|
There is no difference at our high SES school other than the math.
It is drastic difference at the Title I school we attended prior. Depends on school and even sometimes on teacher/teams. |
If there are any kids in AAP who “can’t learn in a traditional classroom,” it’s a minuscule percentage. Everyone is well aware that AAP is merely an accelerated curriculum - not a gifted program. DP |
What data? Please link to a specific FCPS study that backs up your claim.
|
DP. Of course there need to be leveled groupings - but they need to be flexible so that kids can move up (or down) as needed. There does not need to be two monolithic groups that are set in stone. Many kids are ahead in one subject yet struggle in others. There absolutely needs to be flexible groupings, especially in language arts and math. That’s how most schools used to do it - including FCPS. |
Read to your children, even older children, every day if possible. Encourage math games and other board games and puzzles and free play and nature exploration. Look up some gifted curriculums online, especially those that are often used for homeschoolers. These are not secret, and not expensive usually, often sold in small sets, and nowadays with the internet are easy to obtain. In fact, you would be shocked to know that what the AAP teachers and AART use are pulled directly from these very affordable curriculum ideas. Things like perplexor or critical thinking puzzles, or book extensions, or writing supplements. |
True - but the main thing is that kids can decide *for themselves* which level to take. |
Teachers would have no idea which kids were previously in AAP vs Gen Ed. Once high school rolls around, it’s a level playing field. |
BS. There are plenty of GE kids who barely missed getting into AAP and are no different in ability than those who did get in. That’s why AAP needs to return to being a true GT program, as it used to be when it had a much higher cutoff score and FAR fewer kids were in it. The current AAP curriculum needs to become the GE curriculum, with plenty of flexibility as mentioned before. Any remedial kids - which, btw, are a tiny portion of Gen Ed - could then receive the extra help they might need. |
AAP is not the problem -- you have stated it but backwards. The problem with gen ed is not AAP, it's the large number of remedial kids, or the even the small number of remedial kids which take up the entire class and all of the teacher's time, focus, and energy. That doesn'thave anything to do with AAP. It has to do with our current way of teaching, of small groups that only meet with the teacher according to need, and teaching to the test. Progressive schools and SOLs are the problem. Not AAP. |
PP, you are reading that comment incorrectly. I ws not the one who wrote it. However, my own DS was accepted to AAP center school, and I kept him at a local school instead. That kind of environment was a major factor. DH is a narcissist and I did not want DS to grow up the same way. |
The differences between the AP/Honors level instruction and the regular level instruction is a huge gulf. However, there are former AAP and former gen-ed students who are in the honors/AP classes, and there's not necessarily a black & white difference between them. |
There's a lot of difference in the level of instruction between honors/AP and regular level subjects. But when enrollment is open at the MS/HS level, the effect of having been an AAP student or not is not super relevant (although I guess AAP kids might be better prepared for the level of rigor in honors - but as long as the kid can acclimate to honors level work, they'll be fine in those courses.) |
Feel feted to share your data that shows the opposite. My data is only based on one school math data as a teacher. |
What if a child is in advanced math but not AAP? Any data for that? |
x1000 |