No separate AAP student track in FCPS high schools, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:17 Florida is considering a program to allow kids who are bullied to move to private school. Bullying continues at a much higher rate than snobbery over gifted education in the US and it's been proven that schools are not good at dealing with it well. We are at a school that mixes with general ed students except for two subjects, so I see your point that all kids need to learn to get along with each other, however it is important to make sure kids can find like peers as well and I believe this program really has allowed kids who have an interest in academics do work at their level and find peers who are more like them. It's not like AAP is the first gifted program in the US. Gifted programs and magnet schools have been around now for decades. And it's not like LLIV is even the only gifted program in FCPS. There are 3 levels of gifted programs in FCPS. Level 3 and 2 for some reason are never mentioned. APS has ATS, a gifted program that I've heard starts in kindergarten, and HB Woodlawn as well as TJ. Most school districts have some form of gifted education.

The poster who was "delighted" even mentions that her own kids don't care about the level of their friend's interest in academics while at the same time saying she's heard smug AAP kids brag. Is it both or just one observation? Based on her own post and my observations, I find it hard to believe that year after year AAP kids are bragging to other kids in school when she herself doesn't see that in her own kids and says it doesn't matter to anyone they know. It's all overblown on DCUM compared to the real world. The importance of AAP being talked about and the amount of smugness or bullying that goes on over AAP. There just aren't that many discussions on AAP in real life.

That was me. It's both. I'm not sure why it would seem hard to imagine both being true. It's because my kids are not smug about AAP and don't care if their friends are into academics or not that it irritates and embarrasses them when they hear their classmates brag to gen ed kids. They hear kids on the bus say things like, "Oh, you're lucky you don't get much homework in your class. It must be so easy compared to mine. They want us to learn soooo much more in AAP because they know we're smart." Yes, this was actually said on a bus to a field trip where I was a chaperone. My ds told me this kid says things like that all the time and is not well liked because of it, but that he's certainly not the only one.

And I never said it delighted me that gen ed kids surpass AAP kids in high school. I want good things for all kids. I'm simply saying that it makes me glad to see that the kids who weren't identified as advanced or "smart" can find success later on and get into a great school. I'm glad the door to academic success doesn't close at age 8.

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

And the sad part is that all of this could have been prevented if FCPS had continued with very small GT classes for kids who *actually* need gifted instruction (which AAP is not), and kept all of the other kids in Gen Ed.

So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

Perhaps your kids are too young for you to be familiar with what used to be GT, but this is exactly how it worked, and guess what? There was no divisiveness. Everyone understood that the few kids who qualified for GT actually needed to be there. There was no competition or bragging rights. Now, with all the mainstream kids (read: *normal*) admitted into AAP, of course there's going to be tension and divisiveness. When you have two groups of very similar kids, but one is labeled "smarter" than the other, hard feelings are going to ensue - and rightfully so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:17 Florida is considering a program to allow kids who are bullied to move to private school. Bullying continues at a much higher rate than snobbery over gifted education in the US and it's been proven that schools are not good at dealing with it well. We are at a school that mixes with general ed students except for two subjects, so I see your point that all kids need to learn to get along with each other, however it is important to make sure kids can find like peers as well and I believe this program really has allowed kids who have an interest in academics do work at their level and find peers who are more like them. It's not like AAP is the first gifted program in the US. Gifted programs and magnet schools have been around now for decades. And it's not like LLIV is even the only gifted program in FCPS. There are 3 levels of gifted programs in FCPS. Level 3 and 2 for some reason are never mentioned. APS has ATS, a gifted program that I've heard starts in kindergarten, and HB Woodlawn as well as TJ. Most school districts have some form of gifted education.

The poster who was "delighted" even mentions that her own kids don't care about the level of their friend's interest in academics while at the same time saying she's heard smug AAP kids brag. Is it both or just one observation? Based on her own post and my observations, I find it hard to believe that year after year AAP kids are bragging to other kids in school when she herself doesn't see that in her own kids and says it doesn't matter to anyone they know. It's all overblown on DCUM compared to the real world. The importance of AAP being talked about and the amount of smugness or bullying that goes on over AAP. There just aren't that many discussions on AAP in real life.

That was me. It's both. I'm not sure why it would seem hard to imagine both being true. It's because my kids are not smug about AAP and don't care if their friends are into academics or not that it irritates and embarrasses them when they hear their classmates brag to gen ed kids. They hear kids on the bus say things like, "Oh, you're lucky you don't get much homework in your class. It must be so easy compared to mine. They want us to learn soooo much more in AAP because they know we're smart." Yes, this was actually said on a bus to a field trip where I was a chaperone. My ds told me this kid says things like that all the time and is not well liked because of it, but that he's certainly not the only one.

And I never said it delighted me that gen ed kids surpass AAP kids in high school. I want good things for all kids. I'm simply saying that it makes me glad to see that the kids who weren't identified as advanced or "smart" can find success later on and get into a great school. I'm glad the door to academic success doesn't close at age 8.

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

And the sad part is that all of this could have been prevented if FCPS had continued with very small GT classes for kids who *actually* need gifted instruction (which AAP is not), and kept all of the other kids in Gen Ed.

So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

In the 80s in FCPS it was one or two kids in each grade who were in GT. This is how it should be now. The current system is doing a disservice to the few gifted kids who truly need it. Currently, at my DCs elementary school, it's pretty common that close to half of each class is in AAP (approx 80 or so total kids in each grade and almost half of them being labeled AAP). We are not a center but a level IV school. Statistically impossible that there are 40 of 80 kids "gifted" at one school year after year. This is called tracking - and Fairfax claims they don't track.

I had one in AAP and one not in AAP go through this school. The AAP kids can be just rotten and never miss an opportunity to remind the Gen Ed kids they are "smarter". I have heard it all and the parents can be just as bad. My kids are older now and watching their Gen Ed friends excel and watching some of the AAP kids flounder has been eye opening and, yes, does make me happy to witness after years of telling DS that things will eventually all even out. Believe me, they do!

Exactly. We have had the same experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does FCPS approach the idea of a "fixed" vs "growth" mindset? Research shows that having a growth mindset is a key aspect of success. I know my kids in APS hear a lot about developing a growth mindset. But it seems that the things people say they are hearing AAP/Gen Ed kids say to each other show that those kids are getting a really strong message that reinforces a "fixed" mindset -- e.g. we're smart/you're dumb. That's damaging for both groups -- the "dumb" ones can start to think they really are and not try while the "smart" ones become averse to trying things that might be hard because struggling with something means they aren't "smart" after all. Getting a B or (horrors!) a C in something becomes a tragedy rather than an opportunity to figure out how to improve.

Yes. The AAP system is unhealthy for all the kids, though of course, parents of AAP kids will vehemently disagree. Their kids are the ones being told they're "smart," so naturally they're all for it. I find it very, very difficult to take this system seriously when the vast majority of kids in both AAP and Gen Ed are indistinguishable from one another. Certainly, there are outliers - but the ridiculous amount of kids accepted into AAP makes it appear that FCPS is a Lake Wobegon. Which it is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical.

That ^^. When my (non-AAP) kid has been in arguments with other neighborhood kids about various factual things, the AAP kids are quick to decide that they must be correct because they're smart and the non-AAP kids aren't. This happens even when the AAP kids are completely wrong. The sad but funny part is that my kid actually had higher test scores and academic achievement than many of the AAP kids in the neighborhood. We didn't apply (with 97th percentile test scores) because we assumed that unless your kid tested in, that kid didn't really belong in AAP. The other parents pushed and prepped their kids in with 90th percentile scores, but now are convinced that their kids are gifted. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:17 Florida is considering a program to allow kids who are bullied to move to private school. Bullying continues at a much higher rate than snobbery over gifted education in the US and it's been proven that schools are not good at dealing with it well. We are at a school that mixes with general ed students except for two subjects, so I see your point that all kids need to learn to get along with each other, however it is important to make sure kids can find like peers as well and I believe this program really has allowed kids who have an interest in academics do work at their level and find peers who are more like them. It's not like AAP is the first gifted program in the US. Gifted programs and magnet schools have been around now for decades. And it's not like LLIV is even the only gifted program in FCPS. There are 3 levels of gifted programs in FCPS. Level 3 and 2 for some reason are never mentioned. APS has ATS, a gifted program that I've heard starts in kindergarten, and HB Woodlawn as well as TJ. Most school districts have some form of gifted education.

The poster who was "delighted" even mentions that her own kids don't care about the level of their friend's interest in academics while at the same time saying she's heard smug AAP kids brag. Is it both or just one observation? Based on her own post and my observations, I find it hard to believe that year after year AAP kids are bragging to other kids in school when she herself doesn't see that in her own kids and says it doesn't matter to anyone they know. It's all overblown on DCUM compared to the real world. The importance of AAP being talked about and the amount of smugness or bullying that goes on over AAP. There just aren't that many discussions on AAP in real life.

That was me. It's both. I'm not sure why it would seem hard to imagine both being true. It's because my kids are not smug about AAP and don't care if their friends are into academics or not that it irritates and embarrasses them when they hear their classmates brag to gen ed kids. They hear kids on the bus say things like, "Oh, you're lucky you don't get much homework in your class. It must be so easy compared to mine. They want us to learn soooo much more in AAP because they know we're smart." Yes, this was actually said on a bus to a field trip where I was a chaperone. My ds told me this kid says things like that all the time and is not well liked because of it, but that he's certainly not the only one.

And I never said it delighted me that gen ed kids surpass AAP kids in high school. I want good things for all kids. I'm simply saying that it makes me glad to see that the kids who weren't identified as advanced or "smart" can find success later on and get into a great school. I'm glad the door to academic success doesn't close at age 8.

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

And the sad part is that all of this could have been prevented if FCPS had continued with very small GT classes for kids who *actually* need gifted instruction (which AAP is not), and kept all of the other kids in Gen Ed.

So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

In the 80s in FCPS it was one or two kids in each grade who were in GT. This is how it should be now. The current system is doing a disservice to the few gifted kids who truly need it. Currently, at my DCs elementary school, it's pretty common that close to half of each class is in AAP (approx 80 or so total kids in each grade and almost half of them being labeled AAP). We are not a center but a level IV school. Statistically impossible that there are 40 of 80 kids "gifted" at one school year after year. This is called tracking - and Fairfax claims they don't track.

I had one in AAP and one not in AAP go through this school. The AAP kids can be just rotten and never miss an opportunity to remind the Gen Ed kids they are "smarter". I have heard it all and the parents can be just as bad. My kids are older now and watching their Gen Ed friends excel and watching some of the AAP kids flounder has been eye opening and, yes, does make me happy to witness after years of telling DS that things will eventually all even out. Believe me, they do!

I personally will discount whatever else someone says after hearing they are happy to see any KIDS flounder.

[Anonymous]

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

Fortunately, most of this nonsense is significantly reduced in middle school and pretty much ends as the kids get to the part of school that really matters (high school), when the AAP kids lose their label. My DC came out of a middle school that was something like 65-67% AAP students. Based on those stats, you would expect a similar portion of the high school to graduate with honors (over a 4.0 weighted GPA), but it's just not the case. Many AAP kids who are actually average students are not among the top achievers, and plenty of bright "gen ed" kids whose parents didn't file AAP appeals or spend thousands of dollars on educational and IQ testing will. It all evens out and the "gen ed" kids have the same shot as anyone else.

It is easy to get wrapped up in it and bent out of shape, however, when you have one of the "dumb" kids in AAP center ES and they are being insulted by their peers over a couple of IQ points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. These comments are commonplace at the center school my kids attend. The AAP kids, for the most part, are extremely sure of themselves and often refer to Gen Ed as "the dumb classes." Nice, right? Especially since the vast majority of Gen Ed and AAP kids are pretty much identical. The administration has had various counseling sessions for the students, to make them more aware of how awful they sound, but frankly, FCPS has created this monster. They've elected to separate very similar kids into two groups, with very distinct labels. The kids are well aware of who is in what class. The parents are very aware also. As another poster said, there is an undercurrent of tension. Of course, someone will chime in and say, "Not at our school! The kids don't care about such things!" But they're seeing it from the point of view of their own AAP kids. If their kids were in the group that certain kids call, "the dumb classes," they would be singing a much different tune.

Fortunately, most of this nonsense is significantly reduced in middle school and pretty much ends as the kids get to the part of school that really matters (high school), when the AAP kids lose their label. My DC came out of a middle school that was something like 65-67% AAP students. Based on those stats, you would expect a similar portion of the high school to graduate with honors (over a 4.0 weighted GPA), but it's just not the case. Many AAP kids who are actually average students are not among the top achievers, and plenty of bright "gen ed" kids whose parents didn't file AAP appeals or spend thousands of dollars on educational and IQ testing will. It all evens out and the "gen ed" kids have the same shot as anyone else.

It is easy to get wrapped up in it and bent out of shape, however, when you have one of the "dumb" kids in AAP center ES and they are being insulted by their peers over a couple of IQ points.

But it doesn't necessarily even out and can be harmful to kids in both groups if they spend their early school years absorbing these smart/dumb messages. Those former AAP kids who are floundering, may be doing so because they've internalized the 'smart' label and can't cope with difficult classes that challenge that label. And the 'dumb' can end up performing below where they could because they've learned not to try. I thought the whole idea from the APP advocates is that the early years DO matter. Can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

Sure. Since you asked me to drill down to the details if I were in charge of FCPS: Kids could be designated as Level III (corresponding to 1 grade level ahead and 95th percentile-ish+) or Level IV (2+ grade levels ahead, >99th percentile) per subject, based on achievement scores, ability scores, and teacher referral. If the base school has enough Level III kids in a subject, then those kids should take the class at the base school. Homerooms would be mixed ability, with kids switching classes for math and language arts (like they already do for math). If a school does not have enough Level III kids, then those kids should have the option to attend the center. In places like McLean, only the Level IV kids would be center eligible, since about half of the grade would be Level III. In the eastern parts of the county and/or high FARMs schools, Level III kids would attend the center, since there wouldn't be enough to run the advanced classes. The Level III curriculum would look like AAP as it is now, and the Level IV would be more advanced than AAP. This would also help the gen ed kids who are advanced in one subject but not the other, as it would guarantee services in their area of strength. Science could be bundled with math as part of that block, and social studies could similarly be bundled with language arts.

The other, much simpler option would be to make AAP for only the top 10-ish percent of kids by pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

And here's another thing. AAP kids have school choice and are able to move from school to school based on what suits the child best. I would have loved to switch my Gen Ed kid to another school without such an emphasis on AAP to get away from the labeling and bullying. However, turns out only AAP kids have the option to switch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does FCPS approach the idea of a "fixed" vs "growth" mindset? Research shows that having a growth mindset is a key aspect of success. I know my kids in APS hear a lot about developing a growth mindset. But it seems that the things people say they are hearing AAP/Gen Ed kids say to each other show that those kids are getting a really strong message that reinforces a "fixed" mindset -- e.g. we're smart/you're dumb. That's damaging for both groups -- the "dumb" ones can start to think they really are and not try while the "smart" ones become averse to trying things that might be hard because struggling with something means they aren't "smart" after all. Getting a B or (horrors!) a C in something becomes a tragedy rather than an opportunity to figure out how to improve.

Yes. The AAP system is unhealthy for all the kids, though of course, parents of AAP kids will vehemently disagree. Their kids are the ones being told they're "smart," so naturally they're all for it. I find it very, very difficult to take this system seriously when the vast majority of kids in both AAP and Gen Ed are indistinguishable from one another. Certainly, there are outliers - but the ridiculous amount of kids accepted into AAP makes it appear that FCPS is a Lake Wobegon. Which it is not.

I am an AAP parent (x3) and I agree with you. It is unhealthy and divisive. And the program is just not very much different, from what I can tell.

When the bar is as low as it must be for there to be SO many kids from each grade being found eligible, what does it say to those who are not? "You're REALLY at the bottom of the barrel." Or maybe it's not that the bar is low, maybe it's too many people gaming the system. I don't know, but I do know that it didn't use to be this way. It has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

Sure. Since you asked me to drill down to the details if I were in charge of FCPS: Kids could be designated as Level III (corresponding to 1 grade level ahead and 95th percentile-ish+) or Level IV (2+ grade levels ahead, >99th percentile) per subject, based on achievement scores, ability scores, and teacher referral. If the base school has enough Level III kids in a subject, then those kids should take the class at the base school. Homerooms would be mixed ability, with kids switching classes for math and language arts (like they already do for math). If a school does not have enough Level III kids, then those kids should have the option to attend the center. In places like McLean, only the Level IV kids would be center eligible, since about half of the grade would be Level III. In the eastern parts of the county and/or high FARMs schools, Level III kids would attend the center, since there wouldn't be enough to run the advanced classes. The Level III curriculum would look like AAP as it is now, and the Level IV would be more advanced than AAP. This would also help the gen ed kids who are advanced in one subject but not the other, as it would guarantee services in their area of strength. Science could be bundled with math as part of that block, and social studies could similarly be bundled with language arts.

The other, much simpler option would be to make AAP for only the top 10-ish percent of kids by pyramid.

So in some pyramids the center would house LLIV and LLIII kids and really nothing would change except maybe more kids would go to the center and in others just the LLIV kids and those centers would decrease. Level 2 services would be offered at the base schools for those that qualify which is differentiation by subject. Except that perhaps math and science would be grouped similarly and so would language arts and social studies. So potentially then some kids could still be in an advanced class in every subject. The AART then would not be needed in schools or on a more part time basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what then? How would this perfect world of differentiation work in detail with a smaller group of advanced students being labeled GT?

It's actually pretty simple. Most AAP kids are only about 1 year advanced in each subject. That can be handled in gen ed through flexible grouping and switching classes, like they already do for math. AAP should be saved for kids who need to be instructed 2 or more years above grade level.

It's actually not that simple. A friend of mine had to switch her child to a center because the school decided not to offer compacted math. On this board we read about it all the time that schools, particularly with high FARMS rates, do not offer advanced services in math and other subjects. Even at the LLII and LLIII level advanced services are often not offered.

Then you have the teachers coming on board saying their plate is too full and it's impossible to differentiate and parents complaining that there is no real differentiation happening. Eventually the parents leave for private or leave the area, or homeschool if they are dissatisfied. Or the teachers leave because the workload is too much. Or the school goes to quickly for a child and the parents complain their child is too stressed and if they can't get that resolved they also leave for private, another area, or homeschool.

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with differentiation than AAP, but so far I haven't actually seen it work well in practice. Since you have an idea, please drill down to the details of how it would work in all ranges of schools in FCPS from the 90% FARMS rates to the 5% FARMS rate schools. And what is the AART's role in this change?

Sure. Since you asked me to drill down to the details if I were in charge of FCPS: Kids could be designated as Level III (corresponding to 1 grade level ahead and 95th percentile-ish+) or Level IV (2+ grade levels ahead, >99th percentile) per subject, based on achievement scores, ability scores, and teacher referral. If the base school has enough Level III kids in a subject, then those kids should take the class at the base school. Homerooms would be mixed ability, with kids switching classes for math and language arts (like they already do for math). If a school does not have enough Level III kids, then those kids should have the option to attend the center. In places like McLean, only the Level IV kids would be center eligible, since about half of the grade would be Level III. In the eastern parts of the county and/or high FARMs schools, Level III kids would attend the center, since there wouldn't be enough to run the advanced classes. The Level III curriculum would look like AAP as it is now, and the Level IV would be more advanced than AAP. This would also help the gen ed kids who are advanced in one subject but not the other, as it would guarantee services in their area of strength. Science could be bundled with math as part of that block, and social studies could similarly be bundled with language arts.

The other, much simpler option would be to make AAP for only the top 10-ish percent of kids by pyramid.

So in some pyramids the center would house LLIV and LLIII kids and really nothing would change except maybe more kids would go to the center and in others just the LLIV kids and those centers would decrease. Level 2 services would be offered at the base schools for those that qualify which is differentiation by subject. Except that perhaps math and science would be grouped similarly and so would language arts and social studies. So potentially then some kids could still be in an advanced class in every subject. The AART then would not be needed in schools or on a more part time basis.

DP. So instead of a two-track system there would be a three-track system of base schools that switch subjects, center schools for Level III kids, and central center schools for the "real" Level IV kids. And that sounds better to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The other, much simpler option would be to make AAP for only the top 10-ish percent of kids by pyramid.

So in some pyramids the center would house LLIV and LLIII kids and really nothing would change except maybe more kids would go to the center and in others just the LLIV kids and those centers would decrease. Level 2 services would be offered at the base schools for those that qualify which is differentiation by subject. Except that perhaps math and science would be grouped similarly and so would language arts and social studies. So potentially then some kids could still be in an advanced class in every subject. The AART then would not be needed in schools or on a more part time basis.

Assuming you're replying to the idea of designating kids by pyramid:
AAP should be a system that is less about a gifted label and bragging rights, and more about providing services to kids whose needs can't be met by subject-differentiation in their base schools. The bar for deciding whether a kid's needs can be met at the base school would vary by school. In places where over half of the kids routinely qualify for AAP, cutting down the numbers would help the fraction of those who are very advanced have access to an even faster or more in-depth curriculum than AAP, rather than being bored out of their minds in AAP. The schools could still use the regular AAP curriculum in the advanced classes at the base school. In the high FARMs schools, kids who are Level III would be able to access advanced math or advanced language arts via the center, rather than getting nothing at all at their base schools.