Someone please explain to me the difference between tracking and the AAP program/centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child did not get into Princeton or any other college to which she applied! It is not fair that she is forced to learn the watered down curriculum at NOVA.

Pay 25K and your kid can get into a more moderate 4yr school. My parents did this, as I was a very late bloomer, and didn't get my act together until college and then grad school. SO, please, there are options for colleges. However, remember that colleges are not an American right, a free and proper pubic education k-12 IS.

[Anonymous]

So gen ed kids are not getting a free and proper education?

[Anonymous]

So all the GE kids get across the board 4s because their curriculum is so watered down it is too easy? Bullshit.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. People at the edges if the line are always unhappy.

Gifted students needs are not being served by AAP so your bright average kids aren't alone. Only high average (in AAP), special needs and below average are served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, why?

There's a great review of unrealistic college reaches in American Promise. Thought she might be a classmate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lie of "Differentiated teaching" in most FCPS means that instead of putting all the kids who get things really fast (i.e. "smart kids") in one classroom where the teacher will teach ONE lesson, we mix up all the high/med/low kids in one room and expect the teacher to teach 3-6 lessons. The result is that kids are getting a fraction of the teacher's time b/c she has to "differentiate" and teach all levels. Apparently it makes the med/low kids feel better b/c they don't feel that they are in the "slow" group. Unfortunately, the high kids (i.e. smart that is, not intoxicated) are left to their own devices while the teacher is busy with the other groups b/c she knows that the high kids are already meeting the benchmark.

Race to mediocracy.

(I believe my example may not be the case at all schools, but it is in my kids' school. They do not have different teachers for different subjects. They are not "grouped" and sent to another room where there are other kids of similar ability. All kids stay with their one assigned teacher for all regular subjects -- not including the specials.)

This is our school, too What a joke!!! No wonder people are pushing their kids into AAP. It's the only way for a high average to above average kid to get any real sort of education. (I have one in AAP and one not, so I've seen the difference.)

[Anonymous]

AMEN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

THANK YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

But AAP is not the top 15%. Many of those kids are in General Ed. Nor would it surprise me to find some of the kids in AAP do not fall into the top 15%. It is truly ridiculous.

Very true. Especially with the test score criteria for AAP admittance being relatively low, there are some kids in AAP who just squeaked in, and others in Gen Ed who didn't quite make it; a group of kids whose scores are virtually identical. If FCPS would raise it, there would be a substantial decrease in eligible kids. Maybe they would actually even be in the "gifted" range!

No matter where you draw the line, there are going to be kids just on one side or the other of the line, with very similar characteristics. Where could you make a division that would be completely clear cut with no close calls to make? Human beings cannot be categorized so neatly.

Exactly. Then why are the human beings in FCPS being categorized into "GE" and "AAP"? Why label them at all, why not just offer the AAP curriculum to any and all who can successfully do it? I think FCPS would be very surprised to see just how many students are fully capable of "handling" AAP work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

Not all schools would have enough students for critical mass. They may have just three or five students and not enough for a full class. Even if there are enough for one full class, it is considered undesirable for students to be in just one grouping for several years. At least two classes for mixing is considered best.

What about the "undesirability" of having 2 Gen Ed classes vs. 4 AAP classes in one grade alone? Why isn't anyone concerned with just how undesirable this situation is? It would be nice for those Gen Ed kids to have more children to mix with as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

Regarding the quote bolded above, stating that if more AAP students were in GE then the GE classes would teach to a higher level, I don't think this is true. How many kids are usually selected from a second grade class to be in AAP the following year? Usually not more than five students per class on average throughout the county? Let's say that it became only two students and three of those that would have been pulled will stay in GE. Is the presence of those three in next year's GE class going to make a substantial difference to the curriculum? I would say no. The GE curriculum would stay the same and the teacher would still focus most on those struggling in order to for them to be able to pass the SOLs. Parents would still need to provide outside enrichment as needed. That can even be a benefit since you can target the enrichment in the way you wish, rather than having your child spend time on "in depth" projects that may or may not teach anything of lasting value.

I posted this on another thread, but it seems applicable here too: in my child's 2nd grade class, 18 children were selected for AAP. 18. And this is the norm at our school. Now, if the reality was that only five or two were chosen, that might reflect more normalcy. But... 18? It's no wonder AAP is bursting at the seams, ridiculously so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been told that the AAP kids learn differently and are in a different place than their peers so are we favoring them or simply meeting their needs as those have been identified?

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

If the kids are equally bright why do their parents let them suffer a detrimental situation rather than pushing to get them into AAP too?

Right. Every parent has an equal opportunity to push, nag, bully and threaten the AAP admissions staff. Seems to work from everything I have read.

Because this was not the way the program was meant to work. I don't think it's healthy for the kids, the schools or the communities. Back when AAP was GT, my older son was in the program, but I would never have thought of pushing and nagging to get his very bright siblings into it, because I knew that they could get a great education at the local school. With the exception of very obviously gifted kids, this should still be the case, particularly with all the super intelligent families here. There is no need to cede a great school system to the crazies, many of whom need their children in a special program to feel important. Rather than slicing and dicing our communities to create ever more centers for supposedly smarter kids -- many of whom are not -- we should direct our attention to making the schools challenging for all kids. And keep kids in their neighborhood wherever possible. If people continue to adopt the attitude that if they need to get their kid into AAP at all costs because their local schools aren't good enough, we are going to ruin this school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where [b]if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

[/b]Not all schools would have enough students for critical mass. They may have just three or five students and not enough for a full class. Even if there are enough for one full class, it is considered undesirable for students to be in just one grouping for several years. At least two classes for mixing is considered best.

I didn't say all, but certainly in McLean and parts of Vienna you would easily have schools with a critical mass. When we start getting into discussions of "well, two classes are optimal," I'd ask "what is optimal for General Education -- whatever is left over after we've dealt with these supposedly gifted kids. At a certain point all this pandering to a population that keeps getting proportionately bigger as more parents work to game their kids in just becomes ridiculous. And I say that as someone who had a child in GT. Note, a child. Not all my children because kids can be extremely smart without the need for a special program.

+1,000,000
Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

Regarding the quote bolded above, stating that if more AAP students were in GE then the GE classes would teach to a higher level, I don't think this is true. How many kids are usually selected from a second grade class to be in AAP the following year? Usually not more than five students per class on average throughout the county? Let's say that it became only two students and three of those that would have been pulled will stay in GE. Is the presence of those three in next year's GE class going to make a substantial difference to the curriculum? I would say no. The GE curriculum would stay the same and the teacher would still focus most on those struggling in order to for them to be able to pass the SOLs. Parents would still need to provide outside enrichment as needed. That can even be a benefit since you can target the enrichment in the way you wish, rather than having your child spend time on "in depth" projects that may or may not teach anything of lasting value.

I posted this on another thread, but it seems applicable here too: in my child's 2nd grade class, 18 children were selected for AAP. 18. And this is the norm at our school. Now, if the reality was that only five or two were chosen, that might reflect more normalcy. But... 18? It's no wonder AAP is bursting at the seams, ridiculously so.

And also so sad that those 18 clearly need a special education at another school in order to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers. This is why AAP needs to be localized wherever possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good point to PPs who explain how it is equal opportunity. Way beyond, really, because of all the checks and balances, appeals and multi-year chances. AAP is not for every learner.


Also, what is wrong with tracking? The system attempts to meet the needs of each learner. I believe that fails often but that is not because of AAP.

AAP should be the curriculum for most learners. It is sad that only 18% of the students are given access to a curriculum that probably 50-75% of the students could benefit from. Would a student who performs in the top 50 - 80% in the nation not deserve an advanced curriculum? The problem with the current system is that it caters to the top 18% while limiting resources to the remaining 82% of the student population. This system does not meets the needs of most learners - it really only meets the needs of the top 18% and the bottom 25% of the GE populations. In a system like FCPS, the 50-80% is not getting their needs meet.

The system also doesn't account for learners that need advanced education in only one area - ie. language arts or math. The current Level III program of 2x/month pull-outs is a joke. The GE students advanced in one subject could easily perform well in the AAP classes in their advanced subject. FCPS only provides advanced learning for students who score well cumulatively on the IQ tests. Again, no equal access to advanced education to meet the needs of students who could benefit from it.

I see this regularly but don't understand what people really mean by it. How is the school system *failing* the general population of students?

For students who test into the 50-80% range, they are not eligible for AAP. The GE base curriculum is so watered down, the curriculum is very easy for this group. The bright GE kids are really the ones losing out with AAP. If more of the AAP students were in GE, and only the truly gifted children were separated, then the GE classes would teach to a higher level. More differentiation would be available for higher-level learners. Now, the advanced curriculum is concentrated on one set of students - and you're either in or out of the AAP Level IV. The current GE curriculum is failing all but the lowest level of learners, because it is so easy.

Regarding the quote bolded above, stating that if more AAP students were in GE then the GE classes would teach to a higher level, I don't think this is true. How many kids are usually selected from a second grade class to be in AAP the following year? Usually not more than five students per class on average throughout the county? Let's say that it became only two students and three of those that would have been pulled will stay in GE. Is the presence of those three in next year's GE class going to make a substantial difference to the curriculum? I would say no. The GE curriculum would stay the same and the teacher would still focus most on those struggling in order to for them to be able to pass the SOLs. Parents would still need to provide outside enrichment as needed. That can even be a benefit since you can target the enrichment in the way you wish, rather than having your child spend time on "in depth" projects that may or may not teach anything of lasting value.

I posted this on another thread, but it seems applicable here too: in my child's 2nd grade class, 18 children were selected for AAP. 18. And this is the norm at our school. Now, if the reality was that only five or two were chosen, that might reflect more normalcy. But... 18? It's no wonder AAP is bursting at the seams, ridiculously so.

And also so sad that those 18 clearly need a special education at another school in order to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers. This is why AAP needs to be localized wherever possible.

Our base school has 1 Center eligible student in 3rd grade, 3 in 4th grade, 2 in 5th grade, and 1 in 6th grade. Is that "critical mass"?

[Anonymous]

Where is all this coming from that GE is not good enough? Who says it isn't?