Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all schools maintained rigor and let underperforming kids fail, this would be a self correcting problem. Some schools take this approach. Others pause the rest of the kids to remediate to the ones who are struggling, or they do tons of group work, pairing the struggling kids up with high achievers to mask how much the kid is struggling.

The last thing a failing kid needs is a being paired with the advanced kid. Way to make them feel more stupid. And is the advanced kid supposed to teach the failing kid math? OMG.

Signed mom of a failing kid.

FWIW, the head of the math department in FCPS knows that this approach is really bad and is actively discouraging it as a practice. She knows kids need peer groups. Whether this trickles down from Gatehouse and how I don't know.

Do you really want schools to spend more time/money on annual reevaluation? A Cogat score is a fairly stable measure of intellectual potential.
Parents can--and do--pull their kids out of AAP if they are not thriving there. That has happened in both my kids' classes. I don't see the need for more bureaucratic hurdles.

Sometimes kids are 2e (high IQ with learning disabilities) and they aren't always easily going to quite thrive anywhere but AAP is the best spot for them. Sometimes parents coached kids into a high test score and aren't willing to back down to a more appropriate education when their kids aren't thriving. But most of the time it works fine.

Anonymous wrote:If all schools maintained rigor and let underperforming kids fail, this would be a self correcting problem. Some schools take this approach. Others pause the rest of the kids to remediate to the ones who are struggling, or they do tons of group work, pairing the struggling kids up with high achievers to mask how much the kid is struggling.

The last thing a failing kid needs is a being paired with the advanced kid. Way to make them feel more stupid. And is the advanced kid supposed to teach the failing kid math? OMG.

Signed mom of a failing kid.

In math, at least, they are looking for ways to make the tracking more fluid. They also hope to increase the rigor above and beyond the very basic VA standards.

Watch the ECubed schools, who are trying out some of the ideas this year. It's part of the implementation of VMPI.

I have been assured, by the way, that ECubed and VMPI will still preserve the tracks that allow differential equalitons/complex analysis or linear algebra/multivariable calculus through curriculum compacting (which is what they do in AAP in 3rd and 4th now), but they aren't sure what grade they will do this in.

I always thought AAP was bullshit anyway if you are picking kids based on their scores and GBRS when they have barely started learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all schools maintained rigor and let underperforming kids fail, this would be a self correcting problem. Some schools take this approach. Others pause the rest of the kids to remediate to the ones who are struggling, or they do tons of group work, pairing the struggling kids up with high achievers to mask how much the kid is struggling.

I truly haven't heard of this being the case in AAP. It's the opposite - underperforming kids are expected to get external support to catch up.

It really depends on the specific AAP center. At mine, underperforming kids were coddled at the expense of the kids who needed more rigor. If a decent number of kids drop back from the center to gen ed, then the center is doing things correctly. If almost no one returns to gen ed from the center, then the center is coddling the underperformers.

Anonymous wrote:Students in special education are re-evaluated every three years. Why do you think it needs to be every year?

Evaluation can happen sooner if the parents request it. The school can suggest it as well but parents have to approve the change in schedule. This happens when a child needs different services, which could mean more or less, depending on the child's progress. The signs of needed changes can be hard to evaluate.

AAP is easier to evaluate. You look at grades and SOLs. If kids have grades that are mainly 3’s or some 2’s and are not passing Advance on the SOL, then they would be better off in Gen Ed.

Students in special education are re-evaluated every three years. Why do you think it needs to be every year?

It would hurt their feelings if they found out they were really gifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew was moved into an accelerated math group in ES. He struggled a bit, he is a smart kid but math is not instinctual for him like it is for other kids. He was able to do the work but it was extra work at home and he was closer to the bottom of the group. The Teacher noticed that it did not seem like a good fit and met with his parents. They agreed to move him back into the regular math group, he was not as challenged but the fit was better for him. He was devastated and took it as meaning he was stupid. My SIL spent a good amount of time assuring him he wasn’t, pointing to how well he was doing in school, and reminding him how much harder he had to work in the other class.

I suspect that there are a lot of kids who would struggle if they were moved down, not because the work was too easy but because of the confidence issues. It only gets worse if kids have moved to the Center. Now the kid has changed schools and either has to return to their old school or move to a class at the Center school with kids they have never interacted with.

Honestly, the best system could well allowing for ES to look a bit more like MS/HS and having a home room and then assign kids classes based on skill level with all the kids changing for math, science, LA, and social studies. All the kids have the same subject at the same time but change classes so they are in a class with kids at a comparable levels. Kids who are strong in math are in the Advanced Math group, kids who are strong in LA are in the Advanced LA group. Same for science and social studies, although I suspect that there is less need for differentiation in those subjects based on the way they are approached in FCPS.

I feel like this just helps demonstrate how AAP can be hard on kids and how it can lead to anxiety. It's so sad that parents and school administrators are putting this into the heads of 8/9/10 year olds.

I am not disagreeing but I suspect that the kids who are impacted in this way are the kids who would not be challenged in Gen Ed but find AAP too fast. It is the kids on the cusp. In my nephews case, he was capable of doing the work it required more work at home and was causing issues. But moving from the advanced math group back to the regular group was also hard.

Some kids will handle moving groups without any issues, some will be anxious. It is more the nature of the kid then the action itself.

Parents are trying to do what is best for their kids. We all want our kid in a nurturing environment that is academically challenging for our kids. It is not easy to find that for every kid.

Anonymous wrote:My nephew was moved into an accelerated math group in ES. He struggled a bit, he is a smart kid but math is not instinctual for him like it is for other kids. He was able to do the work but it was extra work at home and he was closer to the bottom of the group. The Teacher noticed that it did not seem like a good fit and met with his parents. They agreed to move him back into the regular math group, he was not as challenged but the fit was better for him. He was devastated and took it as meaning he was stupid. My SIL spent a good amount of time assuring him he wasn’t, pointing to how well he was doing in school, and reminding him how much harder he had to work in the other class.

I suspect that there are a lot of kids who would struggle if they were moved down, not because the work was too easy but because of the confidence issues. It only gets worse if kids have moved to the Center. Now the kid has changed schools and either has to return to their old school or move to a class at the Center school with kids they have never interacted with.

Honestly, the best system could well allowing for ES to look a bit more like MS/HS and having a home room and then assign kids classes based on skill level with all the kids changing for math, science, LA, and social studies. All the kids have the same subject at the same time but change classes so they are in a class with kids at a comparable levels. Kids who are strong in math are in the Advanced Math group, kids who are strong in LA are in the Advanced LA group. Same for science and social studies, although I suspect that there is less need for differentiation in those subjects based on the way they are approached in FCPS.

I feel like this just helps demonstrate how AAP can be hard on kids and how it can lead to anxiety. It's so sad that parents and school administrators are putting this into the heads of 8/9/10 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:If all schools maintained rigor and let underperforming kids fail, this would be a self correcting problem. Some schools take this approach. Others pause the rest of the kids to remediate to the ones who are struggling, or they do tons of group work, pairing the struggling kids up with high achievers to mask how much the kid is struggling.

I truly haven't heard of this being the case in AAP. It's the opposite - underperforming kids are expected to get external support to catch up.

If all schools maintained rigor and let underperforming kids fail, this would be a self correcting problem. Some schools take this approach. Others pause the rest of the kids to remediate to the ones who are struggling, or they do tons of group work, pairing the struggling kids up with high achievers to mask how much the kid is struggling.

My nephew was moved into an accelerated math group in ES. He struggled a bit, he is a smart kid but math is not instinctual for him like it is for other kids. He was able to do the work but it was extra work at home and he was closer to the bottom of the group. The Teacher noticed that it did not seem like a good fit and met with his parents. They agreed to move him back into the regular math group, he was not as challenged but the fit was better for him. He was devastated and took it as meaning he was stupid. My SIL spent a good amount of time assuring him he wasn’t, pointing to how well he was doing in school, and reminding him how much harder he had to work in the other class.

I suspect that there are a lot of kids who would struggle if they were moved down, not because the work was too easy but because of the confidence issues. It only gets worse if kids have moved to the Center. Now the kid has changed schools and either has to return to their old school or move to a class at the Center school with kids they have never interacted with.

Honestly, the best system could well allowing for ES to look a bit more like MS/HS and having a home room and then assign kids classes based on skill level with all the kids changing for math, science, LA, and social studies. All the kids have the same subject at the same time but change classes so they are in a class with kids at a comparable levels. Kids who are strong in math are in the Advanced Math group, kids who are strong in LA are in the Advanced LA group. Same for science and social studies, although I suspect that there is less need for differentiation in those subjects based on the way they are approached in FCPS.

I mean the children who are already in it? I keep reading about kids who get into AAP in 3rd, but then really, really struggle in later grades, but one you're in AAP, they can't remove you. I know of ONE family that removed their child from AAP because she was having a hard time keeping up and they were very concerned with her levels of anxiety, but I know of others who just hire more tutors, do more enrichment, to try to keep their children up because they refuse to take their kids back to general ed and the kids are clearly NOT enjoying school. Why won't FCPS institute a policy to help children like this?