I have gen Eds two kids at a very good FCPS ES that we're happy with. We were too stupid to realize that AAP was a big deal at the time, so we didn't bother applying. We'll apply when they're in 6th, and if they don't get it, they'll go to catholic school for middle.

Anonymous wrote:

I believe ESOL kids do get pullouts. But they are in the classroom most of the time. How would FCPS consistently stratify learners in a way that doesn't segregate them based on english ability?

Why do we segregate based on math ability? Isn't AAP segregating those with different academic strengths and needs? Why does it make a difference when it's language? Just leaving them in the classroom with non-ESOL isn't serving either group to the best of our ability.

Anonymous wrote:I believe ESOL kids do get pullouts. But they are in the classroom most of the time. How would FCPS consistently stratify learners in a way that doesn't segregate them based on english ability?

Math aside, isn't the ability to read (and converse, but especially read) in English hyper-important when it comes to the core skills of studying literature, science, and history? Being able to communicate effectively -- speaking, reading, writing -- is the most critical tool upon which almost all other learning is based. Why on Earth wouldn't you separate out into different tracks/speeds students with different levels of "English ability"? It's the single-most important factor in education, in every course except maybe math (although, it plays some role in math as well, obviously).

People use the term "segregate" in this context as implying some nefarious or negative purpose. The purpose is to group students of similar academic ability together, so that they can ALL be challenged, but not over-challenged, and not under-challenged, to learn material that is new to them, but within grasp of their abilities, and thereby improve from their current position and remain engaged and focused on their studies. This is so basic that it defies logic to even have to ask this question.

I am 100% pro public school and don't believe in vouchers. But I must admit, the state of FCPS has shaken my commitment for pubic school for my own children. I have one in AAP and one coming up on the time to apply for AAP. If kid #2 doesn't get in AAP, we will probably go private rather than deal with the general ed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

differentiation isnt the issue. the issue is that kids who can't speak english or who otherwise can't keep up are kept in the same room. Once you start pulling them out and isolating them is where the issue comes in.

How would that be an issue? Pullouts are good and the high FARMS schools have more dedicated resources who are really good at what they do in terms of working with kids who are behind, have LD, ESOL, etc. It would be less beneficial for these students to be kept in a classroom where they don't understand the teacher, or cannot keep up at the pace. They should be put in smaller groups or smaller classrooms and have more resources devoted to make sure they don't fall further behind. Isn't that what all of us as humans want, and the SB as well? Everyone is in agreement here, so why don't they do it? There no "isolation" at many of the schools where many of the kids are in the same position, (i.e behind and need extra dedicated resources). But those resources should not be also teaching the rest of the kids, because it will not work.

I believe ESOL kids do get pullouts. But they are in the classroom most of the time. How would FCPS consistently stratify learners in a way that doesn't segregate them based on english ability?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

differentiation isnt the issue. the issue is that kids who can't speak english or who otherwise can't keep up are kept in the same room. Once you start pulling them out and isolating them is where the issue comes in.

How would that be an issue? Pullouts are good and the high FARMS schools have more dedicated resources who are really good at what they do in terms of working with kids who are behind, have LD, ESOL, etc. It would be less beneficial for these students to be kept in a classroom where they don't understand the teacher, or cannot keep up at the pace. They should be put in smaller groups or smaller classrooms and have more resources devoted to make sure they don't fall further behind. Isn't that what all of us as humans want, and the SB as well? Everyone is in agreement here, so why don't they do it? There no "isolation" at many of the schools where many of the kids are in the same position, (i.e behind and need extra dedicated resources). But those resources should not be also teaching the rest of the kids, because it will not work.

+1 Is the current scenario really what the parents of ESOL parents want instead of a program dedicated to their children's different needs? They want their kids to succeed, too. Specials like art and music could be combined if the scheduling would work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

differentiation isnt the issue. the issue is that kids who can't speak english or who otherwise can't keep up are kept in the same room. Once you start pulling them out and isolating them is where the issue comes in.

How would that be an issue? Pullouts are good and the high FARMS schools have more dedicated resources who are really good at what they do in terms of working with kids who are behind, have LD, ESOL, etc. It would be less beneficial for these students to be kept in a classroom where they don't understand the teacher, or cannot keep up at the pace. They should be put in smaller groups or smaller classrooms and have more resources devoted to make sure they don't fall further behind. Isn't that what all of us as humans want, and the SB as well? Everyone is in agreement here, so why don't they do it? There no "isolation" at many of the schools where many of the kids are in the same position, (i.e behind and need extra dedicated resources). But those resources should not be also teaching the rest of the kids, because it will not work.

high farm schools (title I) schools get more resources, but not to the extent that would be possible

Anonymous wrote:I think these threads are largely sustained by the local equivalent of Trump-style populists who think appeals to the "forgotten middle" will advance their anti-tax, anti-public school, pro-voucher, and pro-private school agenda. There's an inverse relationship between their success at the polls and the amount of time they spend venting on anonymous forums.

No, these are my posts you're responding to, and I don't have a "anti-tax, anti-public school, pro-voucher, and pro-private school agenda."

As I've stated, I went to public school, and always assumed my children would attend public school as well. I didn't want to send my kids to private school, and resisted doing so for about as long as I could, in good conscience, ignore the nagging thought that my children's education and emotional health (and in some cases, their personal safety) were reaching unacceptable levels.

I'm always generally in favor of lower taxes (like most people, I think), because I've seen first-hand how wasteful so much government spending can be. But I paid pretty much the same in taxes up in NJ as I do here, and never had a problem with the school district like what I've had with FCPS. I'm not some "anti-tax" zealot, and as a parent with several school age children, I understand that taxes pay for the schools that we depend on.

I'm not "pro-voucher" per se, nor do I have any idea what "pro-private school" means. Should I be "anti-private school"? I'm thankful that there were private schools nearby to whom we turned when we could no longer accept the low quality education that FCPS was providing. But I am not, and never have been, someone who pushed for private schools over public schools out of some "pro-private school" agenda.

Believe it or not, I'm just a parent who wants the best for my children, with a safe and challenging academic experience being high on the list of priorities. Yes, I'm what you'd call "conservative" around here, but as I've said, I've spent many years living in deep blue areas where not everything --- certainly not children's education --- was hyper-politicized like it is here.

I'm sure that there are many hot-button political issues that I would disagree with most of my neighbors about. Very, very few of them have any place in the classroom, however. And I'm sure my neighbors and I agree on the importance of safety and education. It doesn't have to be so complicated to teach children math, reading, science, and history. It really doesn't.

I've said before that one major structural problem with FCPS is that it is way, way too big -- why on earth would you want to be a drop in the ocean of 190K students? The district is far too inaccessible to individual parents; a big, bloated, inefficient bureaucracy that is unresponsive to parents and so big that oversight and accountability are lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

differentiation isnt the issue. the issue is that kids who can't speak english or who otherwise can't keep up are kept in the same room. Once you start pulling them out and isolating them is where the issue comes in.

How would that be an issue? Pullouts are good and the high FARMS schools have more dedicated resources who are really good at what they do in terms of working with kids who are behind, have LD, ESOL, etc. It would be less beneficial for these students to be kept in a classroom where they don't understand the teacher, or cannot keep up at the pace. They should be put in smaller groups or smaller classrooms and have more resources devoted to make sure they don't fall further behind. Isn't that what all of us as humans want, and the SB as well? Everyone is in agreement here, so why don't they do it? There no "isolation" at many of the schools where many of the kids are in the same position, (i.e behind and need extra dedicated resources). But those resources should not be also teaching the rest of the kids, because it will not work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

differentiation isnt the issue. the issue is that kids who can't speak english or who otherwise can't keep up are kept in the same room. Once you start pulling them out and isolating them is where the issue comes in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

Yeah the idea that an ESOL center is discrimination is bizarre to me. How is it more discriminatory to base what "track" someone is in on their ability to understand English than on their math skills?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools are required to educate the ESOL students who are slowing down the classrooms. Actions have consequences.

I grew up in a pretty low-income area and attended public schools. There were plenty of ESOL and other low-income kids, or low-achievement kids, in our school district. We were tracked -- meaning that students were grouped in to classes based on their academic level, so that smarter students would be in "track 1" and could learn material that was challenging and do so at an appropriately challenging and demanding pace, while "track 2" and "track 3" and "track 4" etc. would each work at their own respective appropriate levels.

It's pretty simple. You don't have to teach everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was in school they were allow to separate out ESOL and those with learning disabilities but now they aren't. So everyone is stuck in the same class - and yes that means they are teaching to the lowest denominator. There should be some differentiation in the class but there is such a wide gap between some students that this isnt practical in the classroom. My kid has had someone in the classroom who showed up without speaking a single word of english. There is no way teachers can give everyone what they need in this type of environment.

Why aren't they allowed to do something as basic as group kids by academic ability? Who says they aren't allowed? As far as I know, this is a decision by FCPS -- nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if all that was true, you'd see test scores- including scores that can be compared across districts like AP and SAT scores- falling in comparison to other districts. You're not because it really doesn't matter because educated parents will have expectations for their kids and those kids will more often than not follow in their parents' footsteps. FCPS bends over backwards trying to fix the achievement gap, but a kid whose parents are doctors or lawyers or who has an ivy educated SAHM is going to do well in school and a kid whose parent's don't have diplomas or who is learning English and math at the same time probably won't. Unfortunately for FCPS, it has very large numbers in both groups so the gap that everyone cares about looks particularly bad

Well, time will tell. I can't imagine that today's crop of elementary and middle school children, receiving the "lowest common denominator," textbook-free education that FCPS is providing, will do very well on standardized tests in high school.

I agree with some of what you've described -- there are wealthy parents who will, for whatever reason, keep their kids in FCPS while supplementing their education with tutors, extracurricular learning opportunities, etc., and those kids will do well. But I expect that many wealthy families in this demographic will pull their kids out of FCPS as the quality of education continues to decline (and as the discipline and safety issues continue to degrade due to politicized issues like "disproportionate discipline") and that this will exert downward pressure on test scores and other metrics of achievement.

There are the students at the other end of the achievement gap, to whom FCPS will continue to devote the bulk of its resources, but the result will continue to be low-achievement and possibly worse achievement, as the discipline situation continues to degrade.

But the real damage will be caused by those parents in the middle -- the ones who aren't going to keep their kids in FPCS while trying to supplement FCPS's deficiencies with costly tutors, private instruction, and other such extracurricular activities. They will just pull their kids out -- move, send them to Catholic school, or do whatever it takes to flee the sinking ship that is FCPS. These students are the worst-affected -- they are ignored by FCPS because they don't fit anyone's political hot-button categories, but their parents can't buy their way out of FCPS's lowest common denominator approach to education. This is where you'll see the bottom drop out.

math is still strong in FCPS and advanced math is relatively easy to get into. The rest can be picked up either through conversation with educated parents (picking up speech patterns will do more to make someone sound educated than English class ever can) or just though being encouraged to read and to read challenging material. I'm convinced that a student could be exposed to zero US history in ES or MS, pick up some good books and do better on an AP exam than a kid who has had years of age appropriate history classes throughout elementary and middle school.

I think these threads are largely sustained by the local equivalent of Trump-style populists who think appeals to the "forgotten middle" will advance their anti-tax, anti-public school, pro-voucher, and pro-private school agenda. There's an inverse relationship between their success at the polls and the amount of time they spend venting on anonymous forums.

What are you talking about, nobody is discussing politics, or vouchers, or private schools here. Please stop; the thread is clearly for parents concerned about public school and wondering how to make it better.

+1. I'm PP who said we started homeschooling this year. My husband and I are both Democrats.

Anonymous wrote:That's us. Middle class in an apartment. We can't afford any of those extras. We can't move due to DH's job. But because of my work hours, I am able to homeschool. We did that this year since distance learning for early ES sounded horrible and we'll probably keep doing it for lack of a better option that we can afford.

I'm sorry that you're stuck in that position for now. I do understand how difficult the homeschool can be, especially for parents who aren't cut out for it -- not everyone is. But I do think you are making the best choice you can, under the circumstances.

Although my children are no longer part of FCPS, I do see it as my civic responsibility to continue to try to voice my concerns about where the school district is heading, and to try to turn things around for the benefit of everyone.

My basic philosophy is that schools should focus their efforts on keeping school safe (meaning, rigorously enforce the rules and demand good behavior) and on providing instruction in all of the core academic areas to all students, at a pace and level of difficulty that is best-suited for their innate abilities. In my opinion, this is the best way to help every student get what they really need to get out of school -- an education. Everything else is at best a "nice to have," oftentimes an irrelevant distraction, and at worse, a detraction from the learning process. I'd like to think that, while parents, and society in general, cannot agree on many things, we should all be able to agree on a safe, academically challenging education for all students.

Sadly, so many other political and social issues get thrown into the discussion when it comes to FCPS that everything devolves into an "us versus them" mentality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if all that was true, you'd see test scores- including scores that can be compared across districts like AP and SAT scores- falling in comparison to other districts. You're not because it really doesn't matter because educated parents will have expectations for their kids and those kids will more often than not follow in their parents' footsteps. FCPS bends over backwards trying to fix the achievement gap, but a kid whose parents are doctors or lawyers or who has an ivy educated SAHM is going to do well in school and a kid whose parent's don't have diplomas or who is learning English and math at the same time probably won't. Unfortunately for FCPS, it has very large numbers in both groups so the gap that everyone cares about looks particularly bad

Well, time will tell. I can't imagine that today's crop of elementary and middle school children, receiving the "lowest common denominator," textbook-free education that FCPS is providing, will do very well on standardized tests in high school.

I agree with some of what you've described -- there are wealthy parents who will, for whatever reason, keep their kids in FCPS while supplementing their education with tutors, extracurricular learning opportunities, etc., and those kids will do well. But I expect that many wealthy families in this demographic will pull their kids out of FCPS as the quality of education continues to decline (and as the discipline and safety issues continue to degrade due to politicized issues like "disproportionate discipline") and that this will exert downward pressure on test scores and other metrics of achievement.

There are the students at the other end of the achievement gap, to whom FCPS will continue to devote the bulk of its resources, but the result will continue to be low-achievement and possibly worse achievement, as the discipline situation continues to degrade.

But the real damage will be caused by those parents in the middle -- the ones who aren't going to keep their kids in FPCS while trying to supplement FCPS's deficiencies with costly tutors, private instruction, and other such extracurricular activities. They will just pull their kids out -- move, send them to Catholic school, or do whatever it takes to flee the sinking ship that is FCPS. These students are the worst-affected -- they are ignored by FCPS because they don't fit anyone's political hot-button categories, but their parents can't buy their way out of FCPS's lowest common denominator approach to education. This is where you'll see the bottom drop out.

math is still strong in FCPS and advanced math is relatively easy to get into. The rest can be picked up either through conversation with educated parents (picking up speech patterns will do more to make someone sound educated than English class ever can) or just though being encouraged to read and to read challenging material. I'm convinced that a student could be exposed to zero US history in ES or MS, pick up some good books and do better on an AP exam than a kid who has had years of age appropriate history classes throughout elementary and middle school.

I think these threads are largely sustained by the local equivalent of Trump-style populists who think appeals to the "forgotten middle" will advance their anti-tax, anti-public school, pro-voucher, and pro-private school agenda. There's an inverse relationship between their success at the polls and the amount of time they spend venting on anonymous forums.

What are you talking about, nobody is discussing politics, or vouchers, or private schools here. Please stop; the thread is clearly for parents concerned about public school and wondering how to make it better.