Which schools only have LIV kids in their LLIV program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

In your "many truly gifted kids are rejected" scenario, many = 6; in the entire county and all of their outraged parents find this site and post incessantly about the injustice.

By 5th grade, most AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level but of course they don't test that high or use books at that level for book club. Reading groups? So glad our center didn't bother with that nonsense, it's just one more thing for parents to compare and get worked up about.

While they always said that admissions were universal and didn't vary throughout the county, the escape valve centers seem to admit more generously and focus on bringing everyone along where other center schools steam ahead and floundering kids get lost. Both approaches have their positives and negatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

In your "many truly gifted kids are rejected" scenario, many = 6; in the entire county and all of their outraged parents find this site and post incessantly about the injustice.

By 5th grade, most AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level but of course they don't test that high or use books at that level for book club. Reading groups? So glad our center didn't bother with that nonsense, it's just one more thing for parents to compare and get worked up about.

While they always said that admissions were universal and didn't vary throughout the county, the escape valve centers seem to admit more generously and focus on bringing everyone along where other center schools steam ahead and floundering kids get lost. Both approaches have their positives and negatives.

NP.

I would love to see the source for this claim….

And I don’t think the PP was talking about “truly gifted kids” getting rejected, but about across the board “above grade level” kids who get rejected. AAP is NOT a gifted program, sorry. There are a handful of gifted kids in the program, but the vast majority of AAP students are merely above average.

Anecdotally, my above average, definitely not gifted kid was rejected from AAP, was incredibly bored and frustrated in GenEd, was later principal placed into AAP and was one of the best students in his class. Whatever level of “gifted” the average AAP kid is working with, it’s not so great that an above average kid can’t hang with them academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

This is true for many people. The country (not just the county) is more diverse now that it was back then. Including academically. A homogeneous school, whether they are all superstars or all regular students or all struggling students, is a lot easier for everyone. But we don't have that anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

In your "many truly gifted kids are rejected" scenario, many = 6; in the entire county and all of their outraged parents find this site and post incessantly about the injustice.

By 5th grade, most AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level but of course they don't test that high or use books at that level for book club. Reading groups? So glad our center didn't bother with that nonsense, it's just one more thing for parents to compare and get worked up about.

While they always said that admissions were universal and didn't vary throughout the county, the escape valve centers seem to admit more generously and focus on bringing everyone along where other center schools steam ahead and floundering kids get lost. Both approaches have their positives and negatives.

So much misinformation here. When I talked to the AART after my kid was rejected, the AART said that of the 25ish kids who are accepted each year, there are 5ish kids with absolutely nothing in the packet to indicate that the kid belongs in AAP or is even above average in any way. The AART also said that 5ish kids in that group get rejected with stellar packets that absolutely fit the profile of an AAP kid. The remaining 20 admitted kids ranged from plausible but pretty weak AAP endorsement to very strong AAP endorsement. The AART flat out said that the process is much more random than anyone wants to admit.

Also, very few AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level. At my kids' school, only slightly over half of the kids even managed pass advanced on the reading SOL. None of them were walking around with high school level books. Based on teacher reactions, very few were testing at above grade level in iready.

Gifted programs should all follow the "steam ahead and floundering kids get lost" model. Kids who struggle can always drop back down into the regular program. Kids who are ahead and bored are stuck being ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

This is true for many people. The country (not just the county) is more diverse now that it was back then. Including academically. A homogeneous school, whether they are all superstars or all regular students or all struggling students, is a lot easier for everyone. But we don't have that anymore.

You missed the point. The range in abilities was lower because they tracked for each subject and had kids switch classrooms based on ability. Since tracking fell out of favor, they're instead dispersing the full range of students across all of the classrooms, and then expecting the teacher to differentiate for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

In your "many truly gifted kids are rejected" scenario, many = 6; in the entire county and all of their outraged parents find this site and post incessantly about the injustice.

By 5th grade, most AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level but of course they don't test that high or use books at that level for book club. Reading groups? So glad our center didn't bother with that nonsense, it's just one more thing for parents to compare and get worked up about.

While they always said that admissions were universal and didn't vary throughout the county, the escape valve centers seem to admit more generously and focus on bringing everyone along where other center schools steam ahead and floundering kids get lost. Both approaches have their positives and negatives.

So much misinformation here. When I talked to the AART after my kid was rejected, the AART said that of the 25ish kids who are accepted each year, there are 5ish kids with absolutely nothing in the packet to indicate that the kid belongs in AAP or is even above average in any way. The AART also said that 5ish kids in that group get rejected with stellar packets that absolutely fit the profile of an AAP kid. The remaining 20 admitted kids ranged from plausible but pretty weak AAP endorsement to very strong AAP endorsement. The AART flat out said that the process is much more random than anyone wants to admit.

Also, very few AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level. At my kids' school, only slightly over half of the kids even managed pass advanced on the reading SOL. None of them were walking around with high school level books. Based on teacher reactions, very few were testing at above grade level in iready.

Gifted programs should all follow the "steam ahead and floundering kids get lost" model. Kids who struggle can always drop back down into the regular program. Kids who are ahead and bored are stuck being ignored.

I am confused about how anyone benefits from a process that is "more random than anyone wants to admit". My understanding (from this forum, mainly, I admit) is that there's increasing focus on GBRS vs COGAT so that committees and teachers have more say and can avoid admitting heavily prepped kids that they do not feel should be in AAP. That's not so much randomness as trying to steer away from relying exclusively on test scores that aren't the gold objective standards that some would pretend they are.

But it's quite possible what I'm reading in the forum doesn't reflect the facts at all, so I'm interested in your perspective. (I have zero first-hand experience so far with any of this.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

Maybe I'm wrong but seems a bit implausible that a kid would be viewed as inferior (by whom?) if they got in through referral or testing in pool with better GBRS scores and teacher letters in a future year.

Stats also don't look good when there are fewer passing advanced because they are being ignored, right?

I'd like to hear what a teacher thinks about why FCPS won't entertain the model you suggest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

In your "many truly gifted kids are rejected" scenario, many = 6; in the entire county and all of their outraged parents find this site and post incessantly about the injustice.

By 5th grade, most AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level but of course they don't test that high or use books at that level for book club. Reading groups? So glad our center didn't bother with that nonsense, it's just one more thing for parents to compare and get worked up about.

While they always said that admissions were universal and didn't vary throughout the county, the escape valve centers seem to admit more generously and focus on bringing everyone along where other center schools steam ahead and floundering kids get lost. Both approaches have their positives and negatives.

So much misinformation here. When I talked to the AART after my kid was rejected, the AART said that of the 25ish kids who are accepted each year, there are 5ish kids with absolutely nothing in the packet to indicate that the kid belongs in AAP or is even above average in any way. The AART also said that 5ish kids in that group get rejected with stellar packets that absolutely fit the profile of an AAP kid. The remaining 20 admitted kids ranged from plausible but pretty weak AAP endorsement to very strong AAP endorsement. The AART flat out said that the process is much more random than anyone wants to admit.

Also, very few AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level. At my kids' school, only slightly over half of the kids even managed pass advanced on the reading SOL. None of them were walking around with high school level books. Based on teacher reactions, very few were testing at above grade level in iready.

Gifted programs should all follow the "steam ahead and floundering kids get lost" model. Kids who struggle can always drop back down into the regular program. Kids who are ahead and bored are stuck being ignored.

I am confused about how anyone benefits from a process that is "more random than anyone wants to admit". My understanding (from this forum, mainly, I admit) is that there's increasing focus on GBRS vs COGAT so that committees and teachers have more say and can avoid admitting heavily prepped kids that they do not feel should be in AAP. That's not so much randomness as trying to steer away from relying exclusively on test scores that aren't the gold objective standards that some would pretend they are.

But it's quite possible what I'm reading in the forum doesn't reflect the facts at all, so I'm interested in your perspective. (I have zero first-hand experience so far with any of this.)

You're making two huge assumptions. The first is that the GBRS is an accurate view of the child from an unbiased source that fully understands giftedness. The second is that the central selection committee is a monolithic entity that makes consistent and logical decisions.

For the first point, teachers' abilities to understand gifted children and give an unbiased viewpoint can vary pretty strongly. It has long been the case that some teachers won't see giftedness if they don't personally like the kid, the kid is not particularly compliant, the kid is shy, or the kid doesn't fit the teacher's view of what a gifted child should look like. There are numerous studies showing that URMs are often rated lower in giftedness assessments because the teachers to some degree are biased. If the kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, but the teacher isn't seeing giftedness, it's more a reflection of the teacher than it is of the child.

For the second, the panels are made of people having a broad range of views on the purpose of AAP. Some want to be inclusive and will let anyone in. Others think the program is stupid and want to reject everyone. Some are swayed by stupid, petty things, like the child's handwriting in work samples or whether the parent says the child is bored in the packet. Some parents are very good at crafting their questionnaire responses in a way that presents their average child is a very positive light. Some parents respond in ways that are unwittingly offputting to the panel members. Some panel members, when seeing a packet of a pretty average looking kid who clearly has very involved parents will decide that the kid would be well supported in AAP and would do fine, so they admit. Some, when seeing a high scoring kid who clearly has very involved parents will decide that the kid is a product of privilege and prep, and will reject the kid.

There are kids who have a high GBRS, high test scores, and are above grade level in all subjects who get rejected. Maybe it was something petty in the file. Maybe the school was in a hurry and grabbed poor work samples. Who knows. There are gifted kids with high CogAT and WISC who are above grade level in all subjects, but the teacher just doesn't like the kid and tanks the GBRS. There are pretty average kids who get in because the teacher loves the kid and gives a glowing GBRS. There are kids with average test scores, average GBRS, and not above grade level who are mysteriously admitted for whatever reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

Maybe I'm wrong but seems a bit implausible that a kid would be viewed as inferior (by whom?) if they got in through referral or testing in pool with better GBRS scores and teacher letters in a future year.

Stats also don't look good when there are fewer passing advanced because they are being ignored, right?

I'd like to hear what a teacher thinks about why FCPS won't entertain the model you suggest.

My kid who had the high test scores, was above grade level, and had a high GBRS was bullied by some former friends for not getting into AAP. She was told that she was "too dumb" to hang around them, and that she couldn't go to the center school with them because they were gifted and she was stupid.

Also, schools aren't rated by the number of kids getting pass advanced. Their ratings are much better if they invest the time in lifting kids from failing to passing the SOL than if they try to lift kids from passing to pass advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

Maybe I'm wrong but seems a bit implausible that a kid would be viewed as inferior (by whom?) if they got in through referral or testing in pool with better GBRS scores and teacher letters in a future year.

Stats also don't look good when there are fewer passing advanced because they are being ignored, right?

I'd like to hear what a teacher thinks about why FCPS won't entertain the model you suggest.

My kid who had the high test scores, was above grade level, and had a high GBRS was bullied by some former friends for not getting into AAP. She was told that she was "too dumb" to hang around them, and that she couldn't go to the center school with them because they were gifted and she was stupid.

Also, schools aren't rated by the number of kids getting pass advanced. Their ratings are much better if they invest the time in lifting kids from failing to passing the SOL than if they try to lift kids from passing to pass advanced.

There are bullies everywhere - from south side Chicago to Harvard. You daughter's experience were not the same as my kids' experiences. In upper elementary, kids start hitting puberty and all the tribalism and bullying that comes with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

In your "many truly gifted kids are rejected" scenario, many = 6; in the entire county and all of their outraged parents find this site and post incessantly about the injustice.

By 5th grade, most AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level but of course they don't test that high or use books at that level for book club. Reading groups? So glad our center didn't bother with that nonsense, it's just one more thing for parents to compare and get worked up about.

While they always said that admissions were universal and didn't vary throughout the county, the escape valve centers seem to admit more generously and focus on bringing everyone along where other center schools steam ahead and floundering kids get lost. Both approaches have their positives and negatives.

So much misinformation here. When I talked to the AART after my kid was rejected, the AART said that of the 25ish kids who are accepted each year, there are 5ish kids with absolutely nothing in the packet to indicate that the kid belongs in AAP or is even above average in any way. The AART also said that 5ish kids in that group get rejected with stellar packets that absolutely fit the profile of an AAP kid. The remaining 20 admitted kids ranged from plausible but pretty weak AAP endorsement to very strong AAP endorsement. The AART flat out said that the process is much more random than anyone wants to admit.

Also, very few AAP kids are reading at a 12+ level. At my kids' school, only slightly over half of the kids even managed pass advanced on the reading SOL. None of them were walking around with high school level books. Based on teacher reactions, very few were testing at above grade level in iready.

Gifted programs should all follow the "steam ahead and floundering kids get lost" model. Kids who struggle can always drop back down into the regular program. Kids who are ahead and bored are stuck being ignored.

I am confused about how anyone benefits from a process that is "more random than anyone wants to admit". My understanding (from this forum, mainly, I admit) is that there's increasing focus on GBRS vs COGAT so that committees and teachers have more say and can avoid admitting heavily prepped kids that they do not feel should be in AAP. That's not so much randomness as trying to steer away from relying exclusively on test scores that aren't the gold objective standards that some would pretend they are.

But it's quite possible what I'm reading in the forum doesn't reflect the facts at all, so I'm interested in your perspective. (I have zero first-hand experience so far with any of this.)

You're making two huge assumptions. The first is that the GBRS is an accurate view of the child from an unbiased source that fully understands giftedness. The second is that the central selection committee is a monolithic entity that makes consistent and logical decisions.

For the first point, teachers' abilities to understand gifted children and give an unbiased viewpoint can vary pretty strongly. It has long been the case that some teachers won't see giftedness if they don't personally like the kid, the kid is not particularly compliant, the kid is shy, or the kid doesn't fit the teacher's view of what a gifted child should look like. There are numerous studies showing that URMs are often rated lower in giftedness assessments because the teachers to some degree are biased. If the kid has high test scores and is above grade level in all subjects, but the teacher isn't seeing giftedness, it's more a reflection of the teacher than it is of the child.

For the second, the panels are made of people having a broad range of views on the purpose of AAP. Some want to be inclusive and will let anyone in. Others think the program is stupid and want to reject everyone. Some are swayed by stupid, petty things, like the child's handwriting in work samples or whether the parent says the child is bored in the packet. Some parents are very good at crafting their questionnaire responses in a way that presents their average child is a very positive light. Some parents respond in ways that are unwittingly offputting to the panel members. Some panel members, when seeing a packet of a pretty average looking kid who clearly has very involved parents will decide that the kid would be well supported in AAP and would do fine, so they admit. Some, when seeing a high scoring kid who clearly has very involved parents will decide that the kid is a product of privilege and prep, and will reject the kid.

There are kids who have a high GBRS, high test scores, and are above grade level in all subjects who get rejected. Maybe it was something petty in the file. Maybe the school was in a hurry and grabbed poor work samples. Who knows. There are gifted kids with high CogAT and WISC who are above grade level in all subjects, but the teacher just doesn't like the kid and tanks the GBRS. There are pretty average kids who get in because the teacher loves the kid and gives a glowing GBRS. There are kids with average test scores, average GBRS, and not above grade level who are mysteriously admitted for whatever reasons.

Sorry, to clarify, I'm really just trying to understand and not seeking to stake any strong claim.

I wasn't trying to suggest the GBRS is unbiased. I also don't think this is about detecting giftedness anyway. Rather, was just conveying what I've read on this forum, that GBRS is increasingly used as a way for teachers/the central committee to have more control over the process vs relying on scores, for better or worse. I agree that such ratings and teacher recommendations (and parent referrals) can introduce a lot of bias. (Similar issues arise in other spheres where test scores are used along with other metrics to evaluate individuals' suitability for programs.)

But I would think that currently the GBRS would allow for more flexibility to favor URMS more, perhaps somewhat canceling out any bias against.

Generally I understand and agree with what you are saying but I'm not sure that relying exclusively on scores solves the problem. (Not trying to put words in your mouth but I think this is what you are suggesting would help?) Personally I'd like to see a lot less noise in the process as well, but one does have to admit that parents introduce issues too if they heavily prep their kid and their kid really is not suitable for AAP (although I'm not sure how often that really happens in practice?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

Maybe I'm wrong but seems a bit implausible that a kid would be viewed as inferior (by whom?) if they got in through referral or testing in pool with better GBRS scores and teacher letters in a future year.

Stats also don't look good when there are fewer passing advanced because they are being ignored, right?

I'd like to hear what a teacher thinks about why FCPS won't entertain the model you suggest.

My kid who had the high test scores, was above grade level, and had a high GBRS was bullied by some former friends for not getting into AAP. She was told that she was "too dumb" to hang around them, and that she couldn't go to the center school with them because they were gifted and she was stupid.

Also, schools aren't rated by the number of kids getting pass advanced. Their ratings are much better if they invest the time in lifting kids from failing to passing the SOL than if they try to lift kids from passing to pass advanced.

There are bullies everywhere - from south side Chicago to Harvard. You daughter's experience were not the same as my kids' experiences. In upper elementary, kids start hitting puberty and all the tribalism and bullying that comes with that.

NP. There are bullies everywhere, yes, but in some places more than others. But to the PP, I'm sorry your child experienced that, but eems like you're making an argument against AAP now whereas before you were suggesting the problem is that your child should have gotten into AAP (so that she could be among the bullies?) I don't get it. But at any rate, I'm still skeptical that getting in on appeal or after applying again would lead to negative experiences. Sounds like lots of parents have done this and aren't widely complaining that their kids are treated like imposters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Generally I understand and agree with what you are saying but I'm not sure that relying exclusively on scores solves the problem. (Not trying to put words in your mouth but I think this is what you are suggesting would help?) Personally I'd like to see a lot less noise in the process as well, but one does have to admit that parents introduce issues too if they heavily prep their kid and their kid really is not suitable for AAP (although I'm not sure how often that really happens in practice?)

I'm not saying that they should rely exclusively on scores. I am saying that they should have a more straightforward set of standards. Honestly, since AAP at best is a way to give kids math that is accelerated by 1 year and access to mildly accelerated language arts, it doesn't make sense to put kids in AAP who aren't academically advanced. If the kid wouldn't otherwise be placed into advanced math and isn't considered above grade level in language arts, it's pretty weird to put them in a program that primarily is advanced math and above grade level language arts.

But, if they want to be more holistic, then they basically have 3 scores: CogAT, achievement (iready, but perhaps they could find something better), and GBRS. Any kids above a certain combined threshold should be in. They could create a 0-100 score assignment for GBRS, then average that, the CogAT percentile rank, and the iready average percentile rank. Any kid with an average above 90 or 95 is in. If a kid falls short, then the parents should be able to submit a portfolio, but kids should only get in if the portfolio is abnormally advanced. This is more or less the way most other gifted programs operate. If they wanted an even better program, math and language arts could be split into 2 separate designations, so the kids who are advanced in one but not the other can still be placed appropriately.

Even if a kid were to be heavily prepped, I highly doubt that any kid with an average percentile rank of 95th percentile or higher on iready and CogAT would struggle in the slightest with AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against the Center?

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed.

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity!

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave.

You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class. So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job. I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works. If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP. There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP. The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random. It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects. They were rejected from AAP. Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted. Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom. The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th. My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest. There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience. They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level. Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor. This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math. My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic. They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction. Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level. An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level. This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education. It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work. It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't. It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it. It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance. After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?

For your first question: Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center. It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second: FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level. In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use. Kids who meet the cutoffs are in. Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in. Everyone else is out.

The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom, even without a gifted program. There were 4 classrooms per grade level. For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on. The same was done for math. It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together. FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.

Maybe I'm wrong but seems a bit implausible that a kid would be viewed as inferior (by whom?) if they got in through referral or testing in pool with better GBRS scores and teacher letters in a future year.

Stats also don't look good when there are fewer passing advanced because they are being ignored, right?

I'd like to hear what a teacher thinks about why FCPS won't entertain the model you suggest.

My kid who had the high test scores, was above grade level, and had a high GBRS was bullied by some former friends for not getting into AAP. She was told that she was "too dumb" to hang around them, and that she couldn't go to the center school with them because they were gifted and she was stupid.

Also, schools aren't rated by the number of kids getting pass advanced. Their ratings are much better if they invest the time in lifting kids from failing to passing the SOL than if they try to lift kids from passing to pass advanced.

There are bullies everywhere - from south side Chicago to Harvard. You daughter's experience were not the same as my kids' experiences. In upper elementary, kids start hitting puberty and all the tribalism and bullying that comes with that.

NP. There are bullies everywhere, yes, but in some places more than others. But to the PP, I'm sorry your child experienced that, but eems like you're making an argument against AAP now whereas before you were suggesting the problem is that your child should have gotten into AAP (so that she could be among the bullies?) I don't get it. But at any rate, I'm still skeptical that getting in on appeal or after applying again would lead to negative experiences. Sounds like lots of parents have done this and aren't widely complaining that their kids are treated like imposters.

My argument is that AAP admissions should have standards, and every kid who has high CogAT, is above grade level, and is endorsed by the teacher should get in. I mean, what more does the committee want here? Why do they think that a 5 minute glance at a kid's file gives them better insight than the kid's teachers, ability scores, and achievement levels?

That being said, I'm against such a stark divide between "gifted kids" and "not smart kids" when the bottom 2/3 of the AAP kids are indistinguishable from the top 10-20% of the kids left in gen ed. Multiple people in this thread have suggested that the bottom AAP person would be the top gen ed person, and that there is a pretty stark dividing line between AAP kids and gen ed kids. That isn't the case. For the OP, fretting about LIII kids being principal placed into the LLIV class, her snowflakes will be fine among the LIII kids. Generally, only the kids who are above grade level in math and language arts will be principal placed, which means they're apparently stronger than a lot of the kids being accepted to LIV.