Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My kids scored pass advanced on all of their SOLs. It's not a huge hurdle. At the very least, if both the SOL score and teacher indicate that a child would be better served in gen ed, the child should be removed from AAP.
My kid's best friend in AAP is brilliant in math He can explain math concepts and solve spatial problems at a very high level--he intuitively seems to use calculus etc. He's regularly solves competition style math problems. But ask him to do basic 3-4th grade computation and his work is riddled with errors--he just flubs up a lot. Not this thing. If he uses a calculator he can do higher level math, but he would likely not pass the elementary math SOL. Kids at the higher end can be really quirky and uneven in their performance. They still need advanced educational supports. SO definitely there needs to be multiple measures besides the SoL
Let's un-derail the conversation. In the case of your kid's friend, the teacher would likely recognize the kid's brilliance and advocate to keep him in AAP. This is different from kids who are scoring poorly on SOLs AND the teacher thinks the kid is struggling. Many kids get accepted into AAP who are somewhat above average, and got in mostly because they're privileged and prepped for the tests. If the kid is demonstrating that he can't hack it both via tests and via teacher recommendation, then the kid should be returned to gen ed. There are more AAP kids in this group than you might imagine.
A large part of the problem is that FCPS is lumping together the gifted kids and the somewhat advanced kids into a single program when they have very different needs.
I don't think my example derailed the conversation. 1) It was an example that shows one of the problems of just using SoLs. 2) Sometimes teachers DON'T recognize the brilliance of quirky kids. They see a kid who does messy work and makes a lot of mistakes. There's a wide range of perceptiveness in teachers and they have their own biases.
3) Putting a teacher in a role to remove kids from AAP puts a lot of pressure on them and makes them subject to hostility from parents. 4) Putting SoLs in a gatekeeping function will pressure AAP teachers to teach to them more which few AAP parents would want.
I think it would be more effective to use all those measures as an established signal to a parents that it would be recommended to reconsider AAP, but not a requirement.
My kids aren't particularly "quirky", find school and tests easy, and are both on the higher end of giftedness (WISC>140) so I get the issue you're talking about. My kids are also not at a center where prepping is the norm so I may worry about it less than you.
But I think your proposed solution has too many flaws.