Anonymous wrote:The resources and money thrown at AAP centers would be better utilized improving the academics for all classrooms. As the previous poster pointed out, they ALL end up together in high school. In the end there is no substantial difference, certainly not enough to warrant the amount spent on centers, the bussing, the testing, especially drafting a special test JUST for Fairfax County.

Truly gifted children with outstanding IQs should be given special instruction in their base school, similar to other children with special needs. Advanced Academics for such a large percentage of students is a waste. The majority are not geniuses that NEED specialized instruction.

The fact is that so many kids in FCPS are smart enough for advanced academics, they had to change the guidelines that are used nationwide to determine eligibility.

Since so many kids are able, why not just implement the instruction across the board? This would improve the entire school system rather than just certain parts. The AAP curriculum is not rocket science. It can be used in Gen Ed and I bet most kids would get along just fine.

BUT, this will never happen because the voice of the Pro-AAP side is much louder and vocal.

Anonymous wrote:Arguing that AAP should be scrapped because of cost creates an unnecessary sideshow. The cost is minimal as FCPS would still have to educate these kids and provide buses for a large chunk of the kids anyway. I think the lack of real differentiation in the Gen Ed classroom is a better argument. I think differentiation should be across the grade instead of every teacher being expected to teach to at least 3 levels within each class. For example, if there are 3 classes in a grade, the teachers could group their kids in a high, middle and low group for language arts and for math, and one teacher would take the high, low or middle group from all the classes. The groups could be reassessed every couple of months. Some schools do this and I think this type of differentiation is easier to accomplish and more efficient than expecting one teacher to do it all. If this was being done,a lot of the parents who send their kids to AAP centers wouldn't feel it was necessary, which would decrease the number of center kids and the brain drain (real or perceived) from Gen Ed. My kids' center is way less convenient than our base school, and I most certainly would have kept them in our base school if it had across the grade differentiation. The in class differentiation was very spotty and inconsistent from teacher to teacher so we opted for the center to avoid the inconsistencies in differentiation at our base school. I'm sure that is a major factor in a lot of parents deciding to send their kids to centers.

Anonymous wrote:Arguing that AAP should be scrapped because of cost creates an unnecessary sideshow. The cost is minimal as FCPS would still have to educate these kids and provide buses for a large chunk of the kids anyway. I think the lack of real differentiation in the Gen Ed classroom is a better argument. I think differentiation should be across the grade instead of every teacher being expected to teach to at least 3 levels within each class. For example, if there are 3 classes in a grade, the teachers could group their kids in a high, middle and low group for language arts and for math, and one teacher would take the high, low or middle group from all the classes. The groups could be reassessed every couple of months. Some schools do this and I think this type of differentiation is easier to accomplish and more efficient than expecting one teacher to do it all. If this was being done,a lot of the parents who send their kids to AAP centers wouldn't feel it was necessary, which would decrease the number of center kids and the brain drain (real or perceived) from Gen Ed. My kids' center is way less convenient than our base school, and I most certainly would have kept them in our base school if it had across the grade differentiation. The in class differentiation was very spotty and inconsistent from teacher to teacher so we opted for the center to avoid the inconsistencies in differentiation at our base school. I'm sure that is a major factor in a lot of parents deciding to send their kids to centers.[/quote]

THIS! In-class "differentiation" that supposedly lets a single classroom teacher serve kids at an entire range of abilities does not work. Period. Especially in this age of constant, mandatory testing on which schools and teachers are judged, the teachers must focus on bringing up those scores and serving the kids who need the most help. The kids who need to be challenged because they're ready for it are the ones who get cheated. A few teachers may be able to make differentiation serve the smarter kids for a while, or in specific projects or subjects, but across the board, an AAP system works better to serve ALL kids. There is so much bitching on DCUM about how AAP should be ditched or curtailed because the schools need to serve "all kids." Well, that should include serving the kids who are ready to move ahead faster, do more, and take on more challenging assignments --which can't be done in a "differentiated" general ed classroom.

As for the person saying "What's the end result" of AAP because not all the kids eventually go to Ivies or "top state universities" -- what the heck? My kid is in AAP because if she'd stayed at her base school (no AAP, no level III or IV, even) she would have been bored stiff and lost interest in learning. It's not about whether she goes to an Ivy or not. Do you really think every AAP parent is out to get their kids into certain universities and that's the goal from third grade onward? Seriously? I want my kid to love learning and stay interested. That wasn't going to happen at our base, period.

The "end result" is supposed to be a system serving all kids. Including the ones ready to move faster and do more. But you want a system that serves "all" kids only when that means holding back the kids who are capable of more than can be provided in most general ed classrooms in the age of standardized testing.