AAP - why not have it for all of FCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All students need to be challenged but students are at all sorts of ability levels

The reason why there shouldn't be AAP for all is the same reason there shouldn't be AP for all. Most kids aren't ready for the material and they drag down the ones who are if they are in the classroom period.

IQ sorry not sorry

But AP is available for all. Some people have suggested open enrollment for AAP, which would make it available to all who want the challenge.

I think FCPS is greatly overcomplicating this. Since AAP is only mildly accelerated and no longer a gifted program, the most sensible thing would be to admit all of the kids who are actually advanced in math and language arts, as measured by the end of year MRA tests or DRA (or whatever other achievement test they want to use). It's beyond dumb that my kid's AAP classroom has an on-grade level reading group, yet the gen ed kids next door who are above grade level can't access the AAP language arts materials. It's also dumb that some kids in my kid's AAP class had relatively low CogAT Q scores, are not good in math, and are struggling with advanced math, yet there are kids in the gen ed classroom next door who are really bright in math, belong in advanced math, but can't access it until 5th grade.

Has making AP available for all improved the education of the borderline students? Probably yes. However, it has negatively affected the education of the strong students.

Is the same thing true of AAP as it is now? IME no, because AAP is a GT program and the advanced academics are incidental to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All students need to be challenged but students are at all sorts of ability levels

The reason why there shouldn't be AAP for all is the same reason there shouldn't be AP for all. Most kids aren't ready for the material and they drag down the ones who are if they are in the classroom period.

IQ sorry not sorry

But AP is available for all. Some people have suggested open enrollment for AAP, which would make it available to all who want the challenge.

I think FCPS is greatly overcomplicating this. Since AAP is only mildly accelerated and no longer a gifted program, the most sensible thing would be to admit all of the kids who are actually advanced in math and language arts, as measured by the end of year MRA tests or DRA (or whatever other achievement test they want to use). It's beyond dumb that my kid's AAP classroom has an on-grade level reading group, yet the gen ed kids next door who are above grade level can't access the AAP language arts materials. It's also dumb that some kids in my kid's AAP class had relatively low CogAT Q scores, are not good in math, and are struggling with advanced math, yet there are kids in the gen ed classroom next door who are really bright in math, belong in advanced math, but can't access it until 5th grade.

Has making AP available for all improved the education of the borderline students? Probably yes. However, it has negatively affected the education of the strong students.

Is the same thing true of AAP as it is now? IME no, because AAP is a GT program and the advanced academics are incidental to that.

AAP is not the same as GT - more like honors.

If AP classes had a similar bureaucratic process just to take the class it would negatively affect all kids. Not everyone needs to score a 5 on an AP exam. But, everyone is entitled to have access to the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone needs to score a 5 on an AP exam, but when there are a decent number of kids scoring a 1 or 2 in the class, it absolutely affects the rigor of the class. Letting everyone opt into AAP and then slowing down the class to accommodate the kids who don’t belong doesn’t serve anyone’s needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Has making AP available for all improved the education of the borderline students? Probably yes. However, it has negatively affected the education of the strong students.

Is the same thing true of AAP as it is now? IME no, because AAP is a GT program and the advanced academics are incidental to that.

What do you mean by this? From my experience, AAP was more or less gen ed with above grade level reading groups available and advanced math. They didn't really teach differently, but rather it was mildly accelerated regular school. My kid's experience also was that the teachers funneled tons of time into the bottom kids and somewhat ignored the top ones, just like in gen ed. If it's supposed to be a GT program, it's failing miserably at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has making AP available for all improved the education of the borderline students? Probably yes. However, it has negatively affected the education of the strong students.

Is the same thing true of AAP as it is now? IME no, because AAP is a GT program and the advanced academics are incidental to that.

What do you mean by this? From my experience, AAP was more or less gen ed with above grade level reading groups available and advanced math. They didn't really teach differently, but rather it was mildly accelerated regular school. My kid's experience also was that the teachers funneled tons of time into the bottom kids and somewhat ignored the top ones, just like in gen ed. If it's supposed to be a GT program, it's failing miserably at that.

Yes.

Acceptance should be automatic for kids above cut-off scores (or why spend school budget on the tests?), and simpler referrals with clear criteria should be optional for any others who are interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has making AP available for all improved the education of the borderline students? Probably yes. However, it has negatively affected the education of the strong students.

Is the same thing true of AAP as it is now? IME no, because AAP is a GT program and the advanced academics are incidental to that.

What do you mean by this? From my experience, AAP was more or less gen ed with above grade level reading groups available and advanced math. They didn't really teach differently, but rather it was mildly accelerated regular school. My kid's experience also was that the teachers funneled tons of time into the bottom kids and somewhat ignored the top ones, just like in gen ed. If it's supposed to be a GT program, it's failing miserably at that.

Yes.

Acceptance should be automatic for kids above cut-off scores (or why spend school budget on the tests?), and simpler referrals with clear criteria should be optional for any others who are interested.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has making AP available for all improved the education of the borderline students? Probably yes. However, it has negatively affected the education of the strong students.

Is the same thing true of AAP as it is now? IME no, because AAP is a GT program and the advanced academics are incidental to that.

What do you mean by this? From my experience, AAP was more or less gen ed with above grade level reading groups available and advanced math. They didn't really teach differently, but rather it was mildly accelerated regular school. My kid's experience also was that the teachers funneled tons of time into the bottom kids and somewhat ignored the top ones, just like in gen ed. If it's supposed to be a GT program, it's failing miserably at that.

Yes.

Acceptance should be automatic for kids above cut-off scores (or why spend school budget on the tests?), and simpler referrals with clear criteria should be optional for any others who are interested.

+1

School GBRS scores can also be be low for kids with high test scores as described by several parents on this forum. Make the process objective and transparent or drop it completely. Current process is a waste of public money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

You could say this about TJ as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

You could say this about TJ as well.

Not really. There is no objective scale and criteria for AAP selection and the program is not "advanced" enough to be a gifted program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

You could say this about TJ as well.

Not really. There is no objective scale and criteria for AAP selection and the program is not "advanced" enough to be a gifted program.

It is not a gifted program as many have noted, and there is no acceptable reason for why the acceptance criteria is not simple and clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

You could say this about TJ as well.

Not really. There is no objective scale and criteria for AAP selection and the program is not "advanced" enough to be a gifted program.

It is not a gifted program as many have noted, and there is no acceptable reason for why the acceptance criteria is not simple and clear.

The issue is that placement is subjective and the criteria are opaque, which makes the cost of testing and time spent on selection, appeals, principal placement to be a waste of publicly funded school budgets that can be better spent on education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone needs to score a 5 on an AP exam, but when there are a decent number of kids scoring a 1 or 2 in the class, it absolutely affects the rigor of the class. Letting everyone opt into AAP and then slowing down the class to accommodate the kids who don’t belong doesn’t serve anyone’s needs.

we're at a school that mixes AAP with gen ed/level II for math. AAP is a bad indicator of who does well in the classes, really the only difference is that the AAP kids have an track that won't allow them to slip laid out through middle school and the gen ed kids will have to work for it.

[Anonymous]

A good way to improve equity would be to not allow appeals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good way to improve equity would be to not allow appeals

One of the suggestions from the AAP Equity report is to not allow a parent questionnaire, home work samples, letters of recommendation and anything else from the parents. Essentially, make all the packets equal by only including information from the school.

But part of the problem is that not every school has a full time AART and some schools are less motivated to send their kids to a Center school but don't have enough kids for a Local Level IV program.

[Anonymous]

No matter what process is used for AAP and TJ selections, they will miss some "qualified" students. Are you aware of any process that is 100% objective?