Someone please explain to me the difference between tracking and the AAP program/centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been told that the AAP kids learn differently and are in a different place than their peers so are we favoring them or simply meeting their needs as those have been identified?

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

If the kids are equally bright why do their parents let them suffer a detrimental situation rather than pushing to get them into AAP too?

Because then we would just be part of the problem; pushy parents insisting that our bright (but not gifted) children be a part of AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this coming from that GE is not good enough? Who says it isn't?

Good enough for what? Is it good enough for teaching basic literacy? Yes. Is it providing a challenging academic environment for most of the kids it serves? No. If you set your benchmark for what's good enough at a low level, then you are right, it's good enough. I guess instead of striving for excellence, the new American goal should be "good enough".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this coming from that GE is not good enough? Who says it isn't?

Good enough for what? Is it good enough for teaching basic literacy? Yes. Is it providing a challenging academic environment for most of the kids it serves? No. If you set your benchmark for what's good enough at a low level, then you are right, it's good enough. I guess instead of striving for excellence, the new American goal should be "good enough".

You've nailed the essence of this debate. Some see a minimum standard and believe that's "good enough". Some strive for more. Kind of like minimum wage, you can tinker with it and raise it for all at a cost, but not everyone is happy flipping burgers. Having an advanced program that pushes the willing to do more, while allowing those who are comfortable with "good enough" to do so is a good compromise. Differentiation is good for everyone. I do think going back to gifted for a smaller group and expanding AAP for the next tier would be fine, though it's expensive and isn't likely to happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this coming from that GE is not good enough? Who says it isn't?

Good enough for what? Is it good enough for teaching basic literacy? Yes. Is it providing a challenging academic environment for most of the kids it serves? No. If you set your benchmark for what's good enough at a low level, then you are right, it's good enough. I guess instead of striving for excellence, the new American goal should be "good enough".

You've nailed the essence of this debate. Some see a minimum standard and believe that's "good enough". Some strive for more. Kind of like minimum wage, you can tinker with it and raise it for all at a cost, but not everyone is happy flipping burgers. Having an advanced program that pushes the willing to do more, while allowing those who are comfortable with "good enough" to do so is a good compromise. Differentiation is good for everyone. I do think going back to gifted for a smaller group and expanding AAP for the next tier would be fine, though it's expensive and isn't likely to happen

But what do you mean? We're always told that AAP isn't more expensive. Particularly if you take away the extra busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this coming from that GE is not good enough? Who says it isn't?

Good enough for what? Is it good enough for teaching basic literacy? Yes. Is it providing a challenging academic environment for most of the kids it serves? No. If you set your benchmark for what's good enough at a low level, then you are right, it's good enough. I guess instead of striving for excellence, the new American goal should be "good enough".

You've nailed the essence of this debate. Some see a minimum standard and believe that's "good enough". Some strive for more. Kind of like minimum wage, you can tinker with it and raise it for all at a cost, but not everyone is happy flipping burgers. Having an advanced program that pushes the willing to do more, while allowing those who are comfortable with "good enough" to do so is a good compromise. Differentiation is good for everyone. I do think going back to gifted for a smaller group and expanding AAP for the next tier would be fine, though it's expensive and isn't likely to happen

Expanding AAP is not expensive. The kids have to be taught anyway and it's not like IB, which you have to pay for. Plus, if it's expanded, the need for busing would go away and so would that cost. The reason it won't happen is not because of cost, but because it will be viewed as tracking. Somehow having AAP based on an test that is supposed to approximate IQ and setting the benchmark in the gifted range seems to get around the tracking label and is ok. I think there is a resistance to putting elementary kids in ability groupings because someone has to be in the lowest group and there is concern for the emotional wellbeing and confidence of those kids. I guess by middle school that become less of a concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the system is bad or the implementation is half-assed. FCPS has had years of tinkering to fix this. In the meantime, our flawed AAP model is driving decisions that are affecting students, schools and communities. If it is not special education for the "gifted" much of the justification for centers goes away. If FCPS says this is about services, these services can just as easily be delivered at many local schools where if students would stay in their neighborhoods you would have more than a critical mass.

Those services simply cannot "just as easily be delivered at many local schools." So-called "differentiation in the classroom" always ends up meaning that teachers are forced to bring the kids who need the most help up to scratch, while the kids who could move faster, do more challenging work, etc., are all too often left to look after themselves -- given more busy work, more worksheets, told to help tutor other kids (true, saw it in our base school) while the teacher's effort had to be spent on, dare I say it, the lowest common denominator. I don't blame the teachers. They can't win where they're expected to do -- as an earlier poster rightly noted -- three different versions of a lesson, in order to "serve" too wide a range of abilities in the same classroom.

Differentiation does not work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this coming from that GE is not good enough? Who says it isn't?

Good enough for what? Is it good enough for teaching basic literacy? Yes. Is it providing a challenging academic environment for most of the kids it serves? No. If you set your benchmark for what's good enough at a low level, then you are right, it's good enough. I guess instead of striving for excellence, the new American goal should be "good enough".

You've nailed the essence of this debate. Some see a minimum standard and believe that's "good enough". Some strive for more. Kind of like minimum wage, you can tinker with it and raise it for all at a cost, but not everyone is happy flipping burgers. Having an advanced program that pushes the willing to do more, while allowing those who are comfortable with "good enough" to do so is a good compromise. Differentiation is good for everyone. I do think going back to gifted for a smaller group and expanding AAP for the next tier would be fine, though it's expensive and isn't likely to happen

Expanding AAP is not expensive. The kids have to be taught anyway and it's not like IB, which you have to pay for. Plus, if it's expanded, the need for busing would go away and so would that cost. The reason it won't happen is not because of cost, but because it will be viewed as tracking. Somehow having AAP based on an test that is supposed to approximate IQ and setting the benchmark in the gifted range seems to get around the tracking label and is ok. I think there is a resistance to putting elementary kids in ability groupings because someone has to be in the lowest group and there is concern for the emotional wellbeing and confidence of those kids. I guess by middle school that become less of a concern.

Yes. I have seen on these boards someone saying that tracking "could look like racism." There may be an assumption that certain races would cluster in the lower groupings. Generally it isn't good to make assumptions about anyone's abilities, but perhaps through racism (unconscious biases that may affect placements), lack of opportunity for learning at the preschool level, not being a native speaker, etc., there would be some unfortunate racial and/or economic divisions.

By middle school kids may have had more equal opportunities, at least not a chasm like the difference between attending preschool and not attending preschool, or between having an involved, native speaker parent and not. FCPS would have educated each child as much as possible with the county's available resources, and groupings may better reflect ability to learn at a certain pace and not be a result of early learning opportunities.

Also by middle school parents may have a more realistic grasp of their children's abilities and not push them into honors if they could not handle the pace. When kids are younger the possibilities for them seem limitless. They may be a world chess champion, Carnegie Hall musician, or Olympic athlete. But then reality sets in and you see that your child never takes to board games, hates the piano, and can't catch a ball to save his life. LOL.

[Anonymous]

20:12- what school is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

AAP/GT is a track and gened is a track that also serves sped ...aap can have sped students but they are not sped due to intellectual capabilities. I am older and there was tracking when I went to school beginning in middle school. Tracks were not as STATIC as aap. There were students from lower tracks that did specific subjects with other tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

AAP/GT is a track and gened is a track that also serves sped ...aap can have sped students but they are not sped due to intellectual capabilities. I am older and there was tracking when I went to school beginning in middle school. Tracks were not as STATIC as aap. There were students from lower tracks that did specific subjects with other tracks.

I think some people want more different levels within gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

AAP/GT is a track and gened is a track that also serves sped ...aap can have sped students but they are not sped due to intellectual capabilities. I am older and there was tracking when I went to school beginning in middle school. Tracks were not as STATIC as aap. There were students from lower tracks that did specific subjects with other tracks.

I think some people want more different levels within gen ed.

This is what's known as AAP Level 1/2/3.
It seems that folks aren't happy with how its implemented.
So why change the entire system? Why not instead lobby to make AAPL123 more meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been told that the AAP kids learn differently and are in a different place than their peers so are we favoring them or simply meeting their needs as those have been identified?

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

If the kids are equally bright why do their parents let them suffer a detrimental situation rather than pushing to get them into AAP too?

Right. Every parent has an equal opportunity to push, nag, bully and threaten the AAP admissions staff. Seems to work from everything I have read.

Because this was not the way the program was meant to work. I don't think it's healthy for the kids, the schools or the communities. Back when AAP was GT, my older son was in the program, but I would never have thought of pushing and nagging to get his very bright siblings into it, because I knew that they could get a great education at the local school. With the exception of very obviously gifted kids, this should still be the case, particularly with all the super intelligent families here. There is no need to cede a great school system to the crazies, many of whom need their children in a special program to feel important. Rather than slicing and dicing our communities to create ever more centers for supposedly smarter kids -- many of whom are not -- we should direct our attention to making the schools challenging for all kids. And keep kids in their neighborhood wherever possible. If people continue to adopt the attitude that if they need to get their kid into AAP at all costs because their local schools aren't good enough, we are going to ruin this school system. [/quote

The last paragraph above needs to be sent to Garza...heck this whole post does. She needs to see the divide, the opions of the students parents from the haves and have nots! She needs to get this program fixed! I absolutly agree that if it does not have some drastic changes this high potential school system wil be ruined!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been told that the AAP kids learn differently and are in a different place than their peers so are we favoring them or simply meeting their needs as those have been identified?

We are doing the right thing for "gifted" kids. We are favoring the kids in the AAP program who are not gifted. Thanks to pushy parents this is a larger percentage than you might expect. They benefit to the detriment of equally bright kids in General Ed.

If the kids are equally bright why do their parents let them suffer a detrimental situation rather than pushing to get them into AAP too?

Right. Every parent has an equal opportunity to push, nag, bully and threaten the AAP admissions staff. Seems to work from everything I have read.

Because this was not the way the program was meant to work. I don't think it's healthy for the kids, the schools or the communities. Back when AAP was GT, my older son was in the program, but I would never have thought of pushing and nagging to get his very bright siblings into it, because I knew that they could get a great education at the local school. With the exception of very obviously gifted kids, this should still be the case, particularly with all the super intelligent families here. There is no need to cede a great school system to the crazies, many of whom need their children in a special program to feel important. Rather than slicing and dicing our communities to create ever more centers for supposedly smarter kids -- many of whom are not -- we should direct our attention to making the schools challenging for all kids. And keep kids in their neighborhood wherever possible. If people continue to adopt the attitude that if they need to get their kid into AAP at all costs because their local schools aren't good enough, we are going to ruin this school system. [/quote

The last paragraph above needs to be sent to Garza...heck this whole post does. She needs to see the divide, the opions of the students parents from the haves and have nots! She needs to get this program fixed! I absolutly agree that if it does not have some drastic changes this high potential school system wil be ruined!

there's not that much of a divide. A few disgruntled people such as yourself who keep making the same point over and over and over again. AAP is the feeder for TJ - they are the crown jewel in the FCPS system. People come from all over the country and abroad ( ) to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The last paragraph above needs to be sent to Garza...heck this whole post does. She needs to see the divide, the opions of the students parents from the haves and have nots! She needs to get this program fixed! I absolutly agree that if it does not have some drastic changes this high potential school system wil be ruined!

What resources are being taken away from general ed by the AAP program? What do the AAP students "have" that the general ed. students do not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CogAT and NNAT aren't IQ tests.

AAP isn't full tracking from the top to the bottom of ability. Maybe it could be considered partial tracking. Just the top 15 percent or so are educated separately, so this system avoids some of the pitfalls of tracking. No one (individual, or socioeconomic group) is singled out as being in the lowest group. For all anyone knows, any child in GE could be at the 85th percentile. The lowest performers can benefit from the influence of the highest performers, and the highest performers can develop more confidence.

AAP/GT is a track and gened is a track that also serves sped ...aap can have sped students but they are not sped due to intellectual capabilities. I am older and there was tracking when I went to school beginning in middle school. Tracks were not as STATIC as aap. There were students from lower tracks that did specific subjects with other tracks.

I think some people want more different levels within gen ed.

This is what's known as AAP Level 1/2/3.
It seems that folks aren't happy with how its implemented.
So why change the entire system? Why not instead lobby to make AAPL123 more meaningful.

Thank you for raising this excellent point. All the DCUM discussions about AAP focus just on centers and Local Level IV. Very little is ever said about Local Level I, II, and III options within base schools -- that system is supposed to serve kids at different ranges of academic aptitude and should be thought of and talked about as part of any discussion of AAP, but AAP has been reduced in people's minds to "centers versus Everyone Else."

Unfortunately, though making Levels 1 to III more meaningful and challenging and interesting would be simply great, it would probably be seen by the folks posting here as "tracking," which somehow they think will hurt kids' feelings and destroy general ed. Not sure why they are so threatened by the idea.

From what I saw in our base school before we moved our kid to an AAP center (Local Level IV was not offered at our base school), the services offered in I-III were just once-a-week pull-outs and were totally disconnected from the rest of the curriculum the kids were doing. Maybe that's not the case everywhere now. It would be good to hear on this thread from some parents of kids getting Level I-III services: What have your experiences of this been?

What's truly needed is, well, tracking, where kids in upper elementary move to different classrooms for different subjects and are with peer groups who are working at their same level subject by subject--kids ready for tougher math take the tougher math class; kids with an aptitude for social studies get grouped together for a social studies class that's more challenging, etc. That was how the old "GT" used to work when I was a kid, and no one was scarred for life by it....But that is "tracking" and seems to horrify some parents here. Why? Because the kids in the less-advanced classes will feel bad? Seriously? won't they feel worse if they are in classes that are moving too fast for them? Oh, right, that isn't going to happen.

The way these parents seem to think, the kids who can do harder work or need more challenges are supposed to sit back and twiddle their thumbs in the same class with everyone else while the teacher teaches to the level of those who need the most help. But these parents would be the first to complain if their kids who needed more help were forced to sit there, frustrated and lost, while the teacher taught at the right pace for the more advanced kids.