So many non AAP kids in my kids class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if OP is a troll, I actually learned something from this thread. DS is just starting 2nd grade, so if he makes AAP, then I will have to make a decision about whether he should switch schools to attend a center school. I realized that I actually would want him in a class that is solely AAP students and not mixed.

It depends on the school. My school is a LL4 and has one AAP class per grade. The class is 60-70 percent Level 4, with the rest filled with Level 3 or high achieving students. You would not know who was Level 4 if you walked into my classroom. Some of my Level 3 kids are better students than my Level 4. We also have kids come back yearly from the center. I would research what model your base school uses first.

Your school is an exception. Most of the schools use the clustering model. My conspiracy theory is that they use the clustering model to have the AAP curriculum in all classrooms, and in turn raise school's overall student test scores. They could careless if AAP students stay or go.

Why would the need the clustering model for that? If gen ed students do well with AAP curriculum, nothing is stopping the school from using it in gen ed classrooms without needing clustering.

You cannot use AAP curriculum without AAP student(s).

Yes you can. The county expects all Gen Ed kids to get some exposure each quarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know this was a thing. Can someone elaborate?

I don't know what cluster means in the OP, but at certain schools that offer local level IV, they don't have enough kids to fill a class will all AAP LLIV kids, so there are other kids in the class. And if you knew anything about AAP, and that was something you cared about, you have to select to attend the center at those school if you want AAP kids only in the class.

I did attend the informational meeting and was assured that half the class would be AAP. It's not remotely close to being true. Plus, the rest of the class isn't even Level III. It's a total mixture with lots of Sped and ESOL. Why do they think this is ok?

Because Special Education and ESOL children can also be very smart and have high IQs. These particular children are probably far smarter than your own child, especially if he inherited any genes from you.

Oh, please. You just keep telling yourself that.

It's true. 2E kids exist, and there's no reason why intelligence would be limited to English-speaking kids.

Certainly true. However, how many twice exceptional students do you think are in a class? Many ELLs are bright and have high intelligence—the issue is how is it possible for one teacher to do it all?

Will the teacher have support to deliver the AAP curriculum with all of the frontloading, background building, and language simplification needed for the general ed, struggling learner, and ELLs?

Will the teacher have the supports needed for the SPED learners? And, what about the students identified as level iV? It’s an impossible task! This model sounds fantastic in theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don’t sound very inclusive. What will happen when the child gets into the workforce? Will they be able to work in a team? Life lessons extend far beyond your helicoptering.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't know this was a thing. Can someone elaborate?

I don't know what cluster means in the OP, but at certain schools that offer local level IV, they don't have enough kids to fill a class will all AAP LLIV kids, so there are other kids in the class. And if you knew anything about AAP, and that was something you cared about, you have to select to attend the center at those school if you want AAP kids only in the class.

I did attend the informational meeting and was assured that half the class would be AAP. It's not remotely close to being true. Plus, the rest of the class isn't even Level III. It's a total mixture with lots of Sped and ESOL. Why do they think this is ok?

Because Special Education and ESOL children can also be very smart and have high IQs. These particular children are probably far smarter than your own child, especially if he inherited any genes from you.

Oh, please. You just keep telling yourself that.

It's true. 2E kids exist, and there's no reason why intelligence would be limited to English-speaking kids.

Certainly true. However, how many twice exceptional students do you think are in a class? Many ELLs are bright and have high intelligence—the issue is how is it possible for one teacher to do it all?

Will the teacher have support to deliver the AAP curriculum with all of the frontloading, background building, and language simplification needed for the general ed, struggling learner, and ELLs?

Will the teacher have the supports needed for the SPED learners? And, what about the students identified as level iV? It’s an impossible task! This model sounds fantastic in theory.

AAP teacher here at center ES

Yes, to all of this. I cannot imagine how I would meet the needs of all of my students if I were required to instruct Level IV curriculum in this format.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if OP is a troll, I actually learned something from this thread. DS is just starting 2nd grade, so if he makes AAP, then I will have to make a decision about whether he should switch schools to attend a center school. I realized that I actually would want him in a class that is solely AAP students and not mixed.

Last year at Shrevewood they split the AAP kids between two of the four classrooms and united for math. I get the impression that they’ve spread it out amongst the four classrooms now but presumably unite for math still. My DC is starting MS this year so it didn’t make sense to move for one year (as OP indicated) but understand the concern to an extent as there were some behavioral issues in the classroom that didn’t exist with the AAP-only classroom. DC’s grades and SOL/Iowa scores did not suffer, though, if that is a concern.


It depends on the school. My school is a LL4 and has one AAP class per grade. The class is 60-70 percent Level 4, with the rest filled with Level 3 or high achieving students. You would not know who was Level 4 if you walked into my classroom. Some of my Level 3 kids are better students than my Level 4. We also have kids come back yearly from the center. I would research what model your base school uses first.

Your school is an exception. Most of the schools use the clustering model. My conspiracy theory is that they use the clustering model to have the AAP curriculum in all classrooms, and in turn raise school's overall student test scores. They could careless if AAP students stay or go.

I am PP. I think most of the cluster models are newer AAP programs. The only school I know of that switched to cluster after having an established program is Shrevewood.

I guarantee that OP is a Shrevewood parent. She sounds just like the ones that were complaining last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

But how would any parent be able to look at a class roster at an open house and determine which kids qualified for Level 4 services and which didn’t? Only a troll would be able to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

It's truly sad to hear such anti-education attitudes from teachers employed in public service. As a parent of a gifted child, I always think of how I would be treated if I had a disabled child that would receive public services. If you disregard the special needs of gifted children, it scares me to think how you would disregard the needs of those children.

We have laws in VA, and one such laws governs the education of the gifted and talented. As a teacher, you are expected to follow the law.

It is bad enough that education was watered by removing special tracks, grade skipping and other methods that the literature you should have become familiar with during your training shows are provably beneficial for gifted children. Now it's "clusters" - and even then this watered down idea is misapplied when all classrooms contain gifted children (that's not a cluster, it's random distribution) and when the performance range within a classroom is not bounded.

Your role as a public servant should be to serve all children, and every one of these children has different needs and methods that best serve them. For gifted children proximity to peers (and where possible, to older children and competent adults) are crucial elements in their development, just like children with autism or developmental disorders have their own needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

But how would any parent be able to look at a class roster at an open house and determine which kids qualified for Level 4 services and which didn’t? Only a troll would be able to do that.

Are you kidding me? My kid is a general Ed fourth grader, and we know which kids are level IV. Parents talk. Our community talks. Folks know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

It's truly sad to hear such anti-education attitudes from teachers employed in public service. As a parent of a gifted child, I always think of how I would be treated if I had a disabled child that would receive public services. If you disregard the special needs of gifted children, it scares me to think how you would disregard the needs of those children.

We have laws in VA, and one such laws governs the education of the gifted and talented. As a teacher, you are expected to follow the law.

It is bad enough that education was watered by removing special tracks, grade skipping and other methods that the literature you should have become familiar with during your training shows are provably beneficial for gifted children. Now it's "clusters" - and even then this watered down idea is misapplied when all classrooms contain gifted children (that's not a cluster, it's random distribution) and when the performance range within a classroom is not bounded.

Your role as a public servant should be to serve all children, and every one of these children has different needs and methods that best serve them. For gifted children proximity to peers (and where possible, to older children and competent adults) are crucial elements in their development, just like children with autism or developmental disorders have their own needs.

I hope the mom is a troll, because the teacher gave a great answer. Sounds like Mom wants GT segregation. And, no, MOM, GT is far from the same as having a disabled child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

It's truly sad to hear such anti-education attitudes from teachers employed in public service. As a parent of a gifted child, I always think of how I would be treated if I had a disabled child that would receive public services. If you disregard the special needs of gifted children, it scares me to think how you would disregard the needs of those children.

We have laws in VA, and one such laws governs the education of the gifted and talented. As a teacher, you are expected to follow the law.

It is bad enough that education was watered by removing special tracks, grade skipping and other methods that the literature you should have become familiar with during your training shows are provably beneficial for gifted children. Now it's "clusters" - and even then this watered down idea is misapplied when all classrooms contain gifted children (that's not a cluster, it's random distribution) and when the performance range within a classroom is not bounded.

Your role as a public servant should be to serve all children, and every one of these children has different needs and methods that best serve them. For gifted children proximity to peers (and where possible, to older children and competent adults) are crucial elements in their development, just like children with autism or developmental disorders have their own needs.

DP. Very few kids in AAP are academically gifted with needs that can't be met in a regular classroom. Most of the kids in AAP are above average, but nothing more than that.

Also, VA laws merely require some sort of program for gifted kids, but they neglect to specify exactly what that program must entail and which kids are even considered gifted. Technically, once per week pull out services for gifted kids are legally permissible.

Kids who are actually gifted and not "FCPS gifted" have educational needs that aren't being met in AAP centers either. It's not surprising to see some degree of cynicism from teachers about the entire process when there's such a huge overlap between the top gen ed kids and the bottom 2/3 of the AAP kids. If you were a teacher and witnessed that even in AAP, only a small handful of kids per classroom are gifted, while the rest are above average privileged kids with parents who grossly over-estimate their abilities, you'd probably also be in favor of a cluster model that at least stops the insanity and unfounded elitism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

It's truly sad to hear such anti-education attitudes from teachers employed in public service. As a parent of a gifted child, I always think of how I would be treated if I had a disabled child that would receive public services. If you disregard the special needs of gifted children, it scares me to think how you would disregard the needs of those children.

We have laws in VA, and one such laws governs the education of the gifted and talented. As a teacher, you are expected to follow the law.

It is bad enough that education was watered by removing special tracks, grade skipping and other methods that the literature you should have become familiar with during your training shows are provably beneficial for gifted children. Now it's "clusters" - and even then this watered down idea is misapplied when all classrooms contain gifted children (that's not a cluster, it's random distribution) and when the performance range within a classroom is not bounded.

Your role as a public servant should be to serve all children, and every one of these children has different needs and methods that best serve them. For gifted children proximity to peers (and where possible, to older children and competent adults) are crucial elements in their development, just like children with autism or developmental disorders have their own needs.

I hope the mom is a troll, because the teacher gave a great answer. Sounds like Mom wants GT segregation. And, no, MOM, GT is far from the same as having a disabled child.

DP. Well, FCPS has been advertising that for decades. Not sure why so many think it's an unreasonable expectation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how many people are actually responding to this obvious troll post.

Teacher here. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a troll. I’ve met parents like this. They have no idea (or they don’t care) how much they insult other children.

I’ll also say that my Gen Ed students are often the most receptive and show the most genuine excitement about learning. Often many are just as bright as their gifted peers, but simply didn’t have the parent pushing them into special programs and tutoring.

I wouldn’t remove my own children from this inclusive classroom. Sometimes lessons don’t come out of books.

It's truly sad to hear such anti-education attitudes from teachers employed in public service. As a parent of a gifted child, I always think of how I would be treated if I had a disabled child that would receive public services. If you disregard the special needs of gifted children, it scares me to think how you would disregard the needs of those children.

We have laws in VA, and one such laws governs the education of the gifted and talented. As a teacher, you are expected to follow the law.

It is bad enough that education was watered by removing special tracks, grade skipping and other methods that the literature you should have become familiar with during your training shows are provably beneficial for gifted children. Now it's "clusters" - and even then this watered down idea is misapplied when all classrooms contain gifted children (that's not a cluster, it's random distribution) and when the performance range within a classroom is not bounded.

Your role as a public servant should be to serve all children, and every one of these children has different needs and methods that best serve them. For gifted children proximity to peers (and where possible, to older children and competent adults) are crucial elements in their development, just like children with autism or developmental disorders have their own needs.

DP. Very few kids in AAP are academically gifted with needs that can't be met in a regular classroom. Most of the kids in AAP are above average, but nothing more than that.

Also, VA laws merely require some sort of program for gifted kids, but they neglect to specify exactly what that program must entail and which kids are even considered gifted. Technically, once per week pull out services for gifted kids are legally permissible.

Kids who are actually gifted and not "FCPS gifted" have educational needs that aren't being met in AAP centers either. It's not surprising to see some degree of cynicism from teachers about the entire process when there's such a huge overlap between the top gen ed kids and the bottom 2/3 of the AAP kids. If you were a teacher and witnessed that even in AAP, only a small handful of kids per classroom are gifted, while the rest are above average privileged kids with parents who grossly over-estimate their abilities, you'd probably also be in favor of a cluster model that at least stops the insanity and unfounded elitism.

DP. Eh, I've got one "actually gifted" and one of your "only FCPS gifted", both in AAP, both in the right place.

You don't sound like an AAP teacher. Although you do sound like the administrators and principals who are hostile to AAP. Center schools aren't going away. Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

There are fascinating studies on the links between humility and being an effective leader. Humbleness is a missing trait in many individuals today. Life isn’t just about acceleration, grades, and climbing all over top of your peers. Contentment follows humility. I pray that you might obtain some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are fascinating studies on the links between humility and being an effective leader. Humbleness is a missing trait in many individuals today. Life isn’t just about acceleration, grades, and climbing all over top of your peers. Contentment follows humility. I pray that you might obtain some.

How interesting.