AAP - why not have it for all of FCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter what process is used for AAP and TJ selections, they will miss some "qualified" students. Are you aware of any process that is 100% objective?

Technically, using only the scores would be 100% objective. It wouldn't be equitable or considered "best practices" for identifying giftedness, but it isn't at all subjective.

If they want better systems that capture a greater percentage of the gifted kids and a smaller percentage of the non-gifted kids, then there are solutions. They could come up with more fluid systems that will allow kids to move in and out of AAP more easily. They could be extra conservative with selection in 3rd grade and take only the kids who are clearly above and beyond, with the expectation that they'll add more as kids age and become capable of producing more meaningful samples. They could use a larger variety of tests to get a more complete picture of the kid's abilities. For TJ, they could have actual TJ teachers evaluate applications and not a central office, since TJ teachers are more likely to understand what kids' competition results actually mean.

For my part, I would be fine with open enrollment for AAP, providing that the program is much more rigorous than it is and that the kids who can't keep up are gently washed out of the program rather than slowing it down for everyone. My kid took both math and language arts last year through AoPS because he felt really bored in his AAP math and language arts. And, the AoPS classes are so much more rigorous than the AAP ones. AAP classes are a pathetic joke in comparison. My kid said he learned more in 1.5 hours of an AoPS class than he did all week in school. The reading selections were at a much higher level than anything in AAP. The vocabulary was so much more advanced than AAP. They were taught writing and grammar, and expected to apply what they learned to various projects. In math, the content is so much deeper and more challenging.

FCPS acts like 20% of the kids are so gifted that they simply cannot function in a regular classroom, but then offers those kids a curriculum that is barely more advanced than gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what process is used for AAP and TJ selections, they will miss some "qualified" students. Are you aware of any process that is 100% objective?

Technically, using only the scores would be 100% objective. It wouldn't be equitable or considered "best practices" for identifying giftedness, but it isn't at all subjective.

If they want better systems that capture a greater percentage of the gifted kids and a smaller percentage of the non-gifted kids, then there are solutions. They could come up with more fluid systems that will allow kids to move in and out of AAP more easily. They could be extra conservative with selection in 3rd grade and take only the kids who are clearly above and beyond, with the expectation that they'll add more as kids age and become capable of producing more meaningful samples. They could use a larger variety of tests to get a more complete picture of the kid's abilities. For TJ, they could have actual TJ teachers evaluate applications and not a central office, since TJ teachers are more likely to understand what kids' competition results actually mean.

For my part, I would be fine with open enrollment for AAP, providing that the program is much more rigorous than it is and that the kids who can't keep up are gently washed out of the program rather than slowing it down for everyone. My kid took both math and language arts last year through AoPS because he felt really bored in his AAP math and language arts. And, the AoPS classes are so much more rigorous than the AAP ones. AAP classes are a pathetic joke in comparison. My kid said he learned more in 1.5 hours of an AoPS class than he did all week in school. The reading selections were at a much higher level than anything in AAP. The vocabulary was so much more advanced than AAP. They were taught writing and grammar, and expected to apply what they learned to various projects. In math, the content is so much deeper and more challenging.

FCPS acts like 20% of the kids are so gifted that they simply cannot function in a regular classroom, but then offers those kids a curriculum that is barely more advanced than gen ed.

The selection criteria should be clear - even if it includes some subjective components to supplement objective tests, if/when needed. An opaque selection process for a slightly advanced curriculum is inefficient at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is not advanced. If they were, they would all be average.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is not advanced. If they were, they would all be average.

+1

Not relevant. It is about giving access to all kids who would try out a slightly advanced curriculum that is purchased with public money and it is about spending public money on education not on committees and appeals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what process is used for AAP and TJ selections, they will miss some "qualified" students. Are you aware of any process that is 100% objective?

Technically, using only the scores would be 100% objective. It wouldn't be equitable or considered "best practices" for identifying giftedness, but it isn't at all subjective.

If they want better systems that capture a greater percentage of the gifted kids and a smaller percentage of the non-gifted kids, then there are solutions. They could come up with more fluid systems that will allow kids to move in and out of AAP more easily. They could be extra conservative with selection in 3rd grade and take only the kids who are clearly above and beyond, with the expectation that they'll add more as kids age and become capable of producing more meaningful samples. They could use a larger variety of tests to get a more complete picture of the kid's abilities. For TJ, they could have actual TJ teachers evaluate applications and not a central office, since TJ teachers are more likely to understand what kids' competition results actually mean.

For my part, I would be fine with open enrollment for AAP, providing that the program is much more rigorous than it is and that the kids who can't keep up are gently washed out of the program rather than slowing it down for everyone. My kid took both math and language arts last year through AoPS because he felt really bored in his AAP math and language arts. And, the AoPS classes are so much more rigorous than the AAP ones. AAP classes are a pathetic joke in comparison. My kid said he learned more in 1.5 hours of an AoPS class than he did all week in school. The reading selections were at a much higher level than anything in AAP. The vocabulary was so much more advanced than AAP. They were taught writing and grammar, and expected to apply what they learned to various projects. In math, the content is so much deeper and more challenging.

FCPS acts like 20% of the kids are so gifted that they simply cannot function in a regular classroom, but then offers those kids a curriculum that is barely more advanced than gen ed.

I thought AoPS was all math, so they also cover language arts. Is language arts only classes, don't remember seeing any books in their book store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I thought AoPS was all math, so they also cover language arts. Is language arts only classes, don't remember seeing any books in their book store.

Classes only.
https://vienna.aopsacademy.org/courses/catalog

[Anonymous]

VA is going in the opposite direction with no advanced classes for all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is not advanced. If they were, they would all be average.

+1

Not relevant. It is about giving access to all kids who would try out a slightly advanced curriculum that is purchased with public money and it is about spending public money on education not on committees and appeals.

Letting any random kid "try it out" slows down the accelerated focus for the truly advanced kids. The idea is that kids are already "trying it out" in terms of their achievement in their normal first and second grade classes and the aptitude tests. The GBRS and aptitude tests are to gauge whether they have exceeded or fell short of expectations for an "advanced student" prior the Level IV admissions decision. Of course, there are major shortcomings with that approach but it's mostly because too many non advanced kids are admitted and especially with an equity focus, sometimes at the expense of an advanced kid. They should probably just administer an actual valid IQ test and admit solely based on that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VA is going in the opposite direction with no advanced classes for all kids.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All students need to be challenged but students are at all sorts of ability levels

The reason why there shouldn't be AAP for all is the same reason there shouldn't be AP for all. Most kids aren't ready for the material and they drag down the ones who are if they are in the classroom period.

IQ sorry not sorry

But AP is available for all. Some people have suggested open enrollment for AAP, which would make it available to all who want the challenge.

I think FCPS is greatly overcomplicating this. Since AAP is only mildly accelerated and no longer a gifted program, the most sensible thing would be to admit all of the kids who are actually advanced in math and language arts, as measured by the end of year MRA tests or DRA (or whatever other achievement test they want to use). It's beyond dumb that my kid's AAP classroom has an on-grade level reading group, yet the gen ed kids next door who are above grade level can't access the AAP language arts materials. It's also dumb that some kids in my kid's AAP class had relatively low CogAT Q scores, are not good in math, and are struggling with advanced math, yet there are kids in the gen ed classroom next door who are really bright in math, belong in advanced math, but can't access it until 5th grade.

This.

[Anonymous]

NP here. We are new to Fairfax County. DC are in preschool now, so no first-hand experience with FCPS yet.

Everyone we have met, at church or at work or in our neighborhood, including some FCPS teachers, is giving us the same advice. Here is a summary of what we keep hearing:

- FCPS was much stronger academically in the 1990s than now.
- AAP now is secretly the standard track and Gen-Ed now is the slow track.
- AAP is watered down compared with 20 years ago.
- Virginia's older SOLs were very good, until they were watered down to "align" with Common Core.
- It is critical to get DC into AAP for them to have a challenging curriculum.
- Do not leave AAP acceptance to chance; instead get DC prepped and get external testing to support an appeal if needed
- Even if in AAp, consider Kumon / Mathnasium / etc to supplement and reinforce.

This all seems nuts to us, but we are hearing the same advice from everyone, including FCPS teachers at church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. We are new to Fairfax County. DC are in preschool now, so no first-hand experience with FCPS yet.

Everyone we have met, at church or at work or in our neighborhood, including some FCPS teachers, is giving us the same advice. Here is a summary of what we keep hearing:

- FCPS was much stronger academically in the 1990s than now.
- AAP now is secretly the standard track and Gen-Ed now is the slow track.
- AAP is watered down compared with 20 years ago.
- Virginia's older SOLs were very good, until they were watered down to "align" with Common Core.
- It is critical to get DC into AAP for them to have a challenging curriculum.
- Do not leave AAP acceptance to chance; instead get DC prepped and get external testing to support an appeal if needed
- Even if in AAp, consider Kumon / Mathnasium / etc to supplement and reinforce.

This all seems nuts to us, but we are hearing the same advice from everyone, including FCPS teachers at church.

If you check the other Nova forum and the Maryland school forums, they all say that too. If you look at blogs online, parents are saying that about schools all over the country.

Occasionally, you'll hear some say that the "better" AAP of the 90s was a grind, was inappropriately too difficult and too much work for grade school kids. So there's that.

FCPS high schools are very good. That's something to keep in mind when you're getting bogged down in these sorts of comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. We are new to Fairfax County. DC are in preschool now, so no first-hand experience with FCPS yet.

Everyone we have met, at church or at work or in our neighborhood, including some FCPS teachers, is giving us the same advice. Here is a summary of what we keep hearing:

- FCPS was much stronger academically in the 1990s than now.
- AAP now is secretly the standard track and Gen-Ed now is the slow track.
- AAP is watered down compared with 20 years ago.
- Virginia's older SOLs were very good, until they were watered down to "align" with Common Core.
- It is critical to get DC into AAP for them to have a challenging curriculum.
- Do not leave AAP acceptance to chance; instead get DC prepped and get external testing to support an appeal if needed
- Even if in AAp, consider Kumon / Mathnasium / etc to supplement and reinforce.

This all seems nuts to us, but we are hearing the same advice from everyone, including FCPS teachers at church.

Ok even if (that’s a big if), your kid won’t be competing against the kids of the 1990s to get into college. Many schools in FCPS are very highly rated, within the state and nationally, and non AAP kids can do well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. We are new to Fairfax County. DC are in preschool now, so no first-hand experience with FCPS yet.

Everyone we have met, at church or at work or in our neighborhood, including some FCPS teachers, is giving us the same advice. Here is a summary of what we keep hearing:

- FCPS was much stronger academically in the 1990s than now.
- AAP now is secretly the standard track and Gen-Ed now is the slow track.
- AAP is watered down compared with 20 years ago.
- Virginia's older SOLs were very good, until they were watered down to "align" with Common Core.
- It is critical to get DC into AAP for them to have a challenging curriculum.
- Do not leave AAP acceptance to chance; instead get DC prepped and get external testing to support an appeal if needed
- Even if in AAp, consider Kumon / Mathnasium / etc to supplement and reinforce.

This all seems nuts to us, but we are hearing the same advice from everyone, including FCPS teachers at church.

A thread on AAP vs. gen ed. Your kids will not be doomed OP.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/964129.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. We are new to Fairfax County. DC are in preschool now, so no first-hand experience with FCPS yet.

Everyone we have met, at church or at work or in our neighborhood, including some FCPS teachers, is giving us the same advice. Here is a summary of what we keep hearing:

- FCPS was much stronger academically in the 1990s than now.
- AAP now is secretly the standard track and Gen-Ed now is the slow track.
- AAP is watered down compared with 20 years ago.
- Virginia's older SOLs were very good, until they were watered down to "align" with Common Core.
- It is critical to get DC into AAP for them to have a challenging curriculum.
- Do not leave AAP acceptance to chance; instead get DC prepped and get external testing to support an appeal if needed
- Even if in AAp, consider Kumon / Mathnasium / etc to supplement and reinforce.

This all seems nuts to us, but we are hearing the same advice from everyone, including FCPS teachers at church.

FCPS teachers are advocating for this? Awesome.