Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

What about the schools that have 2-3 classes per grade level?

Do any FCPS schools only have 2 classes per grade level? And they have kids with seven skill levels?

They can always do 2-3 small groups within a classroom to further differentiation.

Yes. There are a few schools with 2 teachers per grade level but a lot with 3. Our grade level has three classes and like 60 percent is below grade level while
40 percent is on or above. Within the kids below grade level you have kids performing at all different levels.

Honestly, every year is different. Last year we probably had 60 percent on or above and 40 percent below grade level. I personally wish we did group kids by ability but it isn’t clear cut every year. Schools with many teachers probably have an easier time with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

+1
The lack of a class for the kids who just need a way slower pace is what "breaks" the flexible grouping model.

That's the problem. We have no problem creating a smart kids class, but we can't make kids feel bad by creating a slow kids class. That makes all of the non AAP classes become slow kid classes

Classes move at the speed of the slowest group of students. Schools can pretend they differentiate, but they aren't teaching some kids 6th grade math in 5th (i.e. current advanced math), other kids grade level math and other kids 4th grade math. In reality, everyone will be on a pace somewhere below grade level

This hasn't been the case for my kids. There were kids who were behind the pace and ended up getting extra help to catch them up. There is a schedule of skills to cover SOLs and they don't stop if some kids are behind.

Now, the 5th grades are prepped for two different SOLs. Do you really think a teacher can prepare 2/3s of the class for the 5th grade SOL and adequately prepare 1/3 for the 6th grade SOL?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

+1
The lack of a class for the kids who just need a way slower pace is what "breaks" the flexible grouping model.

That's the problem. We have no problem creating a smart kids class, but we can't make kids feel bad by creating a slow kids class. That makes all of the non AAP classes become slow kid classes

Classes move at the speed of the slowest group of students. Schools can pretend they differentiate, but they aren't teaching some kids 6th grade math in 5th (i.e. current advanced math), other kids grade level math and other kids 4th grade math. In reality, everyone will be on a pace somewhere below grade level

This hasn't been the case for my kids. There were kids who were behind the pace and ended up getting extra help to catch them up. There is a schedule of skills to cover SOLs and they don't stop if some kids are behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

What about the schools that have 2-3 classes per grade level?

Do any FCPS schools only have 2 classes per grade level? And they have kids with seven skill levels?

They can always do 2-3 small groups within a classroom to further differentiation.

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader isn't in AAP and doesn't get pulled out for L3. She's straight up general ed doing 5th-grade level work. And she's doing well, getting 3s and 4s and bringing home As on her tests. But she and the other kids like her in her class are the "dummies," she says. Because they're 5th graders doing grade-level work.

The culture of AAP is really just messing with kids, IMHO.

There will always be smarter kids. And they should be recognized and challenged appropriately. Teachers and parents need to do a better job communicating this reality rather trying to hide it, especially at that age where kids are more self aware.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

+1
The lack of a class for the kids who just need a way slower pace is what "breaks" the flexible grouping model.

That's the problem. We have no problem creating a smart kids class, but we can't make kids feel bad by creating a slow kids class. That makes all of the non AAP classes become slow kid classes

Classes move at the speed of the slowest group of students. Schools can pretend they differentiate, but they aren't teaching some kids 6th grade math in 5th (i.e. current advanced math), other kids grade level math and other kids 4th grade math. In reality, everyone will be on a pace somewhere below grade level

My 5th grader isn't in AAP and doesn't get pulled out for L3. She's straight up general ed doing 5th-grade level work. And she's doing well, getting 3s and 4s and bringing home As on her tests. But she and the other kids like her in her class are the "dummies," she says. Because they're 5th graders doing grade-level work.

The culture of AAP is really just messing with kids, IMHO.

Honestly, Reading instruction is going to look drastically different in the next few years with basals. Small groups for reading will not look the same as they do now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

What about the schools that have 2-3 classes per grade level?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

Maybe I’m missing something but at the end of the day, don’t all students have to take the SOL. And isn’t acceleration inequitable. Won’t these groupings have to ultimately converge at the same place by the end of the year.

Kids aren't limited to only learning the SOL content. That is just the minimum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

Maybe I’m missing something but at the end of the day, don’t all students have to take the SOL. And isn’t acceleration inequitable. Won’t these groupings have to ultimately converge at the same place by the end of the year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

+1
The lack of a class for the kids who just need a way slower pace is what "breaks" the flexible grouping model.

That's the problem. We have no problem creating a smart kids class, but we can't make kids feel bad by creating a slow kids class. That makes all of the non AAP classes become slow kid classes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

+1
The lack of a class for the kids who just need a way slower pace is what "breaks" the flexible grouping model.

That's the problem. We have no problem creating a smart kids class, but we can't make kids feel bad by creating a slow kids class. That makes all of the non AAP classes become slow kid classes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

This was a time when kids were held back or removed and class didn’t “wait” on kids. Now the general education is the equivalent to 90s LD. AAP is just regular education” from 15 years ago. If they went back to recognizing that some kids don’t meet the standard and to continue moving forward for the 80% then you wouldn’t need AAP.

+1
The lack of a class for the kids who just need a way slower pace is what "breaks" the flexible grouping model.