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.
Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Your kid won an award! Congratulations! Stop wallowing in your own jealousy over the AAP label and celebrate your kid wherever they land.
Not jealous. Sad that kid doesn't feel like award means anything. I mean I guess if enough kids around you are telling you you're not smart enough because you don't have the label over and over it starts to sink in --for the kids. As a parent idgaf about the label, I know it's only elementary school and that he should be very proud that he is doing well. It's just a symptom of the problems with the system. You're afraid of the problems in the system because the label means a lot to you.
+1
The labeling is the worst of all of this. No one needs to be labeled as this or that - at the age of seven, or at any time. Seven yr. olds have years of change ahead of them and to sort them and lock them into GE or AAP is disgusting. Offer the advanced courses in each core class - to EVERYONE.
Yup. On the last day of school, one of my 3rd graders friends was apparently announcing to everyone about she was so lucky and so much smarter than them because she would be in the AAP class next year. My daughter said she even said "See ya, we're never going to be in the same class again!"
DS had a kid in his Language Immersion class who did that in 4th grade, I heard the kids discussing it at the pool. No one was sad that the kid was leaving. I saw the kid and his mom at a party a few years later, she was lamenting how he had struggled to find friends at the Center school. The kid was smart but annoying, most likely neurodiverse and the parents were ignoring the behavior issues. No one was impressed in the class he was leaving. Most the kids selected for LIV in that group stayed at the base school, the LI kids who moved were the kids struggling socially, which wasn't too many. The non-LI kids selected for LIV tended to move to the Center. We had kids moving to the Center out of the non-LI program in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade.
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.
Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Your kid won an award! Congratulations! Stop wallowing in your own jealousy over the AAP label and celebrate your kid wherever they land.
Not jealous. Sad that kid doesn't feel like award means anything. I mean I guess if enough kids around you are telling you you're not smart enough because you don't have the label over and over it starts to sink in --for the kids. As a parent idgaf about the label, I know it's only elementary school and that he should be very proud that he is doing well. It's just a symptom of the problems with the system. You're afraid of the problems in the system because the label means a lot to you.
+1
The labeling is the worst of all of this. No one needs to be labeled as this or that - at the age of seven, or at any time. Seven yr. olds have years of change ahead of them and to sort them and lock them into GE or AAP is disgusting. Offer the advanced courses in each core class - to EVERYONE.
Yup. On the last day of school, one of my 3rd graders friends was apparently announcing to everyone about she was so lucky and so much smarter than them because she would be in the AAP class next year. My daughter said she even said "See ya, we're never going to be in the same class again!"
Did your kid tell her about how many gen ed and AAP kids end up in the same AP classes in highschool? And that the gen ed kids get "A"s in the AP classes too ?!?!?
You cannot be serious.
You salty parents are a bigger problem than some sassy third graders ever will be.
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.
+1
This is exactly how it should be done.
-1 I HATE this idea. Why not start switching kids in Kindergarten? They give them those tests, start tracking then. Academics or social bonds!
Socialization skills should come in preschool, kindergarten and first grade. From 2nd grade on focus should be on academics. Group kids at home school, no need for AAP centers. Especially since AAP continues to be “dumbed down”.
This. But also keep in mind that if you're only switching for Math and ELA, there's still quite a lot of the school day spent with the full range of kids. Kids can have socialization with all kids at all academic levels in their grade for homeroom, recess, lunch, specials, social studies, and science, while being met at an appropriate academic level in the two most important core classes.
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.
Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Your kid won an award! Congratulations! Stop wallowing in your own jealousy over the AAP label and celebrate your kid wherever they land.
Not jealous. Sad that kid doesn't feel like award means anything. I mean I guess if enough kids around you are telling you you're not smart enough because you don't have the label over and over it starts to sink in --for the kids. As a parent idgaf about the label, I know it's only elementary school and that he should be very proud that he is doing well. It's just a symptom of the problems with the system. You're afraid of the problems in the system because the label means a lot to you.
+1
The labeling is the worst of all of this. No one needs to be labeled as this or that - at the age of seven, or at any time. Seven yr. olds have years of change ahead of them and to sort them and lock them into GE or AAP is disgusting. Offer the advanced courses in each core class - to EVERYONE.
If the advanced course were offered to everyone, it would be gen ED and you'd be right back where you started because the AAP kids would still need to have a separate curriculum and offerings. You'd still be on outs.
That's not what I'm talking about. Offer advanced level *groupings* (along with grade-level and remedial) per core class. Those who could do advanced level work would have ready access to it. Others would be in grade-level or remedial, depending on the subject. And if parents want a gifted program, then bring back GT for the very few who would actually qualify.
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.
+1
This is exactly how it should be done.
-1 I HATE this idea. Why not start switching kids in Kindergarten? They give them those tests, start tracking then. Academics or social bonds!
What exactly are you trying to say? I have no idea what your point is. Do you want kids sorted into two groups, AAP or Gen Ed? Or do you want kids to be able to cycle into the group that's appropriate for them at any given time, per subject?
Anonymous wrote:I find all of this interesting as an AAP Center teacher. Every year, they continue to dumb down AAP. AAP is just some extensions now. Not a separate curriculum. Even Adv Math has been changed in 3rd. I looked at next year’s SS Pacing Guide and AAP lessons are pretty much extensions. Every kid is doing Benchmark. So an AAP 6th grader and Gen Ed student is writing the same required essays and reading the same texts.
All of these parents claiming their kid is getting an elite curriculum is clearly not in the classroom.
AAP looks nothing like it did when I first started.
+1
And still, FCPS sees fit to label these kids - even when the vast majority of them are doing exactly the same work. Insane.
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.
+1
This is exactly how it should be done.
-1 I HATE this idea. Why not start switching kids in Kindergarten? They give them those tests, start tracking then. Academics or social bonds!
Socialization skills should come in preschool, kindergarten and first grade. From 2nd grade on focus should be on academics. Group kids at home school, no need for AAP centers. Especially since AAP continues to be “dumbed down”.
This. But also keep in mind that if you're only switching for Math and ELA, there's still quite a lot of the school day spent with the full range of kids. Kids can have socialization with all kids at all academic levels in their grade for homeroom, recess, lunch, specials, social studies, and science, while being met at an appropriate academic level in the two most important core classes.
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.
Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Your kid won an award! Congratulations! Stop wallowing in your own jealousy over the AAP label and celebrate your kid wherever they land.
Not jealous. Sad that kid doesn't feel like award means anything. I mean I guess if enough kids around you are telling you you're not smart enough because you don't have the label over and over it starts to sink in --for the kids. As a parent idgaf about the label, I know it's only elementary school and that he should be very proud that he is doing well. It's just a symptom of the problems with the system. You're afraid of the problems in the system because the label means a lot to you.
+1
The labeling is the worst of all of this. No one needs to be labeled as this or that - at the age of seven, or at any time. Seven yr. olds have years of change ahead of them and to sort them and lock them into GE or AAP is disgusting. Offer the advanced courses in each core class - to EVERYONE.
If the advanced course were offered to everyone, it would be gen ED and you'd be right back where you started because the AAP kids would still need to have a separate curriculum and offerings. You'd still be on outs.
That's not what I'm talking about. Offer advanced level *groupings* (along with grade-level and remedial) per core class. Those who could do advanced level work would have ready access to it. Others would be in grade-level or remedial, depending on the subject. And if parents want a gifted program, then bring back GT for the very few who would actually qualify.
It was interesting at 6th grade promotion that every teacher and staff member that had a kid graduating had a kid in one of the aap classrooms. That really stood out to me. What are the odds that they all "need" to be there?
Anonymous wrote:I’m just glad DC got to experience a good center and a learning experience that represents the best of FCPS
+1
Could see the deterioration between my kids who were 3 years apart in school. At this point no real academic difference, now it is just a label that creates strife in communities.
Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
.