AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

DP. It's just an example of a way to 'meet kids where they are at'. In the current system my kids teacher told me that based on fall iready score she wouldn't be teaching kid anything until February ( half the school year!!) and that kid should really be getting the faster curriculum that was happening in the class right next door, but also oh well there's nothing we can do about it.
The current system doesn't work for kids like my kid.

If the teacher told you that, she is lazy. I was a teacher. Any teacher is allowed to differentiate.

I suspect there is more to the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

DP. It's just an example of a way to 'meet kids where they are at'. In the current system my kids teacher told me that based on fall iready score she wouldn't be teaching kid anything until February ( half the school year!!) and that kid should really be getting the faster curriculum that was happening in the class right next door, but also oh well there's nothing we can do about it.
The current system doesn't work for kids like my kid.

If the teacher told you that, she is lazy. I was a teacher. Any teacher is allowed to differentiate.

I suspect there is more to the story.

Or doesn't believe in it... for example, my kid in second grade finished lexia mid year as the teacher didn't allow them to work into above grade level content. Other teachers at the school do allow this so I believe it was a teacher decision to do that. I never saw any evidence of differentiation in that classroom. (Not pp).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

Um, no one cared because most of the kids were also advanced in some subjects but not in all. Or “dumb,” as you so charmingly put it - so telling.

And of course that system helped us. Everyone had access to the appropriate level per subject.

No, they didn’t get what they needed in this system. In this system, my sister had to skip a grade. Because my sister had bad social experience skipping a grade, my parents decided not to skip me I got pull out G/T classes once a week and was bored. And my point in using dumb is that kids label kids MORE in this system. It was more obvious which group you were in for which subject.


Differentiation does work, but only when administration isn’t only concentrating on test scores for the cusp kids. That hasn’t gone away, so differentiation won’t work right now for the top -ish kids and that is why we have AAP.

The real problem is 2 fold
1- phonics programs and science of reading need to differentiate for learners (not just one size fits all)
AND
2- Administration needs to focus on teaching ALL kids. They need to allow teachers to meet with all groups and not leave the middle-high kids to themselves while giving all the teacher time to the low-middle kids.

It is like people have to rewrite everything right now so everyone can question everything. And so people are reverting back to our childhoods for what works. Get a clue and read some research rather than being like “I walked a mile uphill both ways to school and it was great!” Use something other than personal experience, especially personal experience from your childhood (when you aren’t objective about the world at all) to make informed decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every parent will insist their child should be in the advanced class, to get away from the ESOL kids and others slowing the class down if nothing else. That is what the tests are for. Prove it.

They barely use the tests for AAP admissions. The equity report showed that the teacher ratings were the primary factor for admissions. If high test scores guaranteed a spot in AAP, fewer parents would be complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every parent will insist their child should be in the advanced class, to get away from the ESOL kids and others slowing the class down if nothing else. That is what the tests are for. Prove it.

They barely use the tests for AAP admissions. The equity report showed that the teacher ratings were the primary factor for admissions. If high test scores guaranteed a spot in AAP, fewer parents would be complaining.

There is no metric that will make parents complain less. FCPS/DCUM parents will always complain - always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

DP. It's just an example of a way to 'meet kids where they are at'. In the current system my kids teacher told me that based on fall iready score she wouldn't be teaching kid anything until February ( half the school year!!) and that kid should really be getting the faster curriculum that was happening in the class right next door, but also oh well there's nothing we can do about it.
The current system doesn't work for kids like my kid.

If the teacher told you that, she is lazy. I was a teacher. Any teacher is allowed to differentiate.

I suspect there is more to the story.

Or doesn't believe in it... for example, my kid in second grade finished lexia mid year as the teacher didn't allow them to work into above grade level content. Other teachers at the school do allow this so I believe it was a teacher decision to do that. I never saw any evidence of differentiation in that classroom. (Not pp).

We'll, the rest of the class had to learn the curriculum for the grade Aug to Feb. Was she supposed to give him Feb materials in August in a classroom that included kids that weren't even ready for the August lessons? I understand why it was difficult within the classroom to provide the differentiation needed....but I think the school/ system could do better in these situations to have a place where kid doesn't have to sit around and wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

You keep saying that, which makes it clear you've missed the point entirely. We want to OPEN UP AAP to any student able to do the work (which is many - that work is just not that hard). You, otoh, want to keep it closed. See the difference?

You are suggesting dismantling it because your kid didn't get in. Opening it up fundamentally changes the program. The peer group at the centers is part of what makes it great.

Oh, please. My kids attend a center school. There is a HUGE overlap between the AAP and Gen Ed classes. I can see that you enjoy feeling like your kid is in a special, segregated program and you feel threatened that they may actually have to share an AAP class or two with kids who you deem "unworthy" of their peer group. One of these days, FCPS will realize how poorly implemented AAP has been, and hopefully return to a real GT program. As another poster said, AAP should simply be one of the groups kids can cycle into and out of, per subject. No big deal.

+ a million
This is common sense and so straightforward. It really does boggle the mind that FCPS sees fit to divide the kids in this way. You’re totally correct about the vast overlap.

This sounds like the Lake Wobegon attitude straight from the Langley pyramid where all the kids are above average and special offense may be taken to not having a kid in AAP. In many other parts of the county there is a huge disparity in student readiness and getting rid of AAP will just send families out of FCPS.

It’s really something that you can’t seem to grasp - making AAP available to any student interested and able (as honors and AP classes are) isn’t “getting rid of it.” In fact, quite the opposite - it’s expanding access to ALL kids. But understandable that you’d prefer for it to be exclusive.

It's absolutely getting rid of it. Unless you're actually ok.with your kid getting booted down when they can't hack it this is just nonsense. And here's the thing - everyone DCUM GE parent clamoring for flexible levels will raise hell when they learn their kid isn't in the top group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

DP. It's just an example of a way to 'meet kids where they are at'. In the current system my kids teacher told me that based on fall iready score she wouldn't be teaching kid anything until February ( half the school year!!) and that kid should really be getting the faster curriculum that was happening in the class right next door, but also oh well there's nothing we can do about it.
The current system doesn't work for kids like my kid.

If the teacher told you that, she is lazy. I was a teacher. Any teacher is allowed to differentiate.

I suspect there is more to the story.

Or doesn't believe in it... for example, my kid in second grade finished lexia mid year as the teacher didn't allow them to work into above grade level content. Other teachers at the school do allow this so I believe it was a teacher decision to do that. I never saw any evidence of differentiation in that classroom. (Not pp).

We'll, the rest of the class had to learn the curriculum for the grade Aug to Feb. Was she supposed to give him Feb materials in August in a classroom that included kids that weren't even ready for the August lessons? I understand why it was difficult within the classroom to provide the differentiation needed....but I think the school/ system could do better in these situations to have a place where kid doesn't have to sit around and wait.

My example was specifically with Lexia. I don't understand why it had to be cut off in March. Would it have been harmful to start the first level of 3rd grade content? That is pretty easy to let a kid self differentiate on there for even the most overwhelmed teachers, so I'm led to believe the teacher just didn't believe in differentiating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

DP. It's just an example of a way to 'meet kids where they are at'. In the current system my kids teacher told me that based on fall iready score she wouldn't be teaching kid anything until February ( half the school year!!) and that kid should really be getting the faster curriculum that was happening in the class right next door, but also oh well there's nothing we can do about it.
The current system doesn't work for kids like my kid.

If the teacher told you that, she is lazy. I was a teacher. Any teacher is allowed to differentiate.

I suspect there is more to the story.

Or doesn't believe in it... for example, my kid in second grade finished lexia mid year as the teacher didn't allow them to work into above grade level content. Other teachers at the school do allow this so I believe it was a teacher decision to do that. I never saw any evidence of differentiation in that classroom. (Not pp).

We'll, the rest of the class had to learn the curriculum for the grade Aug to Feb. Was she supposed to give him Feb materials in August in a classroom that included kids that weren't even ready for the August lessons? I understand why it was difficult within the classroom to provide the differentiation needed....but I think the school/ system could do better in these situations to have a place where kid doesn't have to sit around and wait.

My example was specifically with Lexia. I don't understand why it had to be cut off in March. Would it have been harmful to start the first level of 3rd grade content? That is pretty easy to let a kid self differentiate on there for even the most overwhelmed teachers, so I'm led to believe the teacher just didn't believe in differentiating.

Some principals don’t want kids to do next years grade level and ask teachers not to do it. It could be that the other teachers you saw allowing kids to keep going in Lexia were actually the lazy ones and didn’t want to give differentiation to the high kids, so they let Lexia do it.

That teacher clearly didn’t know how to handle you. “Of course, we will expand Larla’s reading repertoire and allow her to self select books at her level or slightly above to stretch her. She will be asked to keep a book log with plot, setting, characterization and theme questions about each book and when she read it” and your kid would HATE it. It is pretty much the same as your kid isn’t getting any direct instruction, but since this way gives your kid busy work and it is special for her you would eat that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

You keep saying that, which makes it clear you've missed the point entirely. We want to OPEN UP AAP to any student able to do the work (which is many - that work is just not that hard). You, otoh, want to keep it closed. See the difference?

You are suggesting dismantling it because your kid didn't get in. Opening it up fundamentally changes the program. The peer group at the centers is part of what makes it great.

Oh, please. My kids attend a center school. There is a HUGE overlap between the AAP and Gen Ed classes. I can see that you enjoy feeling like your kid is in a special, segregated program and you feel threatened that they may actually have to share an AAP class or two with kids who you deem "unworthy" of their peer group. One of these days, FCPS will realize how poorly implemented AAP has been, and hopefully return to a real GT program. As another poster said, AAP should simply be one of the groups kids can cycle into and out of, per subject. No big deal.

+ a million
This is common sense and so straightforward. It really does boggle the mind that FCPS sees fit to divide the kids in this way. You’re totally correct about the vast overlap.

This sounds like the Lake Wobegon attitude straight from the Langley pyramid where all the kids are above average and special offense may be taken to not having a kid in AAP. In many other parts of the county there is a huge disparity in student readiness and getting rid of AAP will just send families out of FCPS.

It’s really something that you can’t seem to grasp - making AAP available to any student interested and able (as honors and AP classes are) isn’t “getting rid of it.” In fact, quite the opposite - it’s expanding access to ALL kids. But understandable that you’d prefer for it to be exclusive.

It's absolutely getting rid of it. Unless you're actually ok.with your kid getting booted down when they can't hack it this is just nonsense. And here's the thing - everyone DCUM GE parent clamoring for flexible levels will raise hell when they learn their kid isn't in the top group.

Elementary school is about learning fundamentals, so 100%, put my kid in the level my kid needs so that kid has no gaps in fundamentals needed for all other learning. But also don't make kid sit around for half the year waiting to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids." :lol:

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

Never said kid is 10. Elementary school around here goes through 6th grade/ age 12, and aap centers continue through 8th/ age 14. It comes out...

There is no AAP age in which you should be taking their word for being smarter than someone else. You, as an adult, should have more common sense from life experience than this. But it's starting to become more clear where the issue is...

Why? Way back when I was a student we always seemed to know which group everyone was in even if it wasn't explicitly said, so I totally believe that kids these days can tell too
And the only reason they care is because they see kids in aap who are struggling to keep up, and they see kids in Gen Ed sitting around without enough work to do, and it just seems like there should be an easy fix for this, but ... there's nothing they can do.

Ah yes because tweens and teens are always correct in what they "know."

When you were in school you didn't know where you stood against your peers?

When I was in school the “smart”
Kids were together every year in the smart kids group - home room 1. Tier 2 in homeroom 2, then the average kids were in homeroom 3 and the slow kids were in homeroom 4.

Every year. It was very VERY obvious who the teacher felt were smart vs regular vs slow.

It wasn’t better.

Same here. We were in "sections" literally labeled A, B, C, D and E. We stayed together all day, every class. No flexible groups. Different county but it worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

DP. It's just an example of a way to 'meet kids where they are at'. In the current system my kids teacher told me that based on fall iready score she wouldn't be teaching kid anything until February ( half the school year!!) and that kid should really be getting the faster curriculum that was happening in the class right next door, but also oh well there's nothing we can do about it.
The current system doesn't work for kids like my kid.

If the teacher told you that, she is lazy. I was a teacher. Any teacher is allowed to differentiate.

I suspect there is more to the story.

Or doesn't believe in it... for example, my kid in second grade finished lexia mid year as the teacher didn't allow them to work into above grade level content. Other teachers at the school do allow this so I believe it was a teacher decision to do that. I never saw any evidence of differentiation in that classroom. (Not pp).

We'll, the rest of the class had to learn the curriculum for the grade Aug to Feb. Was she supposed to give him Feb materials in August in a classroom that included kids that weren't even ready for the August lessons? I understand why it was difficult within the classroom to provide the differentiation needed....but I think the school/ system could do better in these situations to have a place where kid doesn't have to sit around and wait.

My example was specifically with Lexia. I don't understand why it had to be cut off in March. Would it have been harmful to start the first level of 3rd grade content? That is pretty easy to let a kid self differentiate on there for even the most overwhelmed teachers, so I'm led to believe the teacher just didn't believe in differentiating.

Some principals don’t want kids to do next years grade level and ask teachers not to do it. It could be that the other teachers you saw allowing kids to keep going in Lexia were actually the lazy ones and didn’t want to give differentiation to the high kids, so they let Lexia do it.

That teacher clearly didn’t know how to handle you. “Of course, we will expand Larla’s reading repertoire and allow her to self select books at her level or slightly above to stretch her. She will be asked to keep a book log with plot, setting, characterization and theme questions about each book and when she read it” and your kid would HATE it. It is pretty much the same as your kid isn’t getting any direct instruction, but since this way gives your kid busy work and it is special for her you would eat that up.

Curious. What do you consider "direct instruction?" One on one with the teacher discussing what she read?

Do you know that teachers can sit down and evaluate what the child needs to progress and give assignments without lecturing?
I haven't taught in a while, but I took small groups most of the time, but if there were a child who was really accelerated, I would plan assignments to challenge and instruct. That did not necessarily mean that I would sit down and lecture the child every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

You keep saying that, which makes it clear you've missed the point entirely. We want to OPEN UP AAP to any student able to do the work (which is many - that work is just not that hard). You, otoh, want to keep it closed. See the difference?

You are suggesting dismantling it because your kid didn't get in. Opening it up fundamentally changes the program. The peer group at the centers is part of what makes it great.

Oh, please. My kids attend a center school. There is a HUGE overlap between the AAP and Gen Ed classes. I can see that you enjoy feeling like your kid is in a special, segregated program and you feel threatened that they may actually have to share an AAP class or two with kids who you deem "unworthy" of their peer group. One of these days, FCPS will realize how poorly implemented AAP has been, and hopefully return to a real GT program. As another poster said, AAP should simply be one of the groups kids can cycle into and out of, per subject. No big deal.

I have shared this before. Parent of 1 kid in AAP and 1 not, same grade. In our experience, there is some but not HUGE overlap. Yes, the gen ed class might do two or three weeks of Caesar's English, the AAP class did it for two quarters. The gen ed class researched and recorded presentations for the "living history museum," and AAP dress up and give live presentations. So while there are some shared experiences, the AAP class goes significantly deeper and faster than the gen ed class. This is at a center school.

Parents who boast that "It's the same! My kid can do AAP!" are, in my opinion, uniformed and suffer from a bad case of wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

Wildly pathetic. If it's true that "all the non AAP kids are in the HS honors classes anyway" then why are they fighting like hell to get their kids in? Jealously is so unbecoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just have a GT school where the top 1 or 2 percent go K-12. Let the AAP curriculum be relabeled as GenEd and have a couple of other K-12 schools for those who don’t care about school and everyone else attends the closet elementary, middle and high schools.

Problem solved.

Sure, more need for bussing is the answer. Can you imagine the Gen Ed parents crying over that one?

DP. What "more need for bussing"? The PP proposes sending all kids back to their base school except for the very, very top percentage. That would be far less busing than what's going on now, with kids who *already* have AAP at their base schools being bused to various centers. Make it one center for far fewer kids.

One center in all of Fairfax County? Do you even live here? There would need to be one per pyramid (at least) and buses would move far fewer kids. It’s no different than what exists other than the size of the cohort.

I don't agree with the PP's second suggestion about having other schools for "those who don't care about school." I think that was a facetious comment, though not sure.