Anonymous wrote:9:19 you are right on. Today's students are so vastly different from when we were kids. FCPS needs to change the Gen. Ed program to be differentiated by class.
Class 1 is for low learners and ESOL,
Class 2 is for kids that are average (2, 3, and 4 on reports),
Class 3 is for high learners (kids that have all 3 but mostly 4 on reports),
C is for AAP.
FCPS already is segregating kids (with AAP centers and LLIV classes), why do the gen. ed kids have to be lumped in with such a wide range of learning ability? Doesn't seem fair. Should be either all or none. AAP kids win out every time in FCPS.

So true.

Differentiation has been "out" for a long time because of fear it could look like segregation and because of the big push since the eighties for mainstreaming following IDEA. We've gone too far in the everyone together all the time direction. We need to find a flexible middle path.

It totally depends on the school whether LLIV will work unless you want to consider moving children up and down grades. Some schools have less than 10 students that qualify or even less than 5. How would that be fair to the other schools with 30 that do?

I agree also that all classes could have some differentiation by level. But I saw someone post on another thread that a class of pool students found ineligible for AAP would never happen because of IDEA. I asked why but I don't think there was a response. I looked up IDEA and it is Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, "a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation." Does anyone know why this would preclude differentiation by ability level in gen ed classes?

9:19 you are right on. Today's students are so vastly different from when we were kids. FCPS needs to change the Gen. Ed program to be differentiated by class.
Class 1 is for low learners and ESOL,
Class 2 is for kids that are average (2, 3, and 4 on reports),
Class 3 is for high learners (kids that have all 3 but mostly 4 on reports),
C is for AAP.
FCPS already is segregating kids (with AAP centers and LLIV classes), why do the gen. ed kids have to be lumped in with such a wide range of learning ability? Doesn't seem fair. Should be either all or none. AAP kids win out every time in FCPS.

8:17 I agree with you completely. A kid who just missed getting in or a kid who truly excels in one subject is screwed (pardon my French) at a school with a center.

I don't mean to sound culturally insensitive and I value language diversity but the base classrooms at our center school focus on the very large number of ESOL students and spend so much time going over the basics for SOLS that the native speakers ready for more are so bored.

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised the report didn't talk more about the Expansion Proposal and the dilution of the centers.

Because AAPAC's 2012-2013 charge from the School Board was centered on secondary schools.

“Assess the range of program opportunities available in FCPS for AAP in the secondary schools. Include assessment of programs and best practices used including accelerated content, differentiated instruction beyond the classroom (internships, work study, student exchange programs) and special schools such as the academies.”

As a parent of three kids at a base school with a center I think LLIV should be at every school. It is very unfair to the in-the-pool kids that aren't accepted into AAP to be in a gen. ed class. LLIV allows for these kids to be in a class with like-minded peers; instead of in a gen. ed class with way too much educational diversity. I feel that the base kids at a center school get the short end of the stick.

I'm surprised the report didn't talk more about the Expansion Proposal and the dilution of the centers. The creation of the center at Navy ES seems on the surface to solve the overcrowding at Hunters Woods. But it also broke apart the center model. Before 3 schools, Navy, Waples Mill and Crossfield all went to HW and all the kids continued onto Carson together. (HW base school kids go to Hughes for MS). Now the only school assigned to HW AAP center is Waples Mill. Just 30 or so children a year from waples will be sent to HW, a different pyramid school. The center at Navy will open but Crossfield has a local level IV program that parents have been very aggresively pursued to stay at. So the 3 schools which before made the center are now going to be at 3 seperate locations, some at HW, some at Crossfield and some at Navy.

By offering local level IV services at all of the schools you are slowly getting rid of the centers. That seems to be a big push, and in this case a back door way to get rid of the centers.

If you look at the other 2 new centers at Westbriar and lemon Road they are doing the same thing. Offering local level iv services at all the base schools. It's great parents have options, but it will be easier to get rid of centers once all these local options become popular.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your comments. (And yes, AAPAC is a permanent advisory committee.)

As to your questions -- regarding the "majority of the committee but not unanimity" issue -- this refers to the AAPAC comments to the
School Board regarding the AAP Expansion Proposal (Appendix 1). The three high schools that are considering introducing IBMYP are Edison, Lee, and Marshall.

The School Board will likely ask questions during the report's presentation on Thursday (May 30). Normally staff will then respond (over the summer) to the recommendations in writing.

Thanks for the responses. I really appreciated the report's emphasis on the need for more, better, and earlier communication. And I really liked the recommendations concerning language and the need for vertical articulation. There is so much information in there, I'm sure I will have more questions after a few re-readings. I hope you'll come back to answer them

I'll do my best.

Thank you again for the valuable feedback!

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your comments. (And yes, AAPAC is a permanent advisory committee.)

As to your questions -- regarding the "majority of the committee but not unanimity" issue -- this refers to the AAPAC comments to the
School Board regarding the AAP Expansion Proposal (Appendix 1). The three high schools that are considering introducing IBMYP are Edison, Lee, and Marshall.

The School Board will likely ask questions during the report's presentation on Thursday (May 30). Normally staff will then respond (over the summer) to the recommendations in writing.

Thanks for the responses. I really appreciated the report's emphasis on the need for more, better, and earlier communication. And I really liked the recommendations concerning language and the need for vertical articulation. There is so much information in there, I'm sure I will have more questions after a few re-readings. I hope you'll come back to answer them

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the link. Some interesting and eye-opening information there, particularly as it relates to the after-school offerings. I think the committee has done a great service in itemizing what each school provides, so that parents know what other options even exist.

Couple of questions:

The report makes clear that "the comments from AAPAC reflected a majority of the committee but not unanimity," yet the signature page at the end does not reveal any who opposed or even abstained from the approval vote. So what gives?

On page 7, the report mentions "Seven additional schools (3 Middle Schools, 3 High Schools and 1 secondary) are considering introducing IBMYP programs next year as part of the continuum of studies for an IB diploma." Any idea which high schools are considering adding IBMYP?

What's next for the recommendations? SB to adopt and request that FCPS provide an implementation schedule?

Is there any thought to making AAPAC a permanent committee? It would be nice to have a group that is now up to speed monitor the program.

Thank you for your comments. (And yes, AAPAC is a permanent advisory committee.)

As to your questions -- regarding the "majority of the committee but not unanimity" issue -- this refers to the AAPAC comments to the
School Board regarding the AAP Expansion Proposal (Appendix 1). The three high schools that are considering introducing IBMYP are Edison, Lee, and Marshall.

The School Board will likely ask questions during the report's presentation on Thursday (May 30). Normally staff will then respond (over the summer) to the recommendations in writing.

I think AAPAC IS a permanent committee.

Thanks for the link. Some interesting and eye-opening information there, particularly as it relates to the after-school offerings. I think the committee has done a great service in itemizing what each school provides, so that parents know what other options even exist.

Couple of questions:

The report makes clear that "the comments from AAPAC reflected a majority of the committee but not unanimity," yet the signature page at the end does not reveal any who opposed or even abstained from the approval vote. So what gives?

On page 7, the report mentions "Seven additional schools (3 Middle Schools, 3 High Schools and 1 secondary) are considering introducing IBMYP programs next year as part of the continuum of studies for an IB diploma." Any idea which high schools are considering adding IBMYP?

What's next for the recommendations? SB to adopt and request that FCPS provide an implementation schedule?

Is there any thought to making AAPAC a permanent committee? It would be nice to have a group that is now up to speed monitor the program.

The Advanced Academic Programs Advisory Committee (AAPAC) report to the Fairfax County School Board will be presented on Thursday, May 30:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=97WM6U599142

Link to report:
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/97WPP7655A62/$file/AAPAC%202013%20final%20May%207%202013.pdf

Link to attendance record for AAPAC members:
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/97WPRG65D774/$file/AAPAC%20Attendance_2013.pdf