 140-145.

County no. But the top 3% nationally is about 10% in FCPS.

I strongly disagree with getting rid of the GBRS. I would rather get rid of the testing -- which is largely ignored in the process.

If you limit it to 145, there would be 18 kids county wide (ok, we are smarter than average, so maybe we are looking at 100 kids). We are at 2 standard deviations above national norm, or 1.5 over norm, which means 1 in 7.

[Anonymous]

Why would you get rid of testing?

And stick with just the GBRS? wow.