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: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.

Hey Alicia here- I’m not confused at all. I’m just taking your rather naive points and showing you the result of your thinking in the real world. You can’t do flexible groupings in separate classrooms for everyone. Scheduling wise it won’t work. Flexible groupings mean kids are constantly floating around. If a kid needs advanced math, but low reading and the low reading group meets with the reading teacher during the time the high math group is in math- where is the kid going to attend class? This is why this works in middle school because the sheer number of kids allows multiple sections of the same class.

If all the kids are meeting for math at the same time, all the teachers will still have to know all of the curriculum for each subject and the plus for departmentalizing for teachers is that they only have to deal with one subject. If you think switching teachers for kids in the middle of the year after every marking period or semester will work, that is naive as well. Getting to know a new teacher and a class style takes a few weeks. Changing class composition leads to instability and kids scores will go down for bit as they get to know new procedures, teaching styles etc. This works ok in high schools, but they have even switched to block schedules and they keep the same teachers for the year now.
Also, the way flexible groupings are supposed to work is kids switch up groups when they start new skills. That means a kid who has math facts down, may not have geometry down and if you think they are switching for just one unit, please see the above issues for why that won’t work.

What if kid a was in gen ed math for grade 4 and missed the grade 4/5 curriculum and then in grade 6 they go to 5/6- they will have missed half a year of instruction and have to catch up which will slow the class down.

Also, these groups will always have kids of different abilities in them even when they are segregated by “smartness”

If AAP goes, that is fine, but don’t put some half thought out system in there like you are proposing.

It’s almost amusing how many hypothetical roadblocks you’ve dreamed up here, all in an effort to make sure AAP stays exclusive. Your points are so absurd, I’ll just say this.

All math / LA, etc. subjects would meet during the same block. This is how it was done in my kid’s last school (NY) and it worked beautifully. None of your doomsday scenarios were an issue at all.

Opening AAP to all students is the opposite of trying to “dismantle” it, as some of you have breathlessly claimed.

I’m not breathless at ALL! I’m also not doing anything hypothetically. The PP wrote about TRACKING children into tracks by subject into ability groups. What most elementaries do is DEPARTMENTALIZATION. One teacher does math/science and another does LA/socials studies. The kids are sometimes grouped by ability over classes, but mostly to make sure that they have some kids at or close to their level. Meaning each class still has high, medium and low kids in it even when departmentalized. Most elementaries have partner teachers that switch. Teacher a math teacher b reading and then an and b kids switch. Teacher c math and teacher d reading and then c and d switch. Regrouping constantly across the grade isn’t great for elementary kids as developmentally they need more consistency. It may have worked “beautifully” for your kid, but with the amount of behavior issues there are, I doubt it worked beautifully for all kids.

Here is the google AI synopsis of why that stopped:

Tracking in elementary schools was stopped due to a combination of factors, including a growing body of evidence suggesting it's not effective, the perception that it exacerbates existing inequalities, and concerns about its impact on students' learning and development.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Ineffectiveness and Unequal Outcomes:
Research indicated that tracking didn't necessarily lead to improved academic outcomes for all students, and it often disproportionately disadvantaged students from minority and low-income backgrounds. These students were often placed in lower tracks, receiving less rigorous instruction and fewer opportunities.

Segregation and Stigma:
Tracking was viewed as a form of segregation, creating separate learning environments for students based on perceived ability, which could stigmatize students and reinforce negative stereotypes.

Limited Potential for Growth:
Some educators believe tracking can limit students' potential for growth by fostering a fixed mindset and discouraging effort. They argue that students in lower tracks may be less challenged and have fewer opportunities to develop their abilities.


Now the argument could be made that AAP is a tracking program for the brightest students. BUT to argue that ALL kids should be tracking throughout the day because the high kids are tracked is not a winning game plan. The thing is there isn’t really a negative to be labeled as smart, so they are tracking those kids. There is a negative to being in the low class and kids will feel that day after day and it made inequities worse.

What really needs to change is the administrations insistence on NOT LETTING TEACHERS TEACH HIGH KIDS IN SMALL GROUPS. THEN, you can kill AAP and have kids get equal time with and educator on their instructional level without making crappy busy work for the high kids.

They won’t do this though.

Tracking was more effective for the top group. Of course the current system is better for the bottom group. The kids not only get their allotment of teacher time, but they also get to steal the teacher time of the bright kids. And the bright kids are often forced to be peer tutors rather than being allowed to learn. Make no mistake: the “research” surrounding tracking is driven by equity concerns first and foremost. Middle schools and high schools have kids switch classrooms for leveled classes, and it works fine.

But I get your perspective. Your kid gets the benefit of a homogeneous grouping. They don’t have to sacrifice anything for equity and lower performers. Meanwhile, other kids who are as talented as yours or even more talented, but who didn’t get picked for AAP get to be ignored all day. You get to decrease your kid’s competition, smugly assume that your kid is better than others, and still pay yourself on the back for being a social justice warrior.

[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:

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.

Bothers me none. I'm happy for your child no matter their placement, be it third grade or in every AP class in high school. Your child's academic placement/schedule has no impact on my family whatsoever. This is something I wish the gen ed parents intent on tearing down AAP could agree on, instead of their vile jealousy of children.

As far as AAP vs. gen ed goes, pretty much every other school system in the country can deliver mildly accelerated content to somewhat above average kids. FCPS is the only one that buses mildly bright kids to a completely different school to deliver content that is at best 1 year above grade level. It really is absurd. AAP centers should be for the kids who are outliers in their school who need instruction at 2+ years above grade level.

What school systems are you referencing specifically here?

Other parents I know of gifted students in northern VA but not in FCPS are very frustrated with the lack of gifted program options in their schools. I know of 3 families who moved to surrounding jurisdictions to be eligible to apply to TJ in 8th but we're unable to move to Fairfax Co. due to the cost of housing. Their kids are off the charts gifted and their school systems relied on teacher differentiation in the classrooms and offer virtually nothing else.

You completely missed the point. Busing gifted kids into a separate gifted program makes sense. Busing somewhat above average kids to a mildly accelerated program doesn't. FCPS is the only school system that seems to think it cannot meet the needs of slightly above average kids in a mainstream classroom.

They're already pushing the limits of that classroom differentiation by mainstreaming in from the bottom end. They literally cannot add more levels of differentiation at the higher end. The teachers are already stretched too thin.

FLEXIBLE GROUPINGS BY SUBJECT PER CLASSROOM. Yes, I am yelling because this has been described so often on this thread and you continue to ignore it. No one is advocating for more differentiation *within* one classroom. The kids would switch classrooms for each core subject depending on level needed.
DP

Are you a teacher? I’m guessing no. If that worked effectively, it would be deployed through Gen Ed (heck, maybe even in AAP) and in schools throughout the land.

Guess what? It’s not. Guess why? Ineffective.

Please take your early 1980s ideas and flush them.

Please tell us more about why this doesn't work. There are school systems that think it does ...

Awesome! Could you name one or two? I’d love to see how they compare to FCPS.

This is how my kid's elementary school in APS worked a couple of years ago (kid is in MS now). Kids switched for math and/or ELA. Everything else is with their homeroom teacher. Gifted and SN kids are clustered within the homerooms to provide services, as needed (push in; was pull out years ago).

[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:

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.

Bothers me none. I'm happy for your child no matter their placement, be it third grade or in every AP class in high school. Your child's academic placement/schedule has no impact on my family whatsoever. This is something I wish the gen ed parents intent on tearing down AAP could agree on, instead of their vile jealousy of children.

As far as AAP vs. gen ed goes, pretty much every other school system in the country can deliver mildly accelerated content to somewhat above average kids. FCPS is the only one that buses mildly bright kids to a completely different school to deliver content that is at best 1 year above grade level. It really is absurd. AAP centers should be for the kids who are outliers in their school who need instruction at 2+ years above grade level.

What school systems are you referencing specifically here?

Other parents I know of gifted students in northern VA but not in FCPS are very frustrated with the lack of gifted program options in their schools. I know of 3 families who moved to surrounding jurisdictions to be eligible to apply to TJ in 8th but we're unable to move to Fairfax Co. due to the cost of housing. Their kids are off the charts gifted and their school systems relied on teacher differentiation in the classrooms and offer virtually nothing else.

You completely missed the point. Busing gifted kids into a separate gifted program makes sense. Busing somewhat above average kids to a mildly accelerated program doesn't. FCPS is the only school system that seems to think it cannot meet the needs of slightly above average kids in a mainstream classroom.

They're already pushing the limits of that classroom differentiation by mainstreaming in from the bottom end. They literally cannot add more levels of differentiation at the higher end. The teachers are already stretched too thin.

FLEXIBLE GROUPINGS BY SUBJECT PER CLASSROOM. Yes, I am yelling because this has been described so often on this thread and you continue to ignore it. No one is advocating for more differentiation *within* one classroom. The kids would switch classrooms for each core subject depending on level needed.
DP

Are you a teacher? I’m guessing no. If that worked effectively, it would be deployed through Gen Ed (heck, maybe even in AAP) and in schools throughout the land.

Guess what? It’s not. Guess why? Ineffective.

Please take your early 1980s ideas and flush them.

Please tell us more about why this doesn't work. There are school systems that think it does ...

Awesome! Could you name one or two? I’d love to see how they compare to FCPS.

This is how my kid's elementary school in APS worked a couple of years ago (kid is in MS now). Kids switched for math and/or ELA. Everything else is with their homeroom teacher. Gifted and SN kids are clustered within the homerooms to provide services, as needed (push in; was pull out years ago).

Did the whole class switch to the other teacher, or did like 10 kids from class A, 7 from class B, and 4 from class C come together as one group? Trying to figure out how this works.

[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:

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.

Bothers me none. I'm happy for your child no matter their placement, be it third grade or in every AP class in high school. Your child's academic placement/schedule has no impact on my family whatsoever. This is something I wish the gen ed parents intent on tearing down AAP could agree on, instead of their vile jealousy of children.

As far as AAP vs. gen ed goes, pretty much every other school system in the country can deliver mildly accelerated content to somewhat above average kids. FCPS is the only one that buses mildly bright kids to a completely different school to deliver content that is at best 1 year above grade level. It really is absurd. AAP centers should be for the kids who are outliers in their school who need instruction at 2+ years above grade level.

What school systems are you referencing specifically here?

Other parents I know of gifted students in northern VA but not in FCPS are very frustrated with the lack of gifted program options in their schools. I know of 3 families who moved to surrounding jurisdictions to be eligible to apply to TJ in 8th but we're unable to move to Fairfax Co. due to the cost of housing. Their kids are off the charts gifted and their school systems relied on teacher differentiation in the classrooms and offer virtually nothing else.

You completely missed the point. Busing gifted kids into a separate gifted program makes sense. Busing somewhat above average kids to a mildly accelerated program doesn't. FCPS is the only school system that seems to think it cannot meet the needs of slightly above average kids in a mainstream classroom.

They're already pushing the limits of that classroom differentiation by mainstreaming in from the bottom end. They literally cannot add more levels of differentiation at the higher end. The teachers are already stretched too thin.

FLEXIBLE GROUPINGS BY SUBJECT PER CLASSROOM. Yes, I am yelling because this has been described so often on this thread and you continue to ignore it. No one is advocating for more differentiation *within* one classroom. The kids would switch classrooms for each core subject depending on level needed.
DP

Are you a teacher? I’m guessing no. If that worked effectively, it would be deployed through Gen Ed (heck, maybe even in AAP) and in schools throughout the land.

Guess what? It’s not. Guess why? Ineffective.

Please take your early 1980s ideas and flush them.

Please tell us more about why this doesn't work. There are school systems that think it does ...

Awesome! Could you name one or two? I’d love to see how they compare to FCPS.

This is how my kid's elementary school in APS worked a couple of years ago (kid is in MS now). Kids switched for math and/or ELA. Everything else is with their homeroom teacher. Gifted and SN kids are clustered within the homerooms to provide services, as needed (push in; was pull out years ago).

Did the whole class switch to the other teacher, or did like 10 kids from class A, 7 from class B, and 4 from class C come together as one group? Trying to figure out how this works.

It was a mix from each class. And varied for ELA and math. Started in 3rd grade IIRC.

[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: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.

Hey Alicia here- I’m not confused at all. I’m just taking your rather naive points and showing you the result of your thinking in the real world. You can’t do flexible groupings in separate classrooms for everyone. Scheduling wise it won’t work. Flexible groupings mean kids are constantly floating around. If a kid needs advanced math, but low reading and the low reading group meets with the reading teacher during the time the high math group is in math- where is the kid going to attend class? This is why this works in middle school because the sheer number of kids allows multiple sections of the same class.

If all the kids are meeting for math at the same time, all the teachers will still have to know all of the curriculum for each subject and the plus for departmentalizing for teachers is that they only have to deal with one subject. If you think switching teachers for kids in the middle of the year after every marking period or semester will work, that is naive as well. Getting to know a new teacher and a class style takes a few weeks. Changing class composition leads to instability and kids scores will go down for bit as they get to know new procedures, teaching styles etc. This works ok in high schools, but they have even switched to block schedules and they keep the same teachers for the year now.
Also, the way flexible groupings are supposed to work is kids switch up groups when they start new skills. That means a kid who has math facts down, may not have geometry down and if you think they are switching for just one unit, please see the above issues for why that won’t work.

What if kid a was in gen ed math for grade 4 and missed the grade 4/5 curriculum and then in grade 6 they go to 5/6- they will have missed half a year of instruction and have to catch up which will slow the class down.

Also, these groups will always have kids of different abilities in them even when they are segregated by “smartness”

If AAP goes, that is fine, but don’t put some half thought out system in there like you are proposing.

It’s almost amusing how many hypothetical roadblocks you’ve dreamed up here, all in an effort to make sure AAP stays exclusive. Your points are so absurd, I’ll just say this.

All math / LA, etc. subjects would meet during the same block. This is how it was done in my kid’s last school (NY) and it worked beautifully. None of your doomsday scenarios were an issue at all.

Opening AAP to all students is the opposite of trying to “dismantle” it, as some of you have breathlessly claimed.

I’m not breathless at ALL! I’m also not doing anything hypothetically. The PP wrote about TRACKING children into tracks by subject into ability groups. What most elementaries do is DEPARTMENTALIZATION. One teacher does math/science and another does LA/socials studies. The kids are sometimes grouped by ability over classes, but mostly to make sure that they have some kids at or close to their level. Meaning each class still has high, medium and low kids in it even when departmentalized. Most elementaries have partner teachers that switch. Teacher a math teacher b reading and then an and b kids switch. Teacher c math and teacher d reading and then c and d switch. Regrouping constantly across the grade isn’t great for elementary kids as developmentally they need more consistency. It may have worked “beautifully” for your kid, but with the amount of behavior issues there are, I doubt it worked beautifully for all kids.

Here is the google AI synopsis of why that stopped:

Tracking in elementary schools was stopped due to a combination of factors, including a growing body of evidence suggesting it's not effective, the perception that it exacerbates existing inequalities, and concerns about its impact on students' learning and development.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Ineffectiveness and Unequal Outcomes:
Research indicated that tracking didn't necessarily lead to improved academic outcomes for all students, and it often disproportionately disadvantaged students from minority and low-income backgrounds. These students were often placed in lower tracks, receiving less rigorous instruction and fewer opportunities.

Segregation and Stigma:
Tracking was viewed as a form of segregation, creating separate learning environments for students based on perceived ability, which could stigmatize students and reinforce negative stereotypes.

Limited Potential for Growth:
Some educators believe tracking can limit students' potential for growth by fostering a fixed mindset and discouraging effort. They argue that students in lower tracks may be less challenged and have fewer opportunities to develop their abilities.


Now the argument could be made that AAP is a tracking program for the brightest students. BUT to argue that ALL kids should be tracking throughout the day because the high kids are tracked is not a winning game plan. The thing is there isn’t really a negative to be labeled as smart, so they are tracking those kids. There is a negative to being in the low class and kids will feel that day after day and it made inequities worse.

What really needs to change is the administrations insistence on NOT LETTING TEACHERS TEACH HIGH KIDS IN SMALL GROUPS. THEN, you can kill AAP and have kids get equal time with and educator on their instructional level without making crappy busy work for the high kids.

They won’t do this though.

Tracking was more effective for the top group. Of course the current system is better for the bottom group. The kids not only get their allotment of teacher time, but they also get to steal the teacher time of the bright kids. And the bright kids are often forced to be peer tutors rather than being allowed to learn. Make no mistake: the “research” surrounding tracking is driven by equity concerns first and foremost. Middle schools and high schools have kids switch classrooms for leveled classes, and it works fine.

But I get your perspective. Your kid gets the benefit of a homogeneous grouping. They don’t have to sacrifice anything for equity and lower performers. Meanwhile, other kids who are as talented as yours or even more talented, but who didn’t get picked for AAP get to be ignored all day. You get to decrease your kid’s competition, smugly assume that your kid is better than others, and still pay yourself on the back for being a social justice warrior.

Ugh-you said social justice warrior. I’m out because you are just angry without back up at this point and I thought we were having a discussion.

BTW my kid isn’t in AAP.

[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:

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.

Bothers me none. I'm happy for your child no matter their placement, be it third grade or in every AP class in high school. Your child's academic placement/schedule has no impact on my family whatsoever. This is something I wish the gen ed parents intent on tearing down AAP could agree on, instead of their vile jealousy of children.

As far as AAP vs. gen ed goes, pretty much every other school system in the country can deliver mildly accelerated content to somewhat above average kids. FCPS is the only one that buses mildly bright kids to a completely different school to deliver content that is at best 1 year above grade level. It really is absurd. AAP centers should be for the kids who are outliers in their school who need instruction at 2+ years above grade level.

What school systems are you referencing specifically here?

Other parents I know of gifted students in northern VA but not in FCPS are very frustrated with the lack of gifted program options in their schools. I know of 3 families who moved to surrounding jurisdictions to be eligible to apply to TJ in 8th but we're unable to move to Fairfax Co. due to the cost of housing. Their kids are off the charts gifted and their school systems relied on teacher differentiation in the classrooms and offer virtually nothing else.

You completely missed the point. Busing gifted kids into a separate gifted program makes sense. Busing somewhat above average kids to a mildly accelerated program doesn't. FCPS is the only school system that seems to think it cannot meet the needs of slightly above average kids in a mainstream classroom.

They're already pushing the limits of that classroom differentiation by mainstreaming in from the bottom end. They literally cannot add more levels of differentiation at the higher end. The teachers are already stretched too thin.

FLEXIBLE GROUPINGS BY SUBJECT PER CLASSROOM. Yes, I am yelling because this has been described so often on this thread and you continue to ignore it. No one is advocating for more differentiation *within* one classroom. The kids would switch classrooms for each core subject depending on level needed.
DP

Are you a teacher? I’m guessing no. If that worked effectively, it would be deployed through Gen Ed (heck, maybe even in AAP) and in schools throughout the land.

Guess what? It’s not. Guess why? Ineffective.

Please take your early 1980s ideas and flush them.

Please tell us more about why this doesn't work. There are school systems that think it does ...

Awesome! Could you name one or two? I’d love to see how they compare to FCPS.

This is how my kid's elementary school in APS worked a couple of years ago (kid is in MS now). Kids switched for math and/or ELA. Everything else is with their homeroom teacher. Gifted and SN kids are clustered within the homerooms to provide services, as needed (push in; was pull out years ago).

Did the whole class switch to the other teacher, or did like 10 kids from class A, 7 from class B, and 4 from class C come together as one group? Trying to figure out how this works.

It was a mix from each class. And varied for ELA and math. Started in 3rd grade IIRC.

How were science and social studies handled and which school? If N Arlington, that is a vastly different population. IF S Arlington, how much ESL support etc was involved to make small groups smaller.

Arlington has little to no AAP program BTW. Many parents complain about the lack of challenge for their kids.

[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.

Hey Alicia here- I’m not confused at all. I’m just taking your rather naive points and showing you the result of your thinking in the real world. You can’t do flexible groupings in separate classrooms for everyone. Scheduling wise it won’t work. Flexible groupings mean kids are constantly floating around. If a kid needs advanced math, but low reading and the low reading group meets with the reading teacher during the time the high math group is in math- where is the kid going to attend class? This is why this works in middle school because the sheer number of kids allows multiple sections of the same class.

If all the kids are meeting for math at the same time, all the teachers will still have to know all of the curriculum for each subject and the plus for departmentalizing for teachers is that they only have to deal with one subject. If you think switching teachers for kids in the middle of the year after every marking period or semester will work, that is naive as well. Getting to know a new teacher and a class style takes a few weeks. Changing class composition leads to instability and kids scores will go down for bit as they get to know new procedures, teaching styles etc. This works ok in high schools, but they have even switched to block schedules and they keep the same teachers for the year now.
Also, the way flexible groupings are supposed to work is kids switch up groups when they start new skills. That means a kid who has math facts down, may not have geometry down and if you think they are switching for just one unit, please see the above issues for why that won’t work.

What if kid a was in gen ed math for grade 4 and missed the grade 4/5 curriculum and then in grade 6 they go to 5/6- they will have missed half a year of instruction and have to catch up which will slow the class down.

Also, these groups will always have kids of different abilities in them even when they are segregated by “smartness”

If AAP goes, that is fine, but don’t put some half thought out system in there like you are proposing.

It’s almost amusing how many hypothetical roadblocks you’ve dreamed up here, all in an effort to make sure AAP stays exclusive. Your points are so absurd, I’ll just say this.

All math / LA, etc. subjects would meet during the same block. This is how it was done in my kid’s last school (NY) and it worked beautifully. None of your doomsday scenarios were an issue at all.

Opening AAP to all students is the opposite of trying to “dismantle” it, as some of you have breathlessly claimed.

I’m not breathless at ALL! I’m also not doing anything hypothetically. The PP wrote about TRACKING children into tracks by subject into ability groups. What most elementaries do is DEPARTMENTALIZATION. One teacher does math/science and another does LA/socials studies. The kids are sometimes grouped by ability over classes, but mostly to make sure that they have some kids at or close to their level. Meaning each class still has high, medium and low kids in it even when departmentalized. Most elementaries have partner teachers that switch. Teacher a math teacher b reading and then an and b kids switch. Teacher c math and teacher d reading and then c and d switch. Regrouping constantly across the grade isn’t great for elementary kids as developmentally they need more consistency. It may have worked “beautifully” for your kid, but with the amount of behavior issues there are, I doubt it worked beautifully for all kids.

Here is the google AI synopsis of why that stopped:

Tracking in elementary schools was stopped due to a combination of factors, including a growing body of evidence suggesting it's not effective, the perception that it exacerbates existing inequalities, and concerns about its impact on students' learning and development.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Ineffectiveness and Unequal Outcomes:
Research indicated that tracking didn't necessarily lead to improved academic outcomes for all students, and it often disproportionately disadvantaged students from minority and low-income backgrounds. These students were often placed in lower tracks, receiving less rigorous instruction and fewer opportunities.

Segregation and Stigma:
Tracking was viewed as a form of segregation, creating separate learning environments for students based on perceived ability, which could stigmatize students and reinforce negative stereotypes.

Limited Potential for Growth:
Some educators believe tracking can limit students' potential for growth by fostering a fixed mindset and discouraging effort. They argue that students in lower tracks may be less challenged and have fewer opportunities to develop their abilities.


Now the argument could be made that AAP is a tracking program for the brightest students. BUT to argue that ALL kids should be tracking throughout the day because the high kids are tracked is not a winning game plan. The thing is there isn’t really a negative to be labeled as smart, so they are tracking those kids. There is a negative to being in the low class and kids will feel that day after day and it made inequities worse.

What really needs to change is the administrations insistence on NOT LETTING TEACHERS TEACH HIGH KIDS IN SMALL GROUPS. THEN, you can kill AAP and have kids get equal time with and educator on their instructional level without making crappy busy work for the high kids.

They won’t do this though.

DP. I can also get an AI answer:
Potential challenges and arguments against:
Pacing and engagement: High-level students may get bored or frustrated if the pace of the class is too slow or if they are constantly in a teaching role without opportunities to learn new material.
Lack of challenge: They may not be sufficiently challenged and could feel disadvantaged if the focus is on the lowest common denominator.
Teacher workload: Managing a mixed-ability classroom effectively requires significant effort and planning from the teacher to differentiate instruction.
Key takeaway:
The benefits for high-level students in mixed-ability classrooms often depend on effective implementation strategies like differentiated instruction and careful grouping techniques that allow for targeted challenges and opportunities for both teaching and learning.

[Anonymous]

What really needs to change is the administrations insistence on NOT LETTING TEACHERS TEACH HIGH KIDS IN SMALL GROUPS. THEN, you can kill AAP and have kids get equal time with and educator on their instructional level without making crappy busy work for the high kids.

Please show me where this is happening.

[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: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.

Hey Alicia here- I’m not confused at all. I’m just taking your rather naive points and showing you the result of your thinking in the real world. You can’t do flexible groupings in separate classrooms for everyone. Scheduling wise it won’t work. Flexible groupings mean kids are constantly floating around. If a kid needs advanced math, but low reading and the low reading group meets with the reading teacher during the time the high math group is in math- where is the kid going to attend class? This is why this works in middle school because the sheer number of kids allows multiple sections of the same class.

If all the kids are meeting for math at the same time, all the teachers will still have to know all of the curriculum for each subject and the plus for departmentalizing for teachers is that they only have to deal with one subject. If you think switching teachers for kids in the middle of the year after every marking period or semester will work, that is naive as well. Getting to know a new teacher and a class style takes a few weeks. Changing class composition leads to instability and kids scores will go down for bit as they get to know new procedures, teaching styles etc. This works ok in high schools, but they have even switched to block schedules and they keep the same teachers for the year now.
Also, the way flexible groupings are supposed to work is kids switch up groups when they start new skills. That means a kid who has math facts down, may not have geometry down and if you think they are switching for just one unit, please see the above issues for why that won’t work.

What if kid a was in gen ed math for grade 4 and missed the grade 4/5 curriculum and then in grade 6 they go to 5/6- they will have missed half a year of instruction and have to catch up which will slow the class down.

Also, these groups will always have kids of different abilities in them even when they are segregated by “smartness”

If AAP goes, that is fine, but don’t put some half thought out system in there like you are proposing.

It’s almost amusing how many hypothetical roadblocks you’ve dreamed up here, all in an effort to make sure AAP stays exclusive. Your points are so absurd, I’ll just say this.

All math / LA, etc. subjects would meet during the same block. This is how it was done in my kid’s last school (NY) and it worked beautifully. None of your doomsday scenarios were an issue at all.

Opening AAP to all students is the opposite of trying to “dismantle” it, as some of you have breathlessly claimed.

I’m not breathless at ALL! I’m also not doing anything hypothetically. The PP wrote about TRACKING children into tracks by subject into ability groups. What most elementaries do is DEPARTMENTALIZATION. One teacher does math/science and another does LA/socials studies. The kids are sometimes grouped by ability over classes, but mostly to make sure that they have some kids at or close to their level. Meaning each class still has high, medium and low kids in it even when departmentalized. Most elementaries have partner teachers that switch. Teacher a math teacher b reading and then an and b kids switch. Teacher c math and teacher d reading and then c and d switch. Regrouping constantly across the grade isn’t great for elementary kids as developmentally they need more consistency. It may have worked “beautifully” for your kid, but with the amount of behavior issues there are, I doubt it worked beautifully for all kids.

Here is the google AI synopsis of why that stopped:

Tracking in elementary schools was stopped due to a combination of factors, including a growing body of evidence suggesting it's not effective, the perception that it exacerbates existing inequalities, and concerns about its impact on students' learning and development.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Ineffectiveness and Unequal Outcomes:
Research indicated that tracking didn't necessarily lead to improved academic outcomes for all students, and it often disproportionately disadvantaged students from minority and low-income backgrounds. These students were often placed in lower tracks, receiving less rigorous instruction and fewer opportunities.

Segregation and Stigma:
Tracking was viewed as a form of segregation, creating separate learning environments for students based on perceived ability, which could stigmatize students and reinforce negative stereotypes.

Limited Potential for Growth:
Some educators believe tracking can limit students' potential for growth by fostering a fixed mindset and discouraging effort. They argue that students in lower tracks may be less challenged and have fewer opportunities to develop their abilities.


Now the argument could be made that AAP is a tracking program for the brightest students. BUT to argue that ALL kids should be tracking throughout the day because the high kids are tracked is not a winning game plan. The thing is there isn’t really a negative to be labeled as smart, so they are tracking those kids. There is a negative to being in the low class and kids will feel that day after day and it made inequities worse.

What really needs to change is the administrations insistence on NOT LETTING TEACHERS TEACH HIGH KIDS IN SMALL GROUPS. THEN, you can kill AAP and have kids get equal time with and educator on their instructional level without making crappy busy work for the high kids.

They won’t do this though.

Tracking was more effective for the top group. Of course the current system is better for the bottom group. The kids not only get their allotment of teacher time, but they also get to steal the teacher time of the bright kids. And the bright kids are often forced to be peer tutors rather than being allowed to learn. Make no mistake: the “research” surrounding tracking is driven by equity concerns first and foremost. Middle schools and high schools have kids switch classrooms for leveled classes, and it works fine.

But I get your perspective. Your kid gets the benefit of a homogeneous grouping. They don’t have to sacrifice anything for equity and lower performers. Meanwhile, other kids who are as talented as yours or even more talented, but who didn’t get picked for AAP get to be ignored all day. You get to decrease your kid’s competition, smugly assume that your kid is better than others, and still pay yourself on the back for being a social justice warrior.

Ugh-you said social justice warrior. I’m out because you are just angry without back up at this point and I thought we were having a discussion.

BTW my kid isn’t in AAP.

Well, your AI drivel was mostly about equity, so I call it like I see it.

I'm pretty sure you are the person who has posted that their kid needs AAP for the better peer group, but the other equally talented kids not picked for AAP need to just get over it. At least that person, even if they're a jerk, had a consistent viewpoint. I'm not even sure what yours is. It sounds like you think that AAP centers are good, because one group of above average kids simply needs to be tracked and would benefit from advanced tracking, but it's bad to have ability groupings for the kids left in gen ed, because tracking is ineffective and inequitable. If that's the case, then you're contradicting yourself. I mean, you're basically saying that one group of mildly accelerated kids with around a 120 IQ need tracking because a committee doing a 5 minute review on their packet gave them a label, but another group of mildly accelerated kids with around a 120 IQ are fine being ignored by the teacher and twiddling their thumbs all year.

If tracking is bad, then no one needs tracking. If it's fine, then it should be extended to all kids. It's awfully convenient to say that some (your?) kids should get to benefit from tracking, but others must be held back to promote equity and make sure that the bottom performers don't feel "dumb."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What really needs to change is the administrations insistence on NOT LETTING TEACHERS TEACH HIGH KIDS IN SMALL GROUPS. THEN, you can kill AAP and have kids get equal time with and educator on their instructional level without making crappy busy work for the high kids.

Please show me where this is happening.

Um.. Everywhere in FCPS. The FCPS standard is that the above grade level reading group sees the teacher for at most 15 minutes once per week or even once every other week, while the below grade level kids get 30+ minutes every day. The teachers are not allowed to spend more time on the kids who will pass the SOLs, when they have a bunch of kids who are likely to fail.

[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:

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.

Bothers me none. I'm happy for your child no matter their placement, be it third grade or in every AP class in high school. Your child's academic placement/schedule has no impact on my family whatsoever. This is something I wish the gen ed parents intent on tearing down AAP could agree on, instead of their vile jealousy of children.

As far as AAP vs. gen ed goes, pretty much every other school system in the country can deliver mildly accelerated content to somewhat above average kids. FCPS is the only one that buses mildly bright kids to a completely different school to deliver content that is at best 1 year above grade level. It really is absurd. AAP centers should be for the kids who are outliers in their school who need instruction at 2+ years above grade level.

What school systems are you referencing specifically here?

Other parents I know of gifted students in northern VA but not in FCPS are very frustrated with the lack of gifted program options in their schools. I know of 3 families who moved to surrounding jurisdictions to be eligible to apply to TJ in 8th but we're unable to move to Fairfax Co. due to the cost of housing. Their kids are off the charts gifted and their school systems relied on teacher differentiation in the classrooms and offer virtually nothing else.

You completely missed the point. Busing gifted kids into a separate gifted program makes sense. Busing somewhat above average kids to a mildly accelerated program doesn't. FCPS is the only school system that seems to think it cannot meet the needs of slightly above average kids in a mainstream classroom.

They're already pushing the limits of that classroom differentiation by mainstreaming in from the bottom end. They literally cannot add more levels of differentiation at the higher end. The teachers are already stretched too thin.

FLEXIBLE GROUPINGS BY SUBJECT PER CLASSROOM. Yes, I am yelling because this has been described so often on this thread and you continue to ignore it. No one is advocating for more differentiation *within* one classroom. The kids would switch classrooms for each core subject depending on level needed.
DP

Are you a teacher? I’m guessing no. If that worked effectively, it would be deployed through Gen Ed (heck, maybe even in AAP) and in schools throughout the land.

Guess what? It’s not. Guess why? Ineffective.

Please take your early 1980s ideas and flush them.

Please tell us more about why this doesn't work. There are school systems that think it does ...

Awesome! Could you name one or two? I’d love to see how they compare to FCPS.

This is how my kid's elementary school in APS worked a couple of years ago (kid is in MS now). Kids switched for math and/or ELA. Everything else is with their homeroom teacher. Gifted and SN kids are clustered within the homerooms to provide services, as needed (push in; was pull out years ago).

Did the whole class switch to the other teacher, or did like 10 kids from class A, 7 from class B, and 4 from class C come together as one group? Trying to figure out how this works.

It was a mix from each class. And varied for ELA and math. Started in 3rd grade IIRC.

How were science and social studies handled and which school? If N Arlington, that is a vastly different population. IF S Arlington, how much ESL support etc was involved to make small groups smaller.

Arlington has little to no AAP program BTW. Many parents complain about the lack of challenge for their kids.

Kids stuck with their homeroom for everything except math and ELA.

School was 20-30% ela & low-income at the time. Boundaries changed so current numbers have shifted.

Many parents are extremely happy not to deal with AAP insanity. My kids received pull out GT and then later push in support in ES. It was fine. They are bright, motivated kids and didn’t need extreme acceleration to learn and enjoy school.

[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: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.

Hey Alicia here- I’m not confused at all. I’m just taking your rather naive points and showing you the result of your thinking in the real world. You can’t do flexible groupings in separate classrooms for everyone. Scheduling wise it won’t work. Flexible groupings mean kids are constantly floating around. If a kid needs advanced math, but low reading and the low reading group meets with the reading teacher during the time the high math group is in math- where is the kid going to attend class? This is why this works in middle school because the sheer number of kids allows multiple sections of the same class.

If all the kids are meeting for math at the same time, all the teachers will still have to know all of the curriculum for each subject and the plus for departmentalizing for teachers is that they only have to deal with one subject. If you think switching teachers for kids in the middle of the year after every marking period or semester will work, that is naive as well. Getting to know a new teacher and a class style takes a few weeks. Changing class composition leads to instability and kids scores will go down for bit as they get to know new procedures, teaching styles etc. This works ok in high schools, but they have even switched to block schedules and they keep the same teachers for the year now.
Also, the way flexible groupings are supposed to work is kids switch up groups when they start new skills. That means a kid who has math facts down, may not have geometry down and if you think they are switching for just one unit, please see the above issues for why that won’t work.

What if kid a was in gen ed math for grade 4 and missed the grade 4/5 curriculum and then in grade 6 they go to 5/6- they will have missed half a year of instruction and have to catch up which will slow the class down.

Also, these groups will always have kids of different abilities in them even when they are segregated by “smartness”

If AAP goes, that is fine, but don’t put some half thought out system in there like you are proposing.

What if all of the teachers in the grade are teaching math at the same time and they just shuffle the kids around so each teacher has only 3 unique levels instead of 5.
Then repeat the the same, rearranging kids as needed,for all other subjects

All the teachers aren't math teachers. There aren't enough math (or any specific subject) teachers to teach everyone that one subject all at the same time.

Huh? But they are all currently teaching math to the kids in their assigned class, all at the same time, do presumably teaching to less levels would be easier....

+1
The PP will just continue to throw up ridiculous made-up roadblocks in the hopes that none of this comes to pass. Of course flexible groups/per classroom would work. It was the proven system for many years.

AAP isn't under review so no worries about it coming to pass.

I still havent seen anyone name a specific school system where this is currently implemented and is working well. No, not your memories from your days as a 10 year old in the GT program 40 years ago.

Well, that you know of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. I would say using phrases such as, “better peer group” is just as ignorant and harmful. Wouldn’t you?


No, because one is an accurate representation of an opinion (better peer group, for example), and one is the incorrect and offensive use of an inflammatory word that demonstrates ignorance.

DP. PP is a snob. Maybe a bigot. But, definitely a snob.

Bigotry is assuming that there can't be diverse kids in the better peer group. You are the only one suggesting that as a possibility. At our center, there are many minorities of all backgrounds in the program.

Multiple posters now have directly or indirectly pointed out that it is the better peer group/ cohort that is what makes the centers stronger and more appealing to families with that choice. That isn't snobbery. It is the truth.

AKA segregation

Segregation by intelligence.

By income

What an ugly thing to say. Poor people can be intelligent as well.

These sad moms who don't have kids in AAP will cling on to anything to blame but the truth.

The ugliest comments in this thread have been from the “better peer group” AAP crowd.

And yet you're trying to get your kid into a better peer group though flexible grouping. Otherwise you'd just be advocating for the AAP curriculum to be used at all schools. I heard one middle school was trying this years ago.

I’d be fine with the AAP curriculum being used at all schools - as long as it was open to all.

So go push that and leave advanced kids alone.

That's exactly what we're advocating for, you nitwit. Can you even read?
DP

[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:

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.

Bothers me none. I'm happy for your child no matter their placement, be it third grade or in every AP class in high school. Your child's academic placement/schedule has no impact on my family whatsoever. This is something I wish the gen ed parents intent on tearing down AAP could agree on, instead of their vile jealousy of children.

Except - once again - no one is trying to “tear down AAP.” We are saying it should be open to all who are able.

It actually is very clear that my child’s academic placement does indeed have some sort of weird impact on you. If you truly didn’t care, you would agree that AAP should be available to every child. But you want to gatekeep it. Maybe ask yourself why that is.

Are you dense? AAP IS available to every child already - anyone can apply or be referred, but everyone cannot be selected. You're just mad your kid wasn't picked.

It’s beyond clear who is dense here. You’re just mad at the thought that AAP might become just another grouping - which it should have been all along. You love the exclusivity of it.

Maybe you're just upset that the remedial group got lumped in with your "bright kid" group. Instead of looking at the prepped kids in AAP who shouldn't be there and drawing the conclusion that your kid should be right there with them, you need to realize the top 10% or so really are just coasting through even the AAP curriculum with no extra effort required. The bright kids and the prepped kids couldn't keep up if AAP worked like it's supposed to.

Yes - because it's not a gifted program. We're all well aware. As another poster said, it's simply a "mildly accelerated" curriculum, nothing more. And as such, far more kids could be doing it than an arbitrary cutoff score on a random test at age seven would indicate.
DP

[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: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.

Hey Alicia here- I’m not confused at all. I’m just taking your rather naive points and showing you the result of your thinking in the real world. You can’t do flexible groupings in separate classrooms for everyone. Scheduling wise it won’t work. Flexible groupings mean kids are constantly floating around. If a kid needs advanced math, but low reading and the low reading group meets with the reading teacher during the time the high math group is in math- where is the kid going to attend class? This is why this works in middle school because the sheer number of kids allows multiple sections of the same class.

If all the kids are meeting for math at the same time, all the teachers will still have to know all of the curriculum for each subject and the plus for departmentalizing for teachers is that they only have to deal with one subject. If you think switching teachers for kids in the middle of the year after every marking period or semester will work, that is naive as well. Getting to know a new teacher and a class style takes a few weeks. Changing class composition leads to instability and kids scores will go down for bit as they get to know new procedures, teaching styles etc. This works ok in high schools, but they have even switched to block schedules and they keep the same teachers for the year now.
Also, the way flexible groupings are supposed to work is kids switch up groups when they start new skills. That means a kid who has math facts down, may not have geometry down and if you think they are switching for just one unit, please see the above issues for why that won’t work.

What if kid a was in gen ed math for grade 4 and missed the grade 4/5 curriculum and then in grade 6 they go to 5/6- they will have missed half a year of instruction and have to catch up which will slow the class down.

Also, these groups will always have kids of different abilities in them even when they are segregated by “smartness”

If AAP goes, that is fine, but don’t put some half thought out system in there like you are proposing.

What if all of the teachers in the grade are teaching math at the same time and they just shuffle the kids around so each teacher has only 3 unique levels instead of 5.
Then repeat the the same, rearranging kids as needed,for all other subjects

All the teachers aren't math teachers. There aren't enough math (or any specific subject) teachers to teach everyone that one subject all at the same time.

Huh? But they are all currently teaching math to the kids in their assigned class, all at the same time, do presumably teaching to less levels would be easier....

+1
The PP will just continue to throw up ridiculous made-up roadblocks in the hopes that none of this comes to pass. Of course flexible groups/per classroom would work. It was the proven system for many years.

AAP isn't under review so no worries about it coming to pass.

I still havent seen anyone name a specific school system where this is currently implemented and is working well. No, not your memories from your days as a 10 year old in the GT program 40 years ago.

Gotta put that in bold for the mama that keeps logging in and making ten posts at a time.

You mean, you?