Why is FCPS trying to keep high performing students out of AAP?

[Anonymous]

DS school had kids changing classes for all the core subjects in 6th grade. I thought it was brilliant. They could level the classes based on ability for all of the subjects and better manage the distribution of kids with disruptive behaviors by breaking them up into smaller groups.

They could get rid of AAP altogether if they had Advanced LA, Advanced Math, Advanced Science, and Advanced Social Studies. Move kids into the Advanced classes that they belong in. The kids who are strong in LA and average in mat wold be in Advanced LA but regular math. The kids who were strong in math would be in Advanced Math but not Advanced LA. Same for the other core subjects. You could more easily have two groupings for any of the subjects then you can to have 2 LLIV classrooms.

The reality is that we need to have classes that are based on ability and not try to educated kids who are below grade level with kids who are at grade level or a bit farther ahead with kids who are grade levels ahead. Teachers cannot teach properly to the number of different levels that they have int heir classroom. The kids who are below grade level need to be in smaller classes, like the Title I school numbers, and kids who are at grade level or better in regular size classes. Real focus on kids who are behind in ES would, hopefully, help them catch up in ES and put them on track for gen ed classes or even honors classes in MS/HS. Instead we have teachers who are trying to teach 4-8 levels of students in one class and not able to meet any of their needs. Rotate which level a Teacher teaches each year unless there is a Teacher who really loves and excels at teaching the kids who are further behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

The perfect example of why it should go back to a true gifted program - less than 5 percent. Then we'd be less likely to hear this kind of complaining.

It would have to be almost purely test based... then how do you get the varsity blue type kids in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm petty, but I will laugh when the NMSF lists come out next year, and my kid is there, while likely not a single one of the 30 kids in their grade who were deemed "too gifted to share a classroom" with my kid aren't.”

Wow. Bitter much?

Of course I am. My kid was denied an educational opportunity that she deserved much more than many of the kids who got in. The neighborhood kids and kids on the bus who got in told my kid that they were smart and she was dumb. The parents were pretty condescending about just how special and gifted their somewhat above average kids were. The whole AAP system is absurd.

It used to be that you needed to be on the PTA to get your kid in the program. If you donated or raised money for the school, your kid was placed with no questions asked in the AAP classroom. It's a flawed program.

That's not true, you only needed to be highly involved in PTA to get your kid in as a principal selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

I get that. It's partly because it's a larger group but also because everyone thinks their kids are above average!

most parents know their kids are not geniuses but more parents think their kids are in the top 20% of pretty much everything

I was a coach for years and about 90% of the parents thought their kids were above average players and about half thought their kids were in the top 10-20% (all-stars) but if you asked if their kid was the best player on the team, most of them were honest and could point to another player that was better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:21 PP here, and I wonder whether there is some method to the madness of which kids who deserve AAP are kept out. My kid who didn't get in scored pass advanced on every SOL, with perfect scores on most, was consistently above grade level in all subjects, got a 99th percentile IAAT, straight As in middle and high school, and 5s on a bunch of AP exams. This kid is one who is very cooperative in the classroom, makes effective use of time, and even in gen ed was generally helpful or kept themselves quietly occupied with reading. I mean, the AART said my kid should have been admitted, and the GBRS was perfect, so it's not like the school sabotaged my kid, but I wonder whether the central committee rejects certain kids that they think would be an asset to the gen ed teacher.

My other kid who got admitted to AAP would have been disruptive and difficult in gen ed, and would not have made the teacher's life any easier.

If people really think this happens then how can we trust the process at all?

Yep, the lack of transparency leads to a little bit of craziness on the part of parents, especially since it's way easier to conclude that your kid belongs in the top 20 % (cf when it was 2-5% and "gifted" and it was more common to conclude those kids were outlier/brainiacs).

I get that. It's partly because it's a larger group but also because everyone thinks their kids are above average!

most parents know their kids are not geniuses but more parents think their kids are in the top 20% of pretty much everything

I was a coach for years and about 90% of the parents thought their kids were above average players and about half thought their kids were in the top 10-20% (all-stars) but if you asked if their kid was the best player on the team, most of them were honest and could point to another player that was better.

Love this reply.