Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our school, they use some of it for everyone but generally the AAP material ends up being used for the top groups in the gen ed class. For instance, the highest LA groups in each 4th grade class are doing Caesar’s English, in 6th grade GE only some of the groups are doing Jacob’s Ladder at all or doing one every week as opposed to taking a lot longer, GE kids can test into advanced math, etc. I think it strikes a good balance between AAP For Everyone and just assuming that the gen ed kids can’t handle it.

Seems to be a step forward - agree with you that kids should not be underestimated. Is AAP so exceptional? Don’t truly exceptional kids on either side of the spectrum still need differentiated teaching?

In terms of limited resources: how much time and resources are needed for AAP assessments each year? would that not be better allocated to teaching kids well and with better teacher:student class ratios?

Thanks. OP

any FCPS teachers' perspectives on this?

Their solution to this at the middle school level was to make honors open enrollment. It has been handled differently by each school (some allow anyone to move classes at any point in the year, some let you sign up for anything but then you're stuck there, some try to encourage more honors, some try to discourage it), so it's hard to make blanket statements. In my experience though, all kids want to say they are in honors, and all parents want their kid in honors to be around the kids they perceive to be more motivated/dedicated. That means I have kids who failed their 6th grade math SOL sitting in math 7 honors. Kids who failed their math 7 SOL sitting in algebra. They struggle all year because I cannot teach 2-3 years of math to them in a group setting in one year, and many of them end up repeating algebra in high school because they lack foundational understanding of the math concepts.

My peers who have been teaching longer than I have will tell you that AAP is what honors used to be and honors has been slowed to what gen ed used to be due to the open enrollment and pressure to not allow anyone to fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

This is based on the premise that all of the kids in Level IV AAP are advanced, and all of the kids not in Level IV AAP are average. That is false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

This is based on the premise that all of the kids in Level IV AAP are advanced, and all of the kids not in Level IV AAP are average. That is false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our school, they use some of it for everyone but generally the AAP material ends up being used for the top groups in the gen ed class. For instance, the highest LA groups in each 4th grade class are doing Caesar’s English, in 6th grade GE only some of the groups are doing Jacob’s Ladder at all or doing one every week as opposed to taking a lot longer, GE kids can test into advanced math, etc. I think it strikes a good balance between AAP For Everyone and just assuming that the gen ed kids can’t handle it.

Seems to be a step forward - agree with you that kids should not be underestimated. Is AAP so exceptional? Don’t truly exceptional kids on either side of the spectrum still need differentiated teaching?

In terms of limited resources: how much time and resources are needed for AAP assessments each year? would that not be better allocated to teaching kids well and with better teacher:student class ratios?

Thanks. OP

any FCPS teachers' perspectives on this?

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that some parents can't accept the fact that their child is average, and there is nothing wrong with a child being average vis-à-vis a child being "advanced."

Broadly expanding the AAP program to serve both average and advanced students would inevitably weaken the program, and do a disservice to advanced and average students alike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our school, they use some of it for everyone but generally the AAP material ends up being used for the top groups in the gen ed class. For instance, the highest LA groups in each 4th grade class are doing Caesar’s English, in 6th grade GE only some of the groups are doing Jacob’s Ladder at all or doing one every week as opposed to taking a lot longer, GE kids can test into advanced math, etc. I think it strikes a good balance between AAP For Everyone and just assuming that the gen ed kids can’t handle it.

Seems to be a step forward - agree with you that kids should not be underestimated. Is AAP so exceptional? Don’t truly exceptional kids on either side of the spectrum still need differentiated teaching?

In terms of limited resources: how much time and resources are needed for AAP assessments each year? would that not be better allocated to teaching kids well and with better teacher:student class ratios?

Thanks. OP

Anonymous wrote:In our school, they use some of it for everyone but generally the AAP material ends up being used for the top groups in the gen ed class. For instance, the highest LA groups in each 4th grade class are doing Caesar’s English, in 6th grade GE only some of the groups are doing Jacob’s Ladder at all or doing one every week as opposed to taking a lot longer, GE kids can test into advanced math, etc. I think it strikes a good balance between AAP For Everyone and just assuming that the gen ed kids can’t handle it.