New Budget Recommendations -- eliminate AAP busing and centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly, then you woild only need one ES program county wide and the rest could be done in the schools. For schools, where there isn't a quorum for a class, the students could take math with the next grade up and then in 6th grade the special ed teacher could take the class as a pullout. that is how my DC's small FCPS did it and it worked fine.

So your solution is to have a center program (sole center school like TJ or imbedded in a typical school like the current center program?) that has a slightly higher cutoff (instead of the top 3% of scores in the nation, limit it to 99% plus a min. GRBS score) and then for all the rest of the kids allow them to take advanced math with the grade above (if they test high enough at the beginning of the year? How is their grouping determined? How does a school schedule this?) and ability group in the classroom for the rest of the core subjects based on some month pretest (how is this done?). Do I have that right? Basically eliminate LLIV except for centers, eliminate LLIII, and just keep LLII differentiation in the classroom.

If this is done, what does it accomplish in terms of budget? In terms of helping teachers to teach and students to learn? Would center schools still get bussing? Would the non-center kids have to be transferred somewhere else? For the kids at the base schools, how do you see the budget reduced for them? Would you see a removal of the AART teacher or do you still see them at base schools? Looks like additional testing is required yearly to put these non-center kids into above grade math classes and teacher resources wouldn't be allocated till after the beginning of the school year when the kids had been tested for math. Differentiation for other classes per your scenario is very vague.

Not pp, but this would help students that actually need a more challenging curriculum that goes beyond the ability of 98% of the kids in FFX Cty. It would be an actual, focused gifted program. Teachers should be able to differentiate in their classrooms with different reading and math groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem will always remain. No matter what the cut off is - the parents of the children that JUST missed the cut off will be upset. If AAP became that restrictive (hard requirement of 140 or over) then we'd have a group up in arms about being more inclusive and taking more factors (ie GBRS, parental input etc) into account to get a broader picture of the child's abilities/needs.....which is what we have now.

Sadly, because of these parents and the schools current system, they are really hurting the kids that are in this range and the ones that really need an actual gifted program.

You really think the students who scored 135-139 hold back the kids 140 and up? Nah.

No, I think the kids who scored 135-139 hold back my kid who is above 150.

[Anonymous]

This thread has gotten off topic like so many others. It was about the proposed FCPS budget and whether to cut bussing to centers. Instead it brought in the AAP haters and the AAP for the super gifted only crowd. We've already heard both of these arguments 1000 times. Please stop posting on every thread and save your arguments for the threads specifically on what AAP should look like. Your proposed fixes to either drop AAP centers or reduce the number of kids in AAP do not save a dime in the budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gotten off topic like so many others. It was about the proposed FCPS budget and whether to cut bussing to centers. Instead it brought in the AAP haters and the AAP for the super gifted only crowd. We've already heard both of these arguments 1000 times. Please stop posting on every thread and save your arguments for the threads specifically on what AAP should look like. Your proposed fixes to either drop AAP centers or reduce the number of kids in AAP do not save a dime in the budget.

Hear hear! And while we're on the topic of thread improvement, it's not necessary to quote a half page of blue text just to add your "+1000" or whatever. You can crop out all but the part to which you are responding. Yeah, I know that can be a pain on a phone.

[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.

Totally and completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem will always remain. No matter what the cut off is - the parents of the children that JUST missed the cut off will be upset. If AAP became that restrictive (hard requirement of 140 or over) then we'd have a group up in arms about being more inclusive and taking more factors (ie GBRS, parental input etc) into account to get a broader picture of the child's abilities/needs.....which is what we have now.

Yes, but there would be far fewer who would be even close to that cutoff - as it is now, there are tons of kids who are around the benchmark, but not quite at it. And frankly, I would have zero sympathy for those who were up in arms about a higher cutoff since these are the same people who are essentially telling the rest of us borderline parents to suck it. It would be interesting to see how they'd react to being shut out.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but there would be far fewer who would be even close to that cutoff - as it is now, there are tons of kids who are around the benchmark, but not quite at it. And frankly, I would have zero sympathy for those who were up in arms about a higher cutoff since these are the same people who are essentially telling the rest of us borderline parents to suck it. It would be interesting to see how they'd react to being shut out.

Sorry, but I doubt spite plays any part in FCPS decision making. This is why no one takes such suggestions seriously. They are obviously motivated by personal interests and animosity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but there would be far fewer who would be even close to that cutoff - as it is now, there are tons of kids who are around the benchmark, but not quite at it. And frankly, I would have zero sympathy for those who were up in arms about a higher cutoff since these are the same people who are essentially telling the rest of us borderline parents to suck it. It would be interesting to see how they'd react to being shut out.

Sorry, but I doubt spite plays any part in FCPS decision making. This is why no one takes such suggestions seriously. They are obviously motivated by personal interests and animosity.

If FCPS ever does raise the cutoff and your child doesn't get in, it'll be interesting to see how gracefully you take it. ITA with the PP.