Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:
1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.
2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.
Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.
There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.
Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.
DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.
1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.
2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.
There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.
I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.
Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.
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, actually, several FCPS LLIV programs implement AAP exactly this way. The kids are in heterogeneous classrooms with AAP clusters for homeroom, specials, lunch, and science/social studies. All of the AAP kids plus the gen ed advanced math kids switch to the same classroom for advanced math together. The remaining kids in the grade are split between the other classrooms for various levels of math (like, one teacher has grade level math but with some extensions, one has pure grade level math, and one has math with a lot of extra supports for kids who are struggling.) Also, all of the AAP kids and some of the advanced gen ed kids switch to the same classroom for AAP language arts together. The only real difference between the AAP kids and the gen ed kids who switch in for advanced subjects is that the AAP kids are guaranteed placement even if they're failing SOLs or performing horribly, while the gen ed kids have to prove themselves every year.
Why do you think this system is not implemented anywhere and would be completely impossible? Kids who are reading a year above grade level and on an Algebra in 8th grade track are a dime a dozen. Their needs are not remotely difficult to accommodate.
+ a million
And the whole "AAP + these Gen Ed kids or those Gen Ed kids" nonsense is beyond confusing and unnecessary. If there were just groups - advanced/grade level/remedial - and kids switched classrooms based on whatever subject/level they needed, this would all be far less complicated and silly.
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.
You are quite possibly the most insufferable and unpleasant poster on this thread. These aren't "1980s" ideas. They were used in FCPS right up until the early 2000s when FCPS stupidly chose to get rid of GT and implement whatever AAP is. No more gifted program, for some reason, and a test-in mildly advanced program. It's madness. Advanced academics should be available to any capable child, of which there are many. A gifted curriculum should be the actual test-in program for the very few.
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.
DP. I was an elementary teacher. Of course, it works. Some posters are acting like these kids are all child geniuses. Those kids are outliers in AAP classes, too. And, it worked in middle schools for many, many years when classes could be identified as Honors, etc.
In the early years of elementary school, kids frequently grow and learn in spurts. Some start lower and quickly pass others. A good teacher differentiates--at least until the powers that be want to control every step taken.
Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:
1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.
2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.
Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.
There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.
Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.
DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.
1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.
2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.
There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.
I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.
Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.
I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.
The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.
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, actually, several FCPS LLIV programs implement AAP exactly this way. The kids are in heterogeneous classrooms with AAP clusters for homeroom, specials, lunch, and science/social studies. All of the AAP kids plus the gen ed advanced math kids switch to the same classroom for advanced math together. The remaining kids in the grade are split between the other classrooms for various levels of math (like, one teacher has grade level math but with some extensions, one has pure grade level math, and one has math with a lot of extra supports for kids who are struggling.) Also, all of the AAP kids and some of the advanced gen ed kids switch to the same classroom for AAP language arts together. The only real difference between the AAP kids and the gen ed kids who switch in for advanced subjects is that the AAP kids are guaranteed placement even if they're failing SOLs or performing horribly, while the gen ed kids have to prove themselves every year.
Why do you think this system is not implemented anywhere and would be completely impossible? Kids who are reading a year above grade level and on an Algebra in 8th grade track are a dime a dozen. Their needs are not remotely difficult to accommodate.
Name the schools.
Off the top of my head, I know Providence ES does this. Other schools were mentioned a few years ago when people here were debating LLIV clusters vs. a dedicated classroom.
Every school that has gen ed advanced math does classroom switching for math. Why is it so weird to you that it would also work for English?
Great Falls Elem. does this too. I have no doubt most elementaries do this. Why? Because it makes sense.
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.
Applause. And it's so ironic that the PP's AI summation of tracking EXACTLY describes what's going on right now with AAP and Gen Ed. It's one huge tracking system, except there are only two groups, with vast overlap. Absolutely nutty.
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."
THIS. Track everyone or track no one. I also found the PP's AI post to be completely contradictory.
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.
DP. Sounds like Arlington has a much saner approach to education for all kids.
Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:
1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.
2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.
Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.
There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.
Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.
DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.
1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.
2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.
There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.
I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.
Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.
I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.
The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.
The system is idiotic.
Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.
You know what's really sad, my dc got one of those outstanding academics awards at 6th grade promotion...but our school is a center, and kid has Gen Ed kid at a center syndrome and doesn't feel like his outstanding academic award means that much since he's not full time aap.
If course, I'm working on correcting those thoughts, but it's just another reason it sucks to be a high performing Gen Ed kid at a center.
As an AAP parent I'd love tracking. What those calling for it don't realize is that it would really be the top half or less of current AAP kids on one track, then your bright GenEd kids would join a track with the test prepped AAP kids. For example, the Algebra in 7th (or 6th) kids together in the top track with the Algebra in 8th kids in the second track.
I feel like we barely dodged a bullet with the VMPI people trying to get rid of all math tracking just a couple years ago, and still people to this day on this forum are trying to call Algebra in 7th or 8th too accelerated for all but the top 10%. I'll gladly join with all the GenEd parents to get real tracking back in schools.
PP again. I'm also a "bright GenEd" parent as well with a level 3 kid who scored 140 on the CoGAT and got Pass Advanced on both SOLs this year but wasn't accepted into AAP level 4. The Algebra in 8th track would be ideal for this kid, although at least they have advanced math in 5th and 6th grade to get her out of class with the chair throwers and other kids who don't want to be there.
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."
THIS. Track everyone or track no one. I also found the PP's AI post to be completely contradictory.
I am NOT advocating for AAP to stay. I’ll say it again, I am NOT advocating for AAP to stay. Of course you found my post to be contradictory, you couldn’t follow it. Let me simplify. You aren’t going to like this because it isn’t couched for you, but here is why AAP became the way it is:
They are tracking the highest kids right now because
1. it is easier to focus on the cusp and lower kids. And give them more attention in regular classroom.
2. It gives the high kids who finish earlier and “need more” a level they can finish earlier.
3. IT also allows the lower kids to not feel like they are constantly placed in the slow class.
4. It admin to tell parents who come in complaining that they’re kid is bored to say “well, they didn’t make it to AAP”
5. It gives upper middle class and upper class parents and other strivers something to say in the system for. There would be more private schools in FCPS if they got rid of AAP.
I am saying if you get rid of AAP, they must also get rid of the idea that teachers should not need with high performers. Currently, the system is set up so if your kid “gets it” with regular instruction, that is all they get. Then they are given busy work “anchor activities’ or “extensions” that are typically busy work. They don’t get to meet with the teacher in small groups. This should change. High kids should be given instruction on their level, not just left to their own devices.
Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
