I think the early bloomer vs late bloomer is a great description.

I think too often folks get caught up in the everyone is equal/gets equal mantra, when in reality all the kids have different strengths, weaknesses, needs and timelines. The differences really are there, but just because differences exist in the timeline and path taken doesn't mean that the kids won't end up in the same or similar places in the end.

I have one in Middle school Gen Ed (taking honors classes) and one in Elementary AAP.

I agree with a PP that it's different paths to the same goal.
While I am enjoying experiencing AAP with my younger kid, I know that Gen Ed was still the best place for my older kid in elementary. Their education just needed to meet them where they were.

My younger kid is a perfect fit for AAP and he needs it.
I'm not expecting my AAP kid to be years ahead at all. He's just an early bloomer.
My older kid would have hated the depth and pace of AAP. It's just not for everyone. She's a late bloomer and doing well in honors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know students end up years ahead, eventually, in math. Can someone articulate the differences in AAP in other subjects?

They really don't end up years ahead of their gen ed peers, even in math. Many schools offer compacted math so plenty of non-AAP kids are taking Hn Algebra in 7th grade and on the same math track. The differences we noticed most were that the pace, teaching style, and interest level among the kids was a better match especially during the elementary years. Ours was in AAP and now that we are on the back end of HS, there is no way to differentiate between who was in AAP thru 8th and who wasn't. Good students are good students and while some didn't stand out in 2nd grade, they end up being the top performers by the time they graduate.

If it's a fit for your child, go for it and if not, they will still be just fine

Also a parent of high schoolers here, and the bolded is very true.

The social studies and science curriculum were the same as gen ed but they went more in depth.

Anonymous wrote:I know students end up years ahead, eventually, in math. Can someone articulate the differences in AAP in other subjects?

It seemed like social studies and science were the same as gen ed. Math is accelerated and language arts was more advanced, requiring more focus on roots etc. The reading requirement, while I didn't think it was that much over the year, was very intense when they had an assigned book. They had challenging books and were required to read them very quickly. They didn't have very many books assigned throughout the year though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know students end up years ahead, eventually, in math. Can someone articulate the differences in AAP in other subjects?

They really don't end up years ahead of their gen ed peers, even in math. Many schools offer compacted math so plenty of non-AAP kids are taking Hn Algebra in 7th grade and on the same math track. The differences we noticed most were that the pace, teaching style, and interest level among the kids was a better match especially during the elementary years. Ours was in AAP and now that we are on the back end of HS, there is no way to differentiate between who was in AAP thru 8th and who wasn't. Good students are good students and while some didn't stand out in 2nd grade, they end up being the top performers by the time they graduate.

If it's a fit for your child, go for it and if not, they will still be just fine

I agree.

That is why I think the centers are very important for kids at the top end during elementary school and less important during middle school. They really make a difference in elementary school, and less so as the kids edge closer to the teen years.

I have one in gen ed and on who is on the tail end of AAP. My gened is getting very challenged with the same math as my kid who went through center, but the overall pace and depth of his class in other subjects is a little less while still challenging him and allowing him to be an academic leader at the base school. I am sure that he will be able to develop at a pace that is good for him and will likely end up at a similar place by middle school or high school.

I see general ed and AAP as simply different paths to the same goal.

If fcps cuts back AAP centers, my vote based off my family's experience with both gen ed and AAP through middle school would be for fcps to keep tue centers intact for elementary and move towards LLIV at every middle school, except for the lowest performing part of the countu that simply does not have the numbers od qualified students to support AAP at every school at any level (elementary or middle)

I think AAP is good for the academically advanced students in elementary, but I would completely cut AAP in middle school since there are honors classes in middle school. I think the language arts is more advanced in AAP, and they do have more projects. At DC's center, there is no more homework than in Gen Ed. I feel like I'm always asking whether DC is sure there is no homework. Also, most projects are done in class to avoid parents helping.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know students end up years ahead, eventually, in math. Can someone articulate the differences in AAP in other subjects?

They really don't end up years ahead of their gen ed peers, even in math. Many schools offer compacted math so plenty of non-AAP kids are taking Hn Algebra in 7th grade and on the same math track. The differences we noticed most were that the pace, teaching style, and interest level among the kids was a better match especially during the elementary years. Ours was in AAP and now that we are on the back end of HS, there is no way to differentiate between who was in AAP thru 8th and who wasn't. Good students are good students and while some didn't stand out in 2nd grade, they end up being the top performers by the time they graduate.

If it's a fit for your child, go for it and if not, they will still be just fine

I agree.

That is why I think the centers are very important for kids at the top end during elementary school and less important during middle school. They really make a difference in elementary school, and less so as the kids edge closer to the teen years.

I have one in gen ed and on who is on the tail end of AAP. My gened is getting very challenged with the same math as my kid who went through center, but the overall pace and depth of his class in other subjects is a little less while still challenging him and allowing him to be an academic leader at the base school. I am sure that he will be able to develop at a pace that is good for him and will likely end up at a similar place by middle school or high school.

I see general ed and AAP as simply different paths to the same goal.

If fcps cuts back AAP centers, my vote based off my family's experience with both gen ed and AAP through middle school would be for fcps to keep tue centers intact for elementary and move towards LLIV at every middle school, except for the lowest performing part of the countu that simply does not have the numbers od qualified students to support AAP at every school at any level (elementary or middle)

Anonymous wrote:I know students end up years ahead, eventually, in math. Can someone articulate the differences in AAP in other subjects?

They really don't end up years ahead of their gen ed peers, even in math. Many schools offer compacted math so plenty of non-AAP kids are taking Hn Algebra in 7th grade and on the same math track. The differences we noticed most were that the pace, teaching style, and interest level among the kids was a better match especially during the elementary years. Ours was in AAP and now that we are on the back end of HS, there is no way to differentiate between who was in AAP thru 8th and who wasn't. Good students are good students and while some didn't stand out in 2nd grade, they end up being the top performers by the time they graduate.

If it's a fit for your child, go for it and if not, they will still be just fine

Agree with 22:32/23:10 and 08:08 -- fast pace, more project work (with greater expectations) and interdisciplinary in nature. More writing work with focus on the writing process (drafts, writing, editing/revising) in all core subjects. Particularly witnessed a shift away from compartmentalized subjects to integrated work in 5th and 6th grade.

- parent of 6th and 8th graders

Anonymous wrote:IMO, much of what is happening in AAP (at least in 3rd grade) could be done in the regular class room. The vocabulary assignments/expectations/spelling are much stronger in AAP. The kids do more presentations or make "mind map" projects from books they've read. They are expected to pull a project together and present it more often. These things could be done with many kids at a regular school IF the teachers wanted to set those standards. Math, obviously, moves faster. Kids are expected to do outside IXL math time and learn to type at home. Word Masters Challenges. Access to enough kids and their supportive parents to have Oddysey of the Mind, after school computer programming classes, and similar types of pay-as-you-participate types of extras.

Largely, you are around a set of kids who have parents with overall higher expectations of what their kids need to do academically, and teachers who set higher expectations.

More homework and home support required in AAP (at least for 3rd grade).

I also agree that many of the things mentioned could and should be done in general education classes but realistically they would be done with less frequency than the AAP classes. The AAP class pace is very fast. Lesson units typically last a week with a test at the end to prove mastery and then on to the next which provides the opportunity to fit in more project based work and presentations during instruction time. Prior to AAP units lasted for several weeks. I agree that homework support has increased, this is due to the much faster pace. I can't remember one time that my child had a question about hilomework prior to entering the AAP program. I have a younger child who is A good student but I do not believe AAP would be a good fit.

IMO, much of what is happening in AAP (at least in 3rd grade) could be done in the regular class room. The vocabulary assignments/expectations/spelling are much stronger in AAP. The kids do more presentations or make "mind map" projects from books they've read. They are expected to pull a project together and present it more often. These things could be done with many kids at a regular school IF the teachers wanted to set those standards. Math, obviously, moves faster. Kids are expected to do outside IXL math time and learn to type at home. Word Masters Challenges. Access to enough kids and their supportive parents to have Oddysey of the Mind, after school computer programming classes, and similar types of pay-as-you-participate types of extras.

Largely, you are around a set of kids who have parents with overall higher expectations of what their kids need to do academically, and teachers who set higher expectations.

More homework and home support required in AAP (at least for 3rd grade).

There's also many more in-class group projects, some of them very cool, that require accelerated teaching of the rest of the SOL curriculum because of the in-class time required. Particularly in 5th and 6th grade for elementary school. We have one DC in AAP and one DC in Gen Ed at our base school. The difference in their activities in class is substantial, not just the accelerated math.

Anonymous wrote:From our experience, the pace and depth of the class along with the student cohort makes a huge difference. There are also many similar kids in terms of interests, learning style and ability that makes the AAP center class much more rewarding and engaging for kids for whom school has always been exceptionally easy. In my kid's case, the kid suddenly went from being an outsider in terms of learning to having a peer group and kids to actually push the child. More kids were able to learn at a similar pace and and intensity, which totally changed the dynamics of school for my kid.

I have a 4th grader and this has exactly been our experience too.

From our experience, the pace and depth of the class along with the student cohort makes a huge difference. There are also many similar kids in terms of interests, learning style and ability that makes the AAP center class much more rewarding and engaging for kids for whom school has always been exceptionally easy. In my kid's case, the kid suddenly went from being an outsider in terms of learning to having a peer group and kids to actually push the child. More kids were able to learn at a similar pace and and intensity, which totally changed the dynamics of school for my kid.

We really noticed the difference in middle school when my kid switched back to the local level IV from the center. Most of the higher performing kids stuck with center; only a handful of them switched to LLIV. The difference has been significant in my kid's opinion between the classes at the center compared to the classes at the LLIV. According to my kid there is more of a divide in pace, eagerness to dig deeper into subject matter, and class discussions. That said, I am a strong advocate for centers at the elementary level but am okay with less of a focus on centers for middle school.

I have a kid taking the accelerated math at the base school and I do not see a difference between the center math and what my base school child is doing.

I know students end up years ahead, eventually, in math. Can someone articulate the differences in AAP in other subjects?