AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Sorry number 2 should be at a level they won’t finish earlier- IE higher level instruction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry number 2 should be at a level they won’t finish earlier- IE higher level instruction

Here are the points you're missing: 1. They're not properly identifying the "high kids who finish earlier and need more." Objective metrics are largely ignored in favor of subjective ratings and feelings. This is why some of the kids denied AAP have 99th percentile scores across the board, while some of the kids in AAP are pretty average. 2. High kids in a regular classroom will rarely be given instruction on their level. Thanks to no child left behind and systems rating schools based on state testing pass rates, all of the focus will be on the lower performers. People are advocating having kids switch classrooms for math and ELA because that's the only way to force teachers to meet with their kids at all. Teaching kids who are already going to pass the SOL is not an institutional priority. 3. Some of us feel that no child's education should be sacrificed so the lower kids don't have to feel bad.

One addition for #2. My gen ed kid switched classes for math and was able to learn. She qualified for Algebra I in 7th and has been a straight A student. Language arts block at her school was 1.5-2 hours. Let's just say 1.5, making it 7.5 hours per week. Her above grade level reading group met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week. So, they got 1.67% of the teacher's instructional time. The remaining time, they were doing independent work. The lowest groups were instructed every day for 30+ minutes. Years later after receiving all of this extra time, they were still below grade level. Giving them all of this extra time and attention at the expense of the top group accomplished nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an AAP parent I'd love tracking. What those calling for it don't realize is that it would really be the top half or less of current AAP kids on one track, then your bright GenEd kids would join a track with the test prepped AAP kids. For example, the Algebra in 7th (or 6th) kids together in the top track with the Algebra in 8th kids in the second track.
I feel like we barely dodged a bullet with the VMPI people trying to get rid of all math tracking just a couple years ago, and still people to this day on this forum are trying to call Algebra in 7th or 8th too accelerated for all but the top 10%. I'll gladly join with all the GenEd parents to get real tracking back in schools.

Sounds better than what we have now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an AAP parent I'd love tracking. What those calling for it don't realize is that it would really be the top half or less of current AAP kids on one track, then your bright GenEd kids would join a track with the test prepped AAP kids. For example, the Algebra in 7th (or 6th) kids together in the top track with the Algebra in 8th kids in the second track.
I feel like we barely dodged a bullet with the VMPI people trying to get rid of all math tracking just a couple years ago, and still people to this day on this forum are trying to call Algebra in 7th or 8th too accelerated for all but the top 10%. I'll gladly join with all the GenEd parents to get real tracking back in schools.

Kind of, but not entirely true. There are gen ed kids out there who easily qualify for Algebra in 7th, are above grade level in ELA, and earn nearly perfect scores on all SOLs. There are kids in AAP who wouldn't even qualify for the second track if any objective metrics were used.

[Anonymous]

Most useless thread ever. Dredging up arguments made hundreds of times before in the AAP forum and won’t change anything. You people need a new hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most useless thread ever. Dredging up arguments made hundreds of times before in the AAP forum and won’t change anything. You people need a new hobby.

Again for those in the back, AAP isn't under review so no worries about it coming to pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what's really sad, my dc got one of those outstanding academics awards at 6th grade promotion...but our school is a center, and kid has Gen Ed kid at a center syndrome and doesn't feel like his outstanding academic award means that much since he's not full time aap.
If course, I'm working on correcting those thoughts, but it's just another reason it sucks to be a high performing Gen Ed kid at a center.

+1
But good for him for getting that award. My DC won his center school's Geography Bee and got to go on to States. He's in Gen Ed and I have to say, it felt pretty good to see him receive recognition for his smarts, considering some of his fellow competitors were in AAP.

I absolutely hate center schools for making Gen Ed kids feel like second class citizens in their own school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

I agree with a lot of your points, especially kids switching classes depending on level for math and LA. I don't agree the criteria should be test scores, however. I think all kids should be given sample assignments at the beginning of the year to see who is successful doing advanced work. That's all the teachers need to know - who can actually do the work. And I agree that the advanced group shouldn't have to slow down for anyone. If it's not working out, those kids can simply drop back a level.

I also don't agree that 6th grade needs to be part of middle school, and would definitely fight against that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most useless thread ever. Dredging up arguments made hundreds of times before in the AAP forum and won’t change anything. You people need a new hobby.

Did someone force you to click on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

I agree with a lot of your points, especially kids switching classes depending on level for math and LA. I don't agree the criteria should be test scores, however. I think all kids should be given sample assignments at the beginning of the year to see who is successful doing advanced work. That's all the teachers need to know - who can actually do the work. And I agree that the advanced group shouldn't have to slow down for anyone. If it's not working out, those kids can simply drop back a level.

I also don't agree that 6th grade needs to be part of middle school, and would definitely fight against that.

Having 6th grade in ES is so odd. Kids are definitely ready for MS by then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

This is what my children’s FCPS elementary school did when they attended starting in the Second grade. Although in first and second grade, math was reorganized several times a year- with each new section - depending on how the student performed on the pretest. It is also how the Principal organized the LLIV- the student who qualified for all four subjects were in all four subjects- other students were placed in 1-3 sections of the AAP class. They moved for math, ELA, social studies and science. Different teachers taught AAP for the different subjects. The student had Specials with their home room that was a mix of all students. They were one of the first schools to have LVIV and less than half of the AAP ended up attending the Center school, the rest stayed. My ES did something similar in the 1970’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

I agree with a lot of your points, especially kids switching classes depending on level for math and LA. I don't agree the criteria should be test scores, however. I think all kids should be given sample assignments at the beginning of the year to see who is successful doing advanced work. That's all the teachers need to know - who can actually do the work. And I agree that the advanced group shouldn't have to slow down for anyone. If it's not working out, those kids can simply drop back a level.

I also don't agree that 6th grade needs to be part of middle school, and would definitely fight against that.

Having 6th grade in ES is so odd. Kids are definitely ready for MS by then.

I disagree. Many school systems have 6th in ES. It isn’t odd and I think it works well. Most kids need that extra year to mature. The parents I see complaining the most are the ones that held back their child in K.

[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:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

I agree with a lot of your points, especially kids switching classes depending on level for math and LA. I don't agree the criteria should be test scores, however. I think all kids should be given sample assignments at the beginning of the year to see who is successful doing advanced work. That's all the teachers need to know - who can actually do the work. And I agree that the advanced group shouldn't have to slow down for anyone. If it's not working out, those kids can simply drop back a level.

I also don't agree that 6th grade needs to be part of middle school, and would definitely fight against that.

Having 6th grade in ES is so odd. Kids are definitely ready for MS by then.

I disagree. Many school systems have 6th in ES. It isn’t odd and I think it works well. Most kids need that extra year to mature. The parents I see complaining the most are the ones that held back their child in K.

I don't know about the redshirted kids, but I do agree 6th is better served in elementary school. It is an age of change--some are still childish and some are turning into teens. The sixth grade teachers at our elementary did a terrific job of preparing for middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have only two requests for AAP, and I think it's really telling that some AAP parents don't like these ideas:

1. Reevaluate based on in class performance and standardized test scores each year.

2. Eliminate middle school centers and have dedicated AAP classes available at every middle school.

Would love to hear why AAP parents don't like these two ideas. if your child belongs, your child belongs. If your child is offered dedicated AAP classes, then your child gets to take them.

There have been multiple posters in this thread wishing those who couldn't Pass Advanced the SOL be bumped out of AAP. I personally also wish my kid's base MS (Franklin) got all the AAP kids from its boundary instead of most of them electing to go to Carson. My kid chose Carson because all his AAP friends he had been in class with since 3rd grade were also going to Carson. If Franklin had all those AAP kids the program would rival Carson's in just a couple years and people wouldn't feel like they needed to choose the center for the "better" program.

Those of us who didn't prep their kids in order to get them into AAP would be fully on board with yearly evaluations. No matter what criteria is used to determine where they draw the line though it wouldn't stop this same level of complaining from the parents of kids who felt they just missed the cut.

DP. There are clearly two very different schools of thought here.

1. Parents who think there should be a test-in criteria for AAP, below which no one is admitted.

2. Parents who think that AAP should be offered to all kids who are able to do the work - and a testing score doesn’t provide that information at all. If kids are doing AAP work successfully, that’s all that matters. If they aren’t, then there should be other groups they can easily access until/if they’re ready to move up. And this should be done by subject. Very, very few kids are all AAP or all Gen Ed - and they shouldn’t be labeled as this or that.

There's also #3, which is that kids who meet the benchmark on standardized tests get in. But the kids who are within whatever number of points below it can still do a holistic evaluation and also get included. Subjective criteria should be used to let kids in who didn't have the scores. They shouldn't be used to keep kids out who do have the scores.

I'm fine with #2, though, as long as the school is determined to stick with an AAP pace, maintain high standards, and let kids wash out who can't handle it. There is no reason for AAP teachers to slow down the program to accommodate kids who are struggling. There is also no reason to provide below or even on grade level groupings. If the kid needs those, then they can access them in gen ed.

Um, yes. That's what multiple people have been saying over and over. However, the different level groupings per subject, by classroom, would absolutely need to be offered. That's the whole point of core subject flexible groupings. In this scenario, AAP would simply be one of the groupings, open to anyone able to do the work. Which is not neurosurgery.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm on your side in this. In my experience, though, my gen ed kid was in that catch 22 where they weren't good enough for AAP, yet they didn't have a reading group since there was only 1 other advanced reader in their classroom. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's class was slowed down by a bunch of kids who were below grade level in reading or definitely wouldn't have qualified for advanced math.

The one positive side is that my gen ed kid's advanced math was working at a higher level than my AAP's kid's class. The gen ed class only had the kids who were good at math. The grade had 4 other math classes. One was grade level math but with extensions for the kids who might be able to move up to advanced math or who would likely take M7H in middle. One was for on grade level. One was on grade level with heavy ESOL supports. One was with the math resource teacher for struggling kids. Meanwhile, my AAP kid's math class constantly had to slow down for AAP kids who were completely average in math and needed more time with the concepts.

The system is idiotic.

Some of your posts are extremely contradictory and it's confusing as to what, exactly, you're advocating. At any rate, I certainly agree that the system is idiotic, especially the mess you described above, which is similar to our school. All of this could be completely simplified by just making sure each subject was offered at each level - advanced/grade-level/remedial.

There are multiple people arguing here, and they're not all my posts. .

My common sense approach is to have the entire grade switch classrooms for math and ELA based on some combined view of iready scores, CogAT scores, grades, SOL scores, beginning/end of year scores, and teacher opinion. This placement would be decided on a yearly basis based on performance, and would err on the side of inclusion, but with the understanding that the advanced classes will not slow down for your child. It might still be necessary to have some sort of AAP center structure, but it should revert to being a GT program that only serves the needs of the handful of kids who are far above grade level with needs that cannot be accommodated in their base school.

I'm indifferent as to whether the top track should be open enrollment or whether it should be a system where kids who meet the benchmark achievement scores are 100% admitted, but holistic factors can be used to include additional kids who didn't meet the benchmarks. For open enrollment, the parents would need to understand that the class will not slow down for their kid, and it's their responsibility to get tutoring or support their kid if the kid is struggling.

Someone is likely to say "but, departmentalization..." Departmentalization doesn't happen until 5th or 6th grade. By then, the school would have a lot more data available to inform their placement decisions. Some of this issue would be solved if FCPS middle schools included 6th grade (like most of the country), thus allowing for kids to enroll in honors when appropriate.

I agree with a lot of your points, especially kids switching classes depending on level for math and LA. I don't agree the criteria should be test scores, however. I think all kids should be given sample assignments at the beginning of the year to see who is successful doing advanced work. That's all the teachers need to know - who can actually do the work. And I agree that the advanced group shouldn't have to slow down for anyone. If it's not working out, those kids can simply drop back a level.

I also don't agree that 6th grade needs to be part of middle school, and would definitely fight against that.

Having 6th grade in ES is so odd. Kids are definitely ready for MS by then.

DP. Hard disagree. There’s no need to rush kids to grow up, which is exactly what happens when 6th graders are mixed with 7/8th.