AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school with local level IV AAP should not send students to a center. Elementary schools without enough children for a particular grade can give parents the option of sending their kids to the next closest elementary school (assigned by administration) with local level IV AAP (that is also zoned for their base middle school). All middle schools should have level IV AAP.

Great Falls Elementary has a local level IV AAP program with enough kids to make classes at all grades. 40-50 kids a year are bussed from Great Falls (high SES zoned for Cooper/Langley) to the center school Colvin Run (high SES school zoned for Cooper/Langley). Colvin Run’s AAP Program only pulls students from Great Falls (no other elementary schools). There are multiple busses driving these kids from their homes in the Great Falls Elementary boundary to Colvin Run. One bus only has 8-9 students on it!

GFES certainly does NOT have enough kids to make classes at all grades. That’s the only reason why families go to the center school.

GFES would have 41 more students if none of the students transferred to Colvin Run. That would be enough to have a full time level 4 AAP class in each grade 3-6.

[Anonymous]

They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My youngest is graduating high school this year. When she was found eligible in 2nd grade, I actually met with the principal of our school (Title I) as I really wanted to stick with our neighborhood school. (We were walkers, we had had a positive experience with teachers) At that time they did not have Local Level IV, but even if they did, there were only a handful of students found eligible. I had a meeting with the principal as I really wanted her to tell me there would be enough challenge if we kept her there, but the principal told me point blank that if I wanted her truly challenged, I should choose the center. I do know the school does have LLIV now, but only a few grades as they build to having it in all grades. It really is different at Title I schools, but I agree, if there are enough students at a base school to create at least a full class, then the center option can reasonably go away. My oldest (2020 grad) attended a LLIV program which was just starting at that time. One disadvantage was that there was one class, so the same exact students were stuck together, for better or worse for 4 years. As a teacher at a center school where we typically have 2 classes of AAP, and 2 general education in upper grades, I find it much preferable. You are able to mix classroom groups much better that way.

My third grader goes to a title 1 school. There are 10 level IV kids that chose to stay. They fill out the classes with level III kids. If the 5 or 6 that chose to go to the center stayed they would have an even larger cohort locally. I am very much in favor of if you choose to go to the center school and it is offered locally you are required to provide transportation.

There are significant discrepancies even among Title 1 schools, I think we were at about 3-4 identified. At that time there was not LLIV so it was Level III limited pullout or center. All 4 left in that scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Go away. You’re gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

The difference is that most kids are not advanced across the board. Allowing them to take the appropriate level for each core class would mean there would be kids in some advanced, some grade-level, and some remedial groups. My own kids were highly advanced in language arts, but needed a lot of help in math. I find it very interesting that AAP kids don't have to be advanced across the board - yet they're all labeled as "AAP," even so. Flexible groupings would remove the fixed label - for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

when they could be in a class where they have 30 other kids to push them.

Myth. Do you really think all the AAP kids are on the same level? A handful may be gifted, but there is a wide span there.

It doesn't hurt to be in a heterogenous class. In fact, it is better.

Teacher

There is a wider span in the general ed class. This is a terrible idea.

It worked very successfully in FCPS for many, many years. Again: AAP is not GT.

+1
And flexible groupings across grade levels is the answer, not "clustering." Kids rotate classrooms and groups for all core subjects. No one is locked into any one "level" (or label) - they can move up (or down) as needed.

Note - this doesn't mean many different levels in one classroom. It means each teacher takes a level for each subject, so all the students in the class are at the same level.

I agree that leveled classes are best pedagogically, but it always cracks me up when people think that will solve the angst around AAP. The truth is even with "flexible" classes the bulk of the top class will stay the same and the bulk of the bottom class will stay the same and the parents with kids in the middle will wail and gnash their teeth. Honestly, the jockeying and grasping from parents would only increase and continue all year every year. The added angst for teachers and principals is probably one big reason they don't do this.

Exactly, if there are 80 kids in a grade, the top 20 and bottom 20 will generally be the same for all subjects.

And that middle group - that everyone loves to forget about - would be able to be in advanced groups where necessary/appropriate. And again, not all "top" kids are advanced across the board.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I hope so !! (eliminating AAP centers)

+1
They are the worst of all worlds for the Gen Ed kids who have to attend them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

+1
Centers are redundant and a huge waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Except now every kid AAP, GenEd, SPED, ESL is doing Benchmark. There is no reason to bus kids to a school when the whole county is doing the same LA program.

DP. I think you’re missing the point. I don’t care much for AAP centers, but it is very obvious that these people are looking for a different peer group. Your reasoning is that the curriculum is the same everywhere is naive. Everyone has to follow the SOL standards set out by state so “theoretically” all schools are the same? That is clearly not true. Even though all Kindergarten students in FCPS have to learn the same thing, there are major differences between different schools. Why do you think that boundary discussion is so heated? Because they all know that every school is NOT the same. The curriculum does not matter, not even a small bit. It is the school that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should actually get rid of local level 4 and stick with the centers. The only reason they started doing local level 4 was to prevent the high test scorers from leaving the school.

This is a ridiculous idea. AAP used to be a true gifted program with a very small population so centers were warranted. Now it is a slightly advanced curriculum and the majority of the kids in it are not remotely gifted. Fairfax is one of the only districts I know that does this segregated center nonsense. It is not needed anymore.

AAP was NEVER a true gifted program. GT centers were the true gifted program. Once they started putting in subjective evaluations, the jig was up.

Go back to GT. Be selective. Don't take every child whose parent "protests."

The GT program should be for kids who do not need extra remediation, except, perhaps, for speech therapy. The idea was to place kids who could move quickly through the academic challenges. That is not AAP.

As long as gened caters to the lowest common denominator, AAP is needed. Start failing and disciplining poor performers in appropriate situations and you can have a successful gened program. At low or mid SES schools gened is remedial.

Go away. You’re gross.

No. Elementary school and Middle school curriculums are being held hostage by admins who do nothing but cater to poor behaving kids and kids who clearly need remedial support in a separate learning environment. The average kid suffers while AAP allows an escape for a lucky few. At least some kids are getting normal education. Not everyone goes to a low FARMs school in McLean or Oakton.