AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

Wildly pathetic. If it's true that "all the non AAP kids are in the HS honors classes anyway" then why are they fighting like hell to get their kids in? Jealously is so unbecoming.

DP. A better question would be, why are AAP parents fighting like hell to exclude all of the other kids who are perfectly able to do what amounts to a slightly advanced curriculum - especially since you know full well our kids will be together in high school honors and AP classes. Not to mention, colleges...

News flash: We aren’t. Your kid is selected, great! And I don’t care that our kids will be together in HS. It’s the peer group now that helps set the important path.

Segregation

It's not segregation when every student has the opportunity to be selected for the group.

Not having your student is selected for something is not a valid claim of discrimination. Everyone is eligible, not everyone can be selected. This same logic applies to sports teams and theater shows and a thousand other things in life.

Filling your student's head with this nonsense is a real misrepresentation all around.

Trying to keep your kid away from the poors is segregation.

Shame on you for calling the non AAP kids "the poors." Do better.

Shame on the people who are using AAP to isolate themselves from “the poors”.

Sorry, PP. You tipped your hand. Now we all know your desperate reason to try to get your kid in AAP. Disgusting

[Anonymous]

We should stop commenting on this post people AAP centers aren’t being eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should stop commenting on this post people AAP centers aren’t being eliminated.

I don't know about eliminated but there are certainly some School Board members who think every middle school should be its own AAP center and continuing to bus out-of-boundary kids to schools like Carson is ridiculous. Unfortunately, their silly boundary study is now well underway and the consultants are making recommendations based on current enrollments that include AAP placements. It's hard to advocate for a change in the current AAP model when you sit back and do nothing when Reid and her staff approach a county-wide boundary study ass-backwards.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

I think there is a difference between eliminating AAP as a program and eliminating or reducing centers. An easy fix is if local level IV is available if you choose to go to center you provide transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

I think there is a difference between eliminating AAP as a program and eliminating or reducing centers. An easy fix is if local level IV is available if you choose to go to center you provide transportation.

That fix only applies to families who don't have AAP kids though, and it's a signal of deterioration IMO. I don't think it's perfect but don't believe changing the current structure is a risk anyone is willing to take. My kid is in 8th and almost out of AAP, so no dog in this fight other than sharing my experience at being at a center school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

I think there is a difference between eliminating AAP as a program and eliminating or reducing centers. An easy fix is if local level IV is available if you choose to go to center you provide transportation.

Center haters are salty that AAP kids get to choose centers as an option. They claim the cost of bussing to the centers is too high but they would still complain if parents were required to drive AAP students to the centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

I think there is a difference between eliminating AAP as a program and eliminating or reducing centers. An easy fix is if local level IV is available if you choose to go to center you provide transportation.

Center haters are salty that AAP kids get to choose centers as an option. They claim the cost of bussing to the centers is too high but they would still complain if parents were required to drive AAP students to the centers.

I'm agnostic as to whether there is still a need for AAP centers at the ES level in some parts of the county. At the middle school level I would have AAP at every middle school and eliminate any option to attend a middle school other than your assigned MS. Transportation would be provided to your base MS and no other MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

I think there is a difference between eliminating AAP as a program and eliminating or reducing centers. An easy fix is if local level IV is available if you choose to go to center you provide transportation.

Center haters are salty that AAP kids get to choose centers as an option. They claim the cost of bussing to the centers is too high but they would still complain if parents were required to drive AAP students to the centers.

Why should they get to choose? If there are enough AAP kids at a school to fill at least two classes, why should there be school choice?

Middle school centers are the most ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the school board (or County Board of Supervisors) would move to eliminate a program that is an attraction for county residents (and thereby tax dollars/county revenue). Plenty of people look at FCPS as a model system, believe it or not. Why would they give the appearance that they are dumbing down anything? Like it or lump it, the AAP program and centers are here to stay.

I think there is a difference between eliminating AAP as a program and eliminating or reducing centers. An easy fix is if local level IV is available if you choose to go to center you provide transportation.

Center haters are salty that AAP kids get to choose centers as an option. They claim the cost of bussing to the centers is too high but they would still complain if parents were required to drive AAP students to the centers.

Center haters hate when their base school is a center because some of the families are a holes about it. If people could stop being so pretentious about an elementary school accomplishment AND if the center schools could find a way to meet every student where they are at including the top of GE kids who are sitting around waiting half the time, then it would be fine ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

Wildly pathetic. If it's true that "all the non AAP kids are in the HS honors classes anyway" then why are they fighting like hell to get their kids in? Jealously is so unbecoming.

DP. A better question would be, why are AAP parents fighting like hell to exclude all of the other kids who are perfectly able to do what amounts to a slightly advanced curriculum - especially since you know full well our kids will be together in high school honors and AP classes. Not to mention, colleges...

News flash: We aren’t. Your kid is selected, great! And I don’t care that our kids will be together in HS. It’s the peer group now that helps set the important path.

Except that “important path” is moot since -once again - all the bright kids will be together in high school, regardless of some meaningless label bestowed at age seven. That must be so disappointing to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

Um, no one cared because most of the kids were also advanced in some subjects but not in all. Or “dumb,” as you so charmingly put it - so telling.

And of course that system helped us. Everyone had access to the appropriate level per subject.

No, they didn’t get what they needed in this system. In this system, my sister had to skip a grade. Because my sister had bad social experience skipping a grade, my parents decided not to skip me I got pull out G/T classes once a week and was bored. And my point in using dumb is that kids label kids MORE in this system. It was more obvious which group you were in for which subject.


Differentiation does work, but only when administration isn’t only concentrating on test scores for the cusp kids. That hasn’t gone away, so differentiation won’t work right now for the top -ish kids and that is why we have AAP.

The real problem is 2 fold
1- phonics programs and science of reading need to differentiate for learners (not just one size fits all)
AND
2- Administration needs to focus on teaching ALL kids. They need to allow teachers to meet with all groups and not leave the middle-high kids to themselves while giving all the teacher time to the low-middle kids.

It is like people have to rewrite everything right now so everyone can question everything. And so people are reverting back to our childhoods for what works. Get a clue and read some research rather than being like “I walked a mile uphill both ways to school and it was great!” Use something other than personal experience, especially personal experience from your childhood (when you aren’t objective about the world at all) to make informed decisions.

Wow - get a clue, indeed. You continue to confuse "differentiation" with flexible groupings, held in separate classrooms. That's nothing at all like differentiation within the same classroom, which is what you are describing. Of course that doesn't work. One teacher can't possibly offer every child in his/her classroom academics tailored to their abilities. That's why the kids should go to Rm. A for advanced language arts; Rm. B for grade-level LA; Room C for remedial, etc. Same for all core classes. And "flexible" means Larla can move up to Rm. A if she shows advanced skills in Rm. B. No testing in required to simply access a slightly more advanced curriculum.

You seem to want to make this far more complicated that it needs to be. We all know the reason for that.

And btw - there is no system in which kids label other kids as "dumb" than the current AAP / GE division. None.

How does this work when 40% of the grade is advanced? All 40% likely cant fit in the advanced classroom. Someone is always going to get stuck in a less than ideal classroom.

Where are you getting your 40% number? Citation?

It's a theoretical number. Not every school is going to have an equal 1/3 split of abilities is my point so someone would get placed in a class that doesn't match.

So, exactly like the current system. The difference is, in a flexible grouping situation, kids could easily be moved up or down whenever needed. No one would have to wait a year to retake a test which supposedly determines whether they can “handle” more worksheets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they get rid of Centers or not. What I do care about is that they drop kids who don't belong in AAP every year. Didn't get pass advanced in SOLs or 90+ percentile on both iready tests? OUT.

Exactly. The whole point is to not be slow the class down pulling up the stragglers. And to the poster who is just sure her child belongs if not for the mean test scores saying no - maybe you should prep your kid for the test if you are so convinced they'd be fine with all the work. Tests are the most fair way to evaluate aptitude that we have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's already too low, as shown by all the whining here about other kids that got in. I'd love for it to be higher. However, we'd just be hearing from a different set of parents instead of you.

No, the whole point is that fcps should keep their word and start meeting all kids where they are at.
The fact that there are kids in aap dragging it down and kids in ge sitting around running out of work to do (per the teacher, not just the kids saying it) illustrates the problems with the current system. Maybe if all kids were met where they were at, less on the fringe parents would apply just because.

Sounds like your problem is with the gen ed class experience. Why don't you complain and do something about that and quit bringing the AAP kids into it?

I doubt it is happening in GenED as you say. And, if it is happening in GenED, it would also be applicable to AAP.. Do you not think that the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids?

And, did you never take a test and finish before everyone else and have to wait for others to finish?

The irony of the parents here arguing their kid who was denied entrance should have AAP full time but also arguing about "the ones who just barely slip in AAP could be bringing down the truly GT kids."

DP. Once again: no one is arguing their kids should have "full time" AAP. The argument has been made that each core subject should have flexible groupings so that one teacher would handle the advanced language arts kids, another the grade-level - LA kids, another the remedial LA kids. And so on for each subject.

The point - which you are no doubt deliberately missing because you just enjoy arguing - is that ALL KIDS should be able to access the ability grouping that is best for THEM, per subject. Not that there should be this idiotic division of students as either/or AAP / Gen Ed. There is a huge amount of overlap and gray area here.

Go back and read. There are definitely parents who believe their kid should be in it full time.

And no, I'm not deliberately missing the point. What you are missing is that your kid IS accessing the program that is best for them. I get that you believe they should be placed higher for certain subjects, but you aren't exactly an objective source.

DP. Wow, the snobbery here. You do realize, I hope, that the AAP selection is based on feelings rather than data. There are kids with high test scores who are above grade level in all measures who get rejected from AAP. Some even have the support from their teachers and still get rejected. For some, they get rejected because even though all objective evidence says that the kid is highly gifted, the teacher just didn't like the kid and gave a low rating. Many kids are rejected from AAP when it IS the program that is best for them. Many are accepted when AAP absolutely IS NOT the program that is best for them. Even the AARTs are often confused by kids who are rejected who look like they have the profile of an AAP kid and kids who are accepted with very little to suggest that they belong in AAP.

Years ago, my kid who was rejected from AAP with a 97th percentile unprepped CogAT, above grade level in math and reading, and with high teacher recommendation. They earned perfect scores on the 3rd grade SOLs. Meanwhile, over half of the kids in AAP at the center failed to even earn pass advanced on the reading SOL. Are you really going to insist that those kids "needed" AAP, but mine was unworthy?

If you are still this worked up over a rejection that happened years ago, seek therapy.

How do you know so much about what AAP kids are scoring and your kid wasn't even in the class? According to DCUM if he was rejected and relegated to GenEd, then no one would talk to him. Tracking other people's kids academic progress is very strange and unhealthily obsessive. Especially when you remember that info years later.

DP. Trust me my 'gen ed' kid knows which aap kids he's smarter than. They all know which kids aren't keeping up and are getting pulled out for extra help. It all comes out in the end.

You trust the word of a 10 year old claiming he is smarter than some other random kids? Bizarre and embarrassing that you are using that as a serious argument.

I know, right? Kind of like 8 yr. olds (and up) telling their Gen Ed peers how much smarter they are because they were placed in AAP. Who would actually believe that? I would be mortified if my own kids ever did something like that. Bizarre and embarrassing, indeed.
DP

I agree! I would be even more mortified if I took what an 8 year old said to heart and obsessed over it for years and even tried to dismantle the program because my kid didn't get in! Embarrassing indeed.

You keep saying that, which makes it clear you've missed the point entirely. We want to OPEN UP AAP to any student able to do the work (which is many - that work is just not that hard). You, otoh, want to keep it closed. See the difference?

You are suggesting dismantling it because your kid didn't get in. Opening it up fundamentally changes the program. The peer group at the centers is part of what makes it great.

Oh, please. My kids attend a center school. There is a HUGE overlap between the AAP and Gen Ed classes. I can see that you enjoy feeling like your kid is in a special, segregated program and you feel threatened that they may actually have to share an AAP class or two with kids who you deem "unworthy" of their peer group. One of these days, FCPS will realize how poorly implemented AAP has been, and hopefully return to a real GT program. As another poster said, AAP should simply be one of the groups kids can cycle into and out of, per subject. No big deal.

I have shared this before. Parent of 1 kid in AAP and 1 not, same grade. In our experience, there is some but not HUGE overlap. Yes, the gen ed class might do two or three weeks of Caesar's English, the AAP class did it for two quarters. The gen ed class researched and recorded presentations for the "living history museum," and AAP dress up and give live presentations. So while there are some shared experiences, the AAP class goes significantly deeper and faster than the gen ed class. This is at a center school.

Parents who boast that "It's the same! My kid can do AAP!" are, in my opinion, uniformed and suffer from a bad case of wishful thinking.

DP. My GE kids attend a center school. Socially, it's awful. However, none of what you describe has occurred. They've both been taught Caesar's English - for the entire year. They both not only researched their living history museum projects, but also dressed up and gave live presentations. With the exception of math, we have found that the AAP/GE academics are identical.

It's a joke to claim that AAP kids need to be in their own segregated classrooms when the kids in GE right next door are doing *the same things.*
Reading your post makes it clear that you are the one who is uninformed - and probably deliberately so.

Different schools I suppose. Our experience has been not been similar, and your school must be an anomaly because everyone else here is complaining that their kids are being left behind.

If it’s just a label, like another PP said, and your kids are doing an identical work, then WHY DO YOU CARE?

With benchmark everything is literally the same. Everyone complains because it's DCUM and most people are clueless. The only difference is extra worksheets and reading time when they finish early because elementary is super easy. I'm sure if your child is finishing their assignments early you could request the same. There is not a magical place where kids are receiving all this extra enrichment that your DC is missing out on.

DP. Which then begs the question: why are kids labeled and sorted into two groups when, as you say, no one is receiving some “magical extra enrichment”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealous GenEd parents are so embarrassing. Get a grip. Sorry your kid isn't my kid.

You keep saying this, it's like you haven't read the thread at all.

+100
Comments like that are so, so telling. That’s exactly the mindset FCPS is fostering, and I want no part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lorton Station is starting the process of departmentalizing grades 4-6 next year. Teachers will deliver content on subjects to entire grades.

I wonder if this is being directed by FCPS, with thoughts of implementing it across all elementary schools at some point.

Of course it is being directed from the top. The whole comprehensive boundary review is nothing but a ruse to keep the peasants occupied and fighting among themselves while the intellectual elite at Gatehouse do what they want behind the scenes.

Ok- many schools already do this. BUT, contrary to what the PP who wanted this for AAP, when it is done Math/science and LA/social studies are grouped together. The children also usually stay together and as a class switch teachers. If you have to regroup to meet the needs of every kid, you are going to not really have a home room and will change for every subject because some kids qualify for AAP in just one subject. Some schools already do this for SIXTH grade in elementary which makes sense as it is watered down middle school. It is not typically practice from 3-5 and it should not be. Developmentally those kids still need the steadiness of being with the same kids for most of the day.

A long long time ago in a far away place (different state) we were grouped and moved for each subject starting in 3rd grade. And we were with different kids for each subject based on strengths, and kids could be moved up and down at any time to meet their needs. Honestly, the first time I heard the fcps talking point of meeting every kid where they were at I assumed that meant some sort of movement up and down so that they could always be learning what they are ready for. Never expected to be told by a teacher based on kids fall iready she wouldn't be teaching them anything until February...

It worked because everyone was getting what they needed. Did we know which group was the smart group and which group was struggling? Yes, of course, and today's kids are smart enough to figure it out too in the current system. But, everyone was always in a group where they were being challenged to grow. And we were happy for kids when they moved up. And everyone knew what their stregnths and weaknesses were. And we could see that maybe one kid who struggled with language arts was a genius at math. And another kid who struggled with math was an amazing writer, etc. Instead of saying oh well you're not good at everything so you don't get the curriculum where you need it, we were all more likely to be exposed to a challenge in our strength.
My guess is someone will argue that this system didn't work for the bottom of the bottom, and I would be interested to see how the data compare these kids outcomes in the two systems.

+100
This is exactly what we had growing up and it worked great. I was an advanced LA kid but needed more help in math. So I went to the advanced LA class and then to the grade-level math class. There was a GT program that took a handful of kids from each school. 99% of the other kids just circulated in the different groups and moved up (or down) as needed, whenever needed. No one had to wait a YEAR to see if some test would give them access to a moderately accelerated curriculum in any subject. It was just there, for anyone who was able to do it.

The current system has complicated everything, in addition to excluding bright kids who would thrive with more advanced work. It’s disgraceful that a curriculum which is not even a “gifted” one, has been gate-kept from all of these other highly capable kids. A test score doesn’t determine who can do the work.

Interesting, it is like we can’t even get to a good answer because people are just bringing back “when I was in school”.

How did the kids not know you were dumb in math? or smart in social studies? Did you think that helped you, or that you were immune because you could say you were smart in LA?

It is like humanity can’t make progress because people can’t think beyond “when I was in school”.

Um, no one cared because most of the kids were also advanced in some subjects but not in all. Or “dumb,” as you so charmingly put it - so telling.

And of course that system helped us. Everyone had access to the appropriate level per subject.

No, they didn’t get what they needed in this system. In this system, my sister had to skip a grade. Because my sister had bad social experience skipping a grade, my parents decided not to skip me I got pull out G/T classes once a week and was bored. And my point in using dumb is that kids label kids MORE in this system. It was more obvious which group you were in for which subject.


Differentiation does work, but only when administration isn’t only concentrating on test scores for the cusp kids. That hasn’t gone away, so differentiation won’t work right now for the top -ish kids and that is why we have AAP.

The real problem is 2 fold
1- phonics programs and science of reading need to differentiate for learners (not just one size fits all)
AND
2- Administration needs to focus on teaching ALL kids. They need to allow teachers to meet with all groups and not leave the middle-high kids to themselves while giving all the teacher time to the low-middle kids.

It is like people have to rewrite everything right now so everyone can question everything. And so people are reverting back to our childhoods for what works. Get a clue and read some research rather than being like “I walked a mile uphill both ways to school and it was great!” Use something other than personal experience, especially personal experience from your childhood (when you aren’t objective about the world at all) to make informed decisions.

Wow - get a clue, indeed. You continue to confuse "differentiation" with flexible groupings, held in separate classrooms. That's nothing at all like differentiation within the same classroom, which is what you are describing. Of course that doesn't work. One teacher can't possibly offer every child in his/her classroom academics tailored to their abilities. That's why the kids should go to Rm. A for advanced language arts; Rm. B for grade-level LA; Room C for remedial, etc. Same for all core classes. And "flexible" means Larla can move up to Rm. A if she shows advanced skills in Rm. B. No testing in required to simply access a slightly more advanced curriculum.

You seem to want to make this far more complicated that it needs to be. We all know the reason for that.

And btw - there is no system in which kids label other kids as "dumb" than the current AAP / GE division. None.

How does this work when 40% of the grade is advanced? All 40% likely cant fit in the advanced classroom. Someone is always going to get stuck in a less than ideal classroom.

Nothing says that you can't have multiple classes for advanced kids just like nothing says you can't have multiple classrooms for kids who are behind.

+1
The ridiculous roadblocks some posters are determined to throw out are amusing. The idea of offering AAP to any student who can do the work is causing them to clutch their pearls tightly. We can’t have that!

I wonder if parents like this also threw a fit when FCPS (correctly) decided to open high school honors and AP classes to all students. Somehow, I suspect they did.