Reply to Which schools only have LIV kids in their LLIV program?

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Which schools only have LIV kids in their LLIV program?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why are you against the Center?[/quote]

I’m not the OP, but I really wish we didn’t have to choose the center to get a non cluster model. The bus ride is nearly an hour, it feeds into a different high school than his base (so friends won’t stick around), and he doesn’t get to know the neighborhood kids (we moved here in 3rd grade)[/quote]

I think you're confused about what is and is not clustering. LLIV programs have ALWAYS been a mix of LLIV and principal placed LIII children. That's NOT clustering, it's just filling the classroom. Clustering is when a school doesn't have an LLIV classroom at all but separates out kids for advanced math.[/quote]

Wait, what? So clustering means...no LLIV for any subject but math (pull outs)? Or is it there some attempt at differentiation within the classroom for other subjects? Or does the meaning of clustering depend on the school?

Also, just curious if anyone knows how long clustering has been a thing in FCPS? Sounds like it's happening more with the increase in LLIV programs but has it always been done?[/quote]

I think the newer programs (within the last couple of years) started doing the cluster model. Then a few schools changed to it as well that had established programs. There are still schools with 1 Local Level 4 class per grade. Kids who are not Level 4 are principal placed. [/quote]

Clustering sounds like a good way to ignore the AAP kids since I don't expect a teacher to be able to consistently make 2-3 different lessons plans daily. Yay, equity![/quote]

AAP teacher here. If my school ever moved to clustering, I would leave. [/quote]
You are the reason AAP students have the attitude they have. You think you're too good for the general population? What a terrible teacher.[/quote]

I am the PP. I taught Gen Ed for years. In my Gen Ed, 6th grade classroom I had kids reading at a Kindergarten classroom all the way through an 8th grade level. It is too much for one person to differentiate that much. I switched to AAP and while I do have some lower readers, the gap is not as large and is more manageable. I have many Gen Ed kids in my class.   So, I don’t think I am too good for Gen Ed. I think what they are asking of teachers is IMPOSSIBLE!

So by going back to Clustering, I would be back at square 1 with doing the impossible.

I am a great teacher and I love my job.  I just want to be able to do my job effectively and have a work/life balance. I am sorry you interpreted my message as I am too good for Gen Ed.

As is, teaching is hard. I would be shocked if I made it the full 30 years. I wish the county made our jobs easier vs harder.

[/quote]

Clustering at least acknowledges those kids reading at the 8th grade level that you had. AAP just ensures that the above grade level kids who miss the cutoff never get a peer group and get ignored by teachers who think differentiation is too hard [/quote]

There's some cognitive dissonance between the plurality of "above grade level kids who miss the cutoff" and the statement that they "never get a peer group".

Reducing a student to a percentile number sucks, but for simplicity's sake I'll use it here regardless: let's assume for sake of argument that the 80th+ percentile of FCPS students are generally selected in AAP. Then within the Gen Ed classroom there's going to be a cohort of say 65th-79th percentile kids who will be above grade level and clustered/differentiated within that Gen Ed classroom. Just like the AAP class might differentiate the 80-89th percentile kids (vs. the 90-96th percentile kids vs. the 97th+ percentile kids; again, just trying to illustrate the general point). I acknowledge these lines are blurry (e.g. if you test one day vs. the next you might get a few percentile difference) and they vary by subject and so on, and they don't necessarily take into account other factors like home support, potential/talent vs. current achievement, executive functioning, emotional/behavioral issues, and myriad other factors that can all impact a kids ability/readiness to succeed in a given environment and/or their rate of progress.

But for a kid around the 80th percentile, they might wind up in the bottom differentiated cohort within an AAP class, or the top differentiated cohort within a Gen Ed class, but either way they'll generally have an adequate peer group that their either at the top of bottom of.[/quote]

That is such a shockingly naive view of how AAP selection works.   If you look at national percentile ranks, there are many kids who test in the 97th percentile and above who are also above grade level in all subjects, but get rejected from AAP.  There are kids who are completely average and below grade level in at least one subject who are admitted into AAP.  The line between who gets in and who doesn't is very blurred and somewhat random.  It's not like the kids 80th percentile and above (locally) get in and the kids below that are out.  Keep in mind that 1/3 of the in-pool kids get rejected, and a lot of kids who were not in-pool get accepted.

(This is at a title I school and a middle of the road AAP center) My older kid scored 97th percentile on the CogAT, had a 15 GBRS, and was above grade level in all subjects.  They were rejected from AAP.  Pretty much every single kid in the grade who scored a 120+ on CogAT(90th percentile nationally) got admitted.  Although they were 2 years above grade level in reading, they often had to be dropped down to an on grade level group, simply because there weren't any other kids above grade level in the classroom.  The few years when they had a 1 year above grade level reading group, the group only met with the teacher for 15 minutes every second week.  In advanced math, only 3 kids in the entire class (including mine) qualified for Algebra in 7th.  My kid got perfect scores on almost every single SOL, and high pass advanced on the rest.  There really was no peer group for the smart kids who were mysteriously rejected from AAP.

My younger child, who attended the AAP center, still had a completely inadequate cohort and educational experience.  They also were 2 years above grade level in reading, but likewise only got to meet with the teacher at most 15 minutes per week, because the AAP teacher was stuck with kids who were on and below grade level.  Math was simply gen ed math given one year earlier, with no real extensions or rigor.  This was because many AAP kids were completely incapable of handling the advanced math.  My kids school was one of the ones that gave AMC8 to all of the AAP 6th graders, and the scores were pathetic.  They proved that the majority of the AAP kids were completely average in math and had no need at all for advanced instruction.  Maybe 1/4 of the kids failed to earn the President's award at 6th grade graduation, meaning that they failed to earn a pass advanced on any of their 5th grade SOLs.

A gen ed teacher brought up that in 6th grade, her classroom spanned from kids reading at a K level through kids at an 8th grade level.  An AAP classroom might span from kids reading at a 5th grade level through kids at a 9th grade level.  This is idiotic and completely defeats the purpose of providing advanced education.  It would serve everyone better if the kids who were on and below grade level were all in gen ed, and the kids who were above grade level were in the advanced academic program.

Real gifted programs actually have admissions standards, where kids need high test scores and/or a portfolio showing very advanced work.  It's nothing like FCPS AAP, which uses nebulous feelings to decide which kids get to be admitted and which kids aren't.  It's idiotic that kids who have the test scores and are advanced are getting rejected just because either the teacher doesn't like them or the admissions panel, when spending their 5 minutes reviewing the file, just weren't feeling it.  It's also idiotic that kids who are completely average are getting in because the teacher really liked them or the committee just decides to give them a chance.  After they get in, it's absurd that AAP programs cater to the kids who don't belong there at the expense of the kids who do.  [/quote]

But isn't it true that if your child is rejected with good scores you can just keep trying and will eventually prevail? I'm also genuinely wondering how much of your experience is related to your particular school zone. Or is it really like this everywhere.

Don't you think that this is at least better than a true G&T program where many more students who would enjoy the challenge of advanced work would be in a class that has too much variation in ability to be able to address everyone's needs? I agree that such a broad range in AAP also defeats the purpose but is it really the case that most programs have that wide of a range in ability?[/quote]
For your first question:  Yes, but it becomes more socially awkward for the kid, who will be viewed as "inferior" at the center.  It also might be harder to get the kid to be willing to move to the center.

For the second:  FCPS is pretty unique in admitting kids into AAP who are below/on grade level and rejecting kids who are above grade level.  In most districts, there are score cutoffs for the CogAT and whatever ability test they use.  Kids who meet the cutoffs are in.  Kids who don't, but have a very strong portfolio and recommendation can still get in.  Everyone else is out.

[b]The elementary school I attended as a child had much less of a range in ability per classroom,[/b] even without a gifted program.  There were 4 classrooms per grade level.  For the reading timeslot, the top 1/4 all switched to one classroom, the next 1/4 to a different classroom, and so on.  The same was done for math.  It's not exactly rocket science to have the kids switch classrooms so the kids who are similar in ability can be taught together.  FCPS seems largely unwilling to entertain this idea, most likely because their stats look better when they ignore the kids who are going to pass the SOL and instead focus on the bottom.[/quote]

This is true for many people.  The country (not just the county) is more diverse now that it was back then.  Including academically.  A homogeneous school, whether they are all superstars or all regular students or all struggling students, is a lot easier for everyone.  But we don't have that anymore.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics