AAP Center Elimination Rumors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Teacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

If your kids were actually advanced in LA the they would qualify for AAP based on your own conclusions.

A lot of these responses are sour grapes because your kid didn't get in, even if the bar is lowered below truly gifted kids.

That first poster is correct. There will always be someone excluded from the "smart" group/class/center. And so there will always be sour grapes and parents out with pitchforks because their kids feelings got hurt.

[Anonymous]

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

+1 maybe consolidate to fewer AAP centers and make those school buildings AAP classes only. If those selected don't want to go to centers, they can stay genED at their local schools. That would eliminate the complaints about having I do genED at a center. It would also satisfy parents who want the AAP cohort experience for their child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go away. You’re gross.

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

+1

We left our local school to an AAP largely due to undisciplined kids that the poor school couldn't control. The school administration's hands were tied. Little 'Trenton the Terror' had to be in class with the other kids and disrupt class on a near daily basis. Assaulting the other kids, outbursts, cussing, flipping desks, crying, requiring significant time and resources of the teacher and the teacher's aid; all those issues occurred daily. Now my kid talks about how hard the math is and what she learned in school vs what 'Trenton the Terror' did in class today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Teacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1
Centers are redundant and a huge waste.

But centers are figuring out how to use benchmark with novels. My aap center kid has read at least five full books this year in addition to benchmark.

[Anonymous]

Centers are a waste teach that shit at the normal school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go away. You’re gross.

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

+1

We left our local school to an AAP largely due to undisciplined kids that the poor school couldn't control. The school administration's hands were tied. Little 'Trenton the Terror' had to be in class with the other kids and disrupt class on a near daily basis. Assaulting the other kids, outbursts, cussing, flipping desks, crying, requiring significant time and resources of the teacher and the teacher's aid; all those issues occurred daily. Now my kid talks about how hard the math is and what she learned in school vs what 'Trenton the Terror' did in class today.

Maybe you should pay for a better neighborhood it's not our fault you cheaped out and are scamming tax dollars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1
Centers are redundant and a huge waste.

But centers are figuring out how to use benchmark with novels. My aap center kid has read at least five full books this year in addition to benchmark.

Exactly. With a capable cohort you can go far beyond the basic required curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, I would be fine with GT. My child would still qualify but the vast majority of his classmates would not. Even in the AAP classroom, my child is being brought down by average children whose parents made them take classes to prepare for the NNAT and COGAT, and then separate enrichment classes to help provide work samples for their AAP classroom. Now that they're in AAP, they all have math tutors. I was honestly surprised by the number of parents I met who told me their children have math tutors so they can keep up in AAP advanced math. The whole point should be that these are children who are ALREADY advanced not kids who need help to get there and help to stay there. We need a true gifted and talented program that is selective and somehow manages to weed out children who are only there because their parents pay to get them there. I can't imagine it's good for those children's mental health either!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go away. You’re gross.

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

+1

We left our local school to an AAP largely due to undisciplined kids that the poor school couldn't control. The school administration's hands were tied. Little 'Trenton the Terror' had to be in class with the other kids and disrupt class on a near daily basis. Assaulting the other kids, outbursts, cussing, flipping desks, crying, requiring significant time and resources of the teacher and the teacher's aid; all those issues occurred daily. Now my kid talks about how hard the math is and what she learned in school vs what 'Trenton the Terror' did in class today.

The math shouldn't be hard for her. If it's too hard for her, she doesn't belong there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go away. You’re gross.

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

The real solution is principals need to step up. AAP classrooms aren't immune from poor behaving kids. My kid has a kid who can be disruptive in their class, but they get removed from the class and sent home for the rest of the day when it occurs; which sounds completely appropriate to me.

[Anonymous]

Lemon road parents showing their true colors!

[Anonymous]

Also a critical quote:

“When we first opened centers, it was a small number of students, but over the last 20-30 years the number of students found eligible has increased significantly, so the need for bussing them has increased.“

[Anonymous]

I teach AAP and we have difficult kids in our classes who make things unpleasant for us teachers as well as our students. I wish we could kick them out but they go to the office for a brief period then are sent back to keep being disruptive in class. Makes it hard to teach and meet everyone’s needs, and sometimes I question why I am doing this. AAP is not immune to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Teacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you ever worked with kids? Trying to move six sections of 3rd graders for every subject would be chaos and a massive waste of teaching time. Combine that with the fact that the core subjects don't all get the same chunk of the day and this is a logistical non-starter. The best you'll ever get with local levels is an advanced class and a slow class ,- and you'll still be pissed.

Sorry, we changed classes like this (groupings by strength by subject) when I was in elementary school - in 1985! It’s not new; it certainly could be done, and it would challenge the “2E” kids who aren’t level 4.