Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I believe the point is why label it "AAP" or "GenEd" at all? Just offer the best curriculum possible, to all kids, and call it a day. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand? Is it because you prefer the (perceived) exclusivity of your child being in a "special" class? If so, how ludicrous.

Wait. The AAP curriculum isn't better than the general education curriculum - it's just better for some kids. In the same way that the fifth grade curriculum isn't better than the first grade curriculum - they're different and some kids need the first grade while others need the fifth.

This. It is not just the curriculum that makes a class part of the AAP, it is also the speed of pacing and the depth. Kids who need to be in an AAP classroom learn more quickly and easily, so the class either moves through the curriculum more quickly or studies subjects at a deeper level.

You could put every kid into the same classroom, but not every kid learns at the same pace and some are not ready to study a subject in depth until they are older. So what happens when you have a class where some of the kids learn a unit the first time the teacher presents it, but others need a lot of repetition? At some point, you have to do some differentiation, but it is easier to work with the kids in the middle when the extremes have teachers dedicated to and specializing in teaching them.

FCPS had a great program that has become too big to work the way it is supposed to. If they could find a way to get it back to what it was about ten or fifteen years ago, the general public would be more supportive.

Anonymous wrote:Just moved and wondering what would happen to Haycock?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I believe the point is why label it "AAP" or "GenEd" at all? Just offer the best curriculum possible, to all kids, and call it a day. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand? Is it because you prefer the (perceived) exclusivity of your child being in a "special" class? If so, how ludicrous.

Wait. The AAP curriculum isn't better than the general education curriculum - it's just better for some kids. In the same way that the fifth grade curriculum isn't better than the first grade curriculum - they're different and some kids need the first grade while others need the fifth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Louise Archer is a good example. It has about 60 kids per grade for K-2, then about 130 kids 3-6 (after the earlier redistricting).

The school is good at about 700 kids (it was up to close to 900 a few years ago). Now, after eliminating level IV, it will have 60*7, which 420 kids, or about 300 kids under capacity.

Meanwhile, flint hill, Vienna, Cunningham Park and Wolftrap will have to deal with an extra 300 kids. So, the boundaries will be redrawn. Louise archer will get children from FLES, Vienna, Marshall Road, and maybe Wolftrap.

I thought Louise Archer has a lots of trailers. Is that not the case anymore? Wouldn't reducing the numbers at the school, rude the need for those trailers?

Anonymous wrote: I believe the point is why label it "AAP" or "GenEd" at all? Just offer the best curriculum possible, to all kids, and call it a day. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand? Is it because you prefer the (perceived) exclusivity of your child being in a "special" class? If so, how ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see keeping centers in those areas where very few students qualify for Level IV - i.e. the Rt. 1 corridor. In areas that have a large number of qualified kids, students should be kept at their base school. The cost savings would be enormous.

Also, most students are not truly gifted in all subjects - even if they scored highly on the CogAT or NNAT. My DS is gifted in social studies and science, and has excellent reading comprehension. Math and writing are more difficult for him. Some children are gifted in art and music. ALL kids should be able to take challenging classes in the subjects that interest them.

+100
Completely agree, which is why I honestly don't understand the stark AAP/GE division in the first place. Waaaay too much overlap among these kids to neatly label them one way or the other.
Kids should absolutely have the opportunity to take advanced classes in whichever subject they are good at and/or enjoy. ALL kids.

All kids can access the curriculum, if it is provided to them. The "formerly known as Cluster 1" schools have the AAP curriculum for all kids.

I believe the point is why label it "AAP" or "GenEd" at all? Just offer the best curriculum possible, to all kids, and call it a day. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand? Is it because you prefer the (perceived) exclusivity of your child being in a "special" class? If so, how ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see keeping centers in those areas where very few students qualify for Level IV - i.e. the Rt. 1 corridor. In areas that have a large number of qualified kids, students should be kept at their base school. The cost savings would be enormous.

Also, most students are not truly gifted in all subjects - even if they scored highly on the CogAT or NNAT. My DS is gifted in social studies and science, and has excellent reading comprehension. Math and writing are more difficult for him. Some children are gifted in art and music. ALL kids should be able to take challenging classes in the subjects that interest them.

+100
Completely agree, which is why I honestly don't understand the stark AAP/GE division in the first place. Waaaay too much overlap among these kids to neatly label them one way or the other.
Kids should absolutely have the opportunity to take advanced classes in whichever subject they are good at and/or enjoy. ALL kids.

All kids can access the curriculum, if it is provided to them. The "formerly known as Cluster 1" schools have the AAP curriculum for all kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see keeping centers in those areas where very few students qualify for Level IV - i.e. the Rt. 1 corridor. In areas that have a large number of qualified kids, students should be kept at their base school. The cost savings would be enormous.

Also, most students are not truly gifted in all subjects - even if they scored highly on the CogAT or NNAT. My DS is gifted in social studies and science, and has excellent reading comprehension. Math and writing are more difficult for him. Some children are gifted in art and music. ALL kids should be able to take challenging classes in the subjects that interest them.

+100
Completely agree, which is why I honestly don't understand the stark AAP/GE division in the first place. Waaaay too much overlap among these kids to neatly label them one way or the other.
Kids should absolutely have the opportunity to take advanced classes in whichever subject they are good at and/or enjoy. ALL kids.

Anonymous wrote:I can see keeping centers in those areas where very few students qualify for Level IV - i.e. the Rt. 1 corridor. In areas that have a large number of qualified kids, students should be kept at their base school. The cost savings would be enormous.

Also, most students are not truly gifted in all subjects - even if they scored highly on the CogAT or NNAT. My DS is gifted in social studies and science, and has excellent reading comprehension. Math and writing are more difficult for him. Some children are gifted in art and music. ALL kids should be able to take challenging classes in the subjects that interest them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LLIV can't fill a class each grade level either. There is a "lottery" for the extra spaces that is not an actual lottery. High SES school in a good pyramid. The politics behind the lottery are ugly.

+1. We must be neighbors! This is my kids LLIV ES. The politics of pupil placement made the school environment toxic. Until the principal gave up and stopped placing kids altogether. Then the AAP class had 16 kids and the Gen Ed classes had 29. Which also created a nasty "the AAP kids get all the resources "environment. Seriously, everyone pushing for LLIV so that you go back to a "regular, neighborhood school" needs be careful what they wish for. Turns out lots of people (parents and kids) get unhappy when some kids get "chosen" for the "special" class and others don't.

I'm curious about this. What politics could be at play? Why wouldn't the class just be filled with level III kids??

Turns out that building a single AAP class is a very Goldilocks thing. When you add level III, you can get more than a full class and some level III kids don't make the cut and the principal has to choose who. Or that even with level III there aren't enough kids and you still have to subjectively choose the remainders. And you know her child was only chosen because she is a PTA officer/ does this that or the other for the school / etc. As a PP said-- every parent thinks her kid should fill out the class. And is deeply upset when Larla isn't chosen by the principal. Often, much more upset than when Larla isn't selected for level IV to begin with. And very nasty to Larla's now former BFF who is in the class, and will be at the same school but in a separate, "better" class for the next 4 years. My eldest DC got a great education staying at his affluent ES LLIV program (95% of the qualified kids stayed)-- and don't have to change schools and stayed in our neighborhood, with kindergarten friends. DC went on to a very competitive center MS and more than held their own. But watching the AAP vs GE parents each year was nauseating. You really don't want this atmosphere at your neighborhood school.

Wait so principal placed kids who are not level IV follow the level IV class every year???? So if you are level III or below and get principal placed for 3rd grade, that is your class for 3-6th? Each year there is not a new principal placed selection?

Anonymous wrote:
2 kids make a peer group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Louise Archer is a good example. It has about 60 kids per grade for K-2, then about 130 kids 3-6 (after the earlier redistricting).

The school is good at about 700 kids (it was up to close to 900 a few years ago). Now, after eliminating level IV, it will have 60*7, which 420 kids, or about 300 kids under capacity.

Meanwhile, flint hill, Vienna, Cunningham Park and Wolftrap will have to deal with an extra 300 kids. So, the boundaries will be redrawn. Louise archer will get children from FLES, Vienna, Marshall Road, and maybe Wolftrap.

I thought Louise Archer has a lots of trailers. Is that not the case anymore? Wouldn't reducing the numbers at the school, rude the need for those trailers?