How to improve AAP and General Ed Together

[Anonymous]

Our center had open seating for lunch and the kids all went to recess together. It was great. They had almost a full hour of socializing time so that kids had the time to build and maintain relationships across GE and LIV. My kid's best friend at the center was in GE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, here are my thoughts.

If a grade level can't support an entire class of LIV kids, there shouldn't be a local LLIV for that grade at a school.

If the number of LIV classes at a center is > than the number of GE classes at a center, split the center.

I think each grade levels at all schools should have open seating for lunch and have recess together.

When practical/feasible with scheduling at a given school, I think that GE kids should be able to push in to LIV classes, whether that is LLIV or a center.

I think most schools mix GE and LIV for specials because those classes are often much larger than one class. At our LLIV school, the LLIV class is spot in half, and and half the class has specials with one GE class and the other half of the class has specials with a different GE class. It gets much harder when they mix in things like strings, band, and chorus.

Personally, I don't think there is anything that special about the specific LIV curriculum. I think the main advantage, as some PP have said, is the cohort of kids who are generally able to move faster.

I think that kids with IEPs, LDs and ESL should get better support in all classrooms (GE and LIV) so that the main classroom teacher is not overwhelmed trying to be all things to all students. (This is one thing I think our LLIV school is amazing at, and the main reason I have kept this kid in LLIV vs the center.)

What I don't know is how some of these things get paid for.

I disagree that a school needs to be able to fill an entire class of AAP students to be able to teach AAP Most general Ed classes need to be able to teach at least two levels and fcps has combo classes all over. Plus the number of students changes too much to be sure any school in any given year has a full class. I would propose a cutoff number of students. If the school has below say 15 kids over a 2 year period in AAP in all grades, it loses its LLIV status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, here are my thoughts.

If a grade level can't support an entire class of LIV kids, there shouldn't be a local LLIV for that grade at a school.

If the number of LIV classes at a center is > than the number of GE classes at a center, split the center.

I think each grade levels at all schools should have open seating for lunch and have recess together.

When practical/feasible with scheduling at a given school, I think that GE kids should be able to push in to LIV classes, whether that is LLIV or a center.

I think most schools mix GE and LIV for specials because those classes are often much larger than one class. At our LLIV school, the LLIV class is spot in half, and and half the class has specials with one GE class and the other half of the class has specials with a different GE class. It gets much harder when they mix in things like strings, band, and chorus.

Personally, I don't think there is anything that special about the specific LIV curriculum. I think the main advantage, as some PP have said, is the cohort of kids who are generally able to move faster.

I think that kids with IEPs, LDs and ESL should get better support in all classrooms (GE and LIV) so that the main classroom teacher is not overwhelmed trying to be all things to all students. (This is one thing I think our LLIV school is amazing at, and the main reason I have kept this kid in LLIV vs the center.)

What I don't know is how some of these things get paid for.

Good insights. They make sense, with what I've seen over many years, at multiple schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, here are my thoughts.

If a grade level can't support an entire class of LIV kids, there shouldn't be a local LLIV for that grade at a school.

If the number of LIV classes at a center is > than the number of GE classes at a center, split the center.

I think each grade levels at all schools should have open seating for lunch and have recess together.

When practical/feasible with scheduling at a given school, I think that GE kids should be able to push in to LIV classes, whether that is LLIV or a center.

I think most schools mix GE and LIV for specials because those classes are often much larger than one class. At our LLIV school, the LLIV class is spot in half, and and half the class has specials with one GE class and the other half of the class has specials with a different GE class. It gets much harder when they mix in things like strings, band, and chorus.

Personally, I don't think there is anything that special about the specific LIV curriculum. I think the main advantage, as some PP have said, is the cohort of kids who are generally able to move faster.

I think that kids with IEPs, LDs and ESL should get better support in all classrooms (GE and LIV) so that the main classroom teacher is not overwhelmed trying to be all things to all students. (This is one thing I think our LLIV school is amazing at, and the main reason I have kept this kid in LLIV vs the center.)

What I don't know is how some of these things get paid for.

Ridiculous, there are plenty of students that qualify for AAP for a specific subject (LLIII) and they are perfectly capable of being in the LL (or Center) AAP class for that subject. AAP does not have to have all LLIV students for all students in the classroom to function as an AAP class.

[Anonymous]

OP, now that you've gotten this information, what are YOU going to do with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, now that you've gotten this information, what are YOU going to do with it?

What do you suggest? I'm not OP, but assume there is nothing to be done. This is just an internet message board after all. Like all threads, this one will sink in the list until it's forgotten. Nonetheless, OP's effort to spark civilized dialogue between adults seems to me a more commendable waste of time than yet another hysterical AAP-bashfest.

[Anonymous]

After reading through this thread, it seems that whether is a Local Level IV model or a Center model - the bottom line is that GE parents resent the label - there are hurt feeling no matter what.

There a PPs who say that their child who just missed the cut off are stuck in GE where the teachers are focused on pulling the bottom up. I understand the frustration with this - but imagine if ALL the kids were lumped together with no AAP program at all. If teachers cannot differentiate effectively even with the AAP kids sent off somewhere else - do you think they can do it otherwise??

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is teachers giving the Gen Ed kids on the cusp what they need while also pulling the bottom up.

If we eliminated AAP and provided the AAP curriculum to ALL, with the exception of "remedial students" as some have suggested, we'd still have a 2 tiered system of "everyone" and "bottom smallest percentage."

[Anonymous]

If kids can do the AAP work, they should have the chance to compete.

[Anonymous]

They ARE given the chance. Everyone is given the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading through this thread, it seems that whether is a Local Level IV model or a Center model - the bottom line is that GE parents resent the label - there are hurt feeling no matter what.

There a PPs who say that their child who just missed the cut off are stuck in GE where the teachers are focused on pulling the bottom up. I understand the frustration with this - but imagine if ALL the kids were lumped together with no AAP program at all. If teachers cannot differentiate effectively even with the AAP kids sent off somewhere else - do you think they can do it otherwise??

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is teachers giving the Gen Ed kids on the cusp what they need while also pulling the bottom up.

If we eliminated AAP and provided the AAP curriculum to ALL, with the exception of "remedial students" as some have suggested, we'd still have a 2 tiered system of "everyone" and "bottom smallest percentage."

And if you think general education students feel "marginalized", just imagine what those bottom "remedial" group would feel like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, now that you've gotten this information, what are YOU going to do with it?

I'm OP and I'm just planning on getting a consensus of ideas that can be vetted over the next several years by the school board. I've been reading this board for a while. Through the years I've seen arguments for and against AAP remain and discussed over and over again and see that there appears to be a pattern of where AAP works and where it doesn't. I've also met parents who behaved badly about the program and parents who were just upset that the general ed program wasn't working well for their child. To me AAP works well as a part of a school when it's a strong program, but not the main focus of the school. It doesn't work well if there are few kids in a grade who qualified for AAP. It doesn't work well when the AAP program overwhelms a school, especially if those kids are from different base schools. The kids from different base schools often (not always) seem to have parents who still have a child at another school or just don't go by the school enough to get very involved at the center school. I also don't think it works well for FCPS to have elementary and middle TJ type schools because that's too much time a child is segregated from other people in society, but it's not fair to the general ed kids to have to attend a base school where they are marginalized.

Our kids are at one of the schools that mixes pretty well between general ed and AAP and it mixes better with some changes now than it did in years past. I see how successful it is compared to other schools. The AAP parents really like the program but the discussion about it is kept to a minimum because the kids who take AAP and non-AAP classes keep changing. I like that non-AAP students are encouraged to take advanced math and language arts and how there is also time during the day for kids who are advanced above the typical AAP level to also have some even more advanced learning during the day. I wonder what policies FCPS can implement at other schools to make them more integrated while not creating a situation that is chaotic for the teacher or students.

Some suggestions I have which I wonder are feasible:

Mix Lunch and Recess. It's the only free time the kids have to really talk with each other. Lunch and recess should be integrated no matter what school the kids attend. If combined lunches is a logistical issue at a center, I think FCPS needs to figure out a solution so at least this non-academic portion of the day is integrated. The rest of the day could be integrated within guidelines that can fluctuate depending on what the make-up of the students and teachers are.

I think for a LLIV or Center school to be called an advanced class, there needs to be a cohort of kids at a similar academic level and some general guidelines for both centers and LLIV school AAP programs to follow. One LLIV school I know dropped advanced math because they didn't have enough kids who qualified. Another non LLIV school added advanced math for all the kids in their school. These differences make it too confusing for parents. There need to be some min. standards for all LLIV and center schools to make the program valid. The center vs. LLIV decision for some schools is tricky because the centers are often dependent on several schools to make the center work. Often the AAP students are 1/3 from base school, 1/3 from another school, and then 1/6 from two other schools. If the feeder school coming in with 1/3 of the kids were to leave, it would hurt the center. So, I'd propose a min. and max. number of students at a center and propose a min. number at a LLIV school, but not a max. for a LLIV school.

AAP center schools which have more than half the kids in AAP are a turn off to potential young buyers who don't know where their kids will fall which I think is starting to hurt Fairfax's economy. These schools need to be split up for the future of the neighborhood and the current kids who attend there. Many middle schools can be their own centers. Another issue with centers is that the base schools lack resources because their advanced students are siphoned off. I'm not yet sure how to fix that issue and would love to hear suggestions. Changes to the general ed curriculum would certainly help. Advanced math offered at all schools is very important too, especially because it's FCPS/'s policy to offer it to all. Also, I think it would be great if the feeder schools could take advantage of some of the academic before/after school offerings at the center schools.

[Anonymous]

OP again. Maybe there could be a LLIV and center AAP student max. that would trigger FCPS to look at these schools, but wouldn't necessarily require an immediate change in school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, here are my thoughts.

If a grade level can't support an entire class of LIV kids, there shouldn't be a local LLIV for that grade at a school.

If the number of LIV classes at a center is > than the number of GE classes at a center, split the center.

I think each grade levels at all schools should have open seating for lunch and have recess together.

When practical/feasible with scheduling at a given school, I think that GE kids should be able to push in to LIV classes, whether that is LLIV or a center.

I think most schools mix GE and LIV for specials because those classes are often much larger than one class. At our LLIV school, the LLIV class is spot in half, and and half the class has specials with one GE class and the other half of the class has specials with a different GE class. It gets much harder when they mix in things like strings, band, and chorus.

Personally, I don't think there is anything that special about the specific LIV curriculum. I think the main advantage, as some PP have said, is the cohort of kids who are generally able to move faster.

I think that kids with IEPs, LDs and ESL should get better support in all classrooms (GE and LIV) so that the main classroom teacher is not overwhelmed trying to be all things to all students. (This is one thing I think our LLIV school is amazing at, and the main reason I have kept this kid in LLIV vs the center.)

What I don't know is how some of these things get paid for.

Good insights. They make sense, with what I've seen over many years, at multiple schools.

Off topic: How does your LLIV offer supports for kids with IEPs, LDs, and ESL? I ask because my child is in a center but I wonder if she was in LLIV if we would have better help with her issues.

[Anonymous]

OP, young families move into those huge AAP center zones because oftye higher test scores of the center. Most parents of younger kids believe their kid is of course one of the smartest of their age group and/or gifted, so Of Course they need to get a house in the best ranked centers, no matter the cost.

This is why a "shit shack" (to use a dcum catch phrase) in McLean or Vienna costs $200K more than the same house in an excellent school zone like Lake Braddock or West Springfield. AAP and the higher test scores make buying in one of those TJ mania areas much more desireable than buying in a great school zone like Sangster that might implement AAP much more successfully with regards to balancing gen ed needs and AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading through this thread, it seems that whether is a Local Level IV model or a Center model - the bottom line is that GE parents resent the label - there are hurt feeling no matter what.

There a PPs who say that their child who just missed the cut off are stuck in GE where the teachers are focused on pulling the bottom up. I understand the frustration with this - but imagine if ALL the kids were lumped together with no AAP program at all. If teachers cannot differentiate effectively even with the AAP kids sent off somewhere else - do you think they can do it otherwise??

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is teachers giving the Gen Ed kids on the cusp what they need while also pulling the bottom up.

If we eliminated AAP and provided the AAP curriculum to ALL, with the exception of "remedial students" as some have suggested, we'd still have a 2 tiered system of "everyone" and "bottom smallest percentage."

Just wanted to respond to the first bolded line, above - I know AAP parents refuse to hear it, but it's not just GE parents who resent the label. More importantly, it's GE students. They're the ones who are stuck with this stupid label, even when so many of them are actually advanced in certain subjects, and often receiving different levels of AAP differentiation. Imagine being given a label which is inaccurate.

As for the last bolded paragraph, if AAP were given to all, it would no longer be a two-tiered system. It would become three-tiered - remedial, most kids, and tiny upper percentage (gifted).