Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.
Boundary shifts would make a whole lot more sense than the current center schools. We have 8 schools (and possibly more) feeding into our center, and every one has their own LLIV program. Why these kids are even given the option to switch schools is beyond me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.
Boundary shifts would make a whole lot more sense than the current center schools. We have 8 schools (and possibly more) feeding into our center, and every one has their own LLIV program. Why these kids are even given the option to switch schools is beyond me.
Anonymous wrote:True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.
Anonymous wrote:Isn't that what a center is? A school that 2-3 other schools feed into for Level 4 services?
Anonymous wrote:Isn't that what a center is? A school that 2-3 other schools feed into for Level 4 services?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true that we live in a highly educated area and compared to the national average there are more smart kids. That said, if you ask any teacher or educator who has been around here awhile they will tell you that there are many kids getting into the program now who would not have gotten in (and whose parents wouldn't have pushed for it) back when the program was more geared to "gifted" students. The whole reason the GT program was created is that research has shown time and again that these students learn differently and FCPS needed to bus them to centers to find a critical mass.
Todays AAP program is hard to justify for the following reasons:
1. Students can be high-achieving, or advanced because of what they've been exposed to without being gifted. Do these kids really learn differently and need a separate program?
2. With 40% of the second grade class making the cut for AAP in some schools, can anyone argue in good faith that these students need to be bused to a center to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers?
I honestly don't know how FCPS and so many parents on this forum can justify this bloated program with a straight face.
My kid was attending a Title I school with no level 4 services. No way were 40 % found eligible.
That's why I said "some" schools. Most people are well aware that there are a number of FCPS schools in lower income areas that only send a small percentage of students to AAP. Certainly, those kids need and should be bused to centers since they lack a critical mass of academic peers at their base school. But in places like McLean and Vienna where there are more than enough "advanced" kids in most schools, the continued insistence that these students must have the option of a center is ridiculous and certainly not in the spirit of the original regulations.
Anonymous wrote:Again, the reason that FCPS hasn't tightened the admittance standards is exactly because the Title I school kids and certain minorities (Black and Hispanic) would have an even more difficult time getting into the centers. The TJ admissions data helps to tell this story. Short of the county adjusting the admissions criteria by cluster, the higher SES schools are going to continue to send more students to level IV programs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true that we live in a highly educated area and compared to the national average there are more smart kids. That said, if you ask any teacher or educator who has been around here awhile they will tell you that there are many kids getting into the program now who would not have gotten in (and whose parents wouldn't have pushed for it) back when the program was more geared to "gifted" students. The whole reason the GT program was created is that research has shown time and again that these students learn differently and FCPS needed to bus them to centers to find a critical mass.
Todays AAP program is hard to justify for the following reasons:
1. Students can be high-achieving, or advanced because of what they've been exposed to without being gifted. Do these kids really learn differently and need a separate program?
2. With 40% of the second grade class making the cut for AAP in some schools, can anyone argue in good faith that these students need to be bused to a center to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers?
I honestly don't know how FCPS and so many parents on this forum can justify this bloated program with a straight face.
My kid was attending a Title I school with no level 4 services. No way were 40 % found eligible.
Anonymous wrote:It is true that we live in a highly educated area and compared to the national average there are more smart kids. That said, if you ask any teacher or educator who has been around here awhile they will tell you that there are many kids getting into the program now who would not have gotten in (and whose parents wouldn't have pushed for it) back when the program was more geared to "gifted" students. The whole reason the GT program was created is that research has shown time and again that these students learn differently and FCPS needed to bus them to centers to find a critical mass.
Todays AAP program is hard to justify for the following reasons:
1. Students can be high-achieving, or advanced because of what they've been exposed to without being gifted. Do these kids really learn differently and need a separate program?
2. With 40% of the second grade class making the cut for AAP in some schools, can anyone argue in good faith that these students need to be bused to a center to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers?
I honestly don't know how FCPS and so many parents on this forum can justify this bloated program with a straight face.