I was told to think of it this way: they lop off the top 20% of kids, then the teachers in gen ed teach to the new middle, which is way lower than before the top 20% left. Any kid in that 75-85 % range is either happy as a clam being at the top of the class remaining, or bored out of their skulls.

Anonymous wrote:Simple: a more challenging educational environment than her other option I use the same calculus for sports teams. My children do better with challenge and stimulation than minimal or none and I therefore seek out those environments.

Your child? Hum...

Because dc were bored. Now there is challenge. I find aap classes teach to the middle level of the class. For sometimes is too easy, and others struggle to keep up.. But the teachers expect a lot. In gen Ed I found the teachers had to teach to the lowest group because it was there job toget all the kids proficient. Just my experience.

I'll be totally honest--we accepted the AAP placement for the social aspect. Our kid wasn't bored, wasn't complaining about not being challenged, and frankly, we were a little shocked he got in (he made the pool and the program with no prep or intervention). But he was drowning in the social dynamic of his regular class. He hates sports, is pretty artistic, and loves to read and write. He hated school because he felt completely out of place. We thought he had a better shot at making friends and finding kids with similar interests in AAP so we enrolled him. Academically, it's not been a great fit and we've had to have tutors and work a lot with him to keep his head above water with the accelerated math curriculum. But he comes home every day talking about his buddies and the stuff they do on the playground. He goes on play dates and to parties. He is happy at school for the first time since he started kindergarten. And at his age, that's what's important to me.

Anonymous wrote:My DC needs it but is rejected!

Appeal, if DC is rejected again, they probably don't need it.

Anonymous wrote:To keep them away from the lowest performers in Gen Ed, and expose them to really gifted peers.

To keep them away from the lowest performers in Gen Ed, and expose them to really gifted peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As others note -- for the challenge. I would add: We recently heard a very good presentation (at a middle school, for rising 7th graders' parents) about how teachers taught differently for different groups. For instance, in a general ed history class, the student might have to write a biographical research paper of a certain length. In honors class, a student would do the same but would be expected to write a longer, more detailed paper with more sources. And in AAP, the student would do all the above, but also be expected to write to a theme of "How would this historical figure handle one of today's problems" -- such as, how would Teddy Roosevelt respond to the Arab Spring, for instance (that example is mine). You can see the difference -- the curriculum is the same; the level of depth and expectation is not. I found that and other examples very helpful in understanding what the differences are between general ed, honors and AAP.

The students in the gen ed classes could also have the opportunity to write to a theme. In some clusters, they are applying the AAP approach to the gen ed. This is how they are now doing it in McLean. At one of the presentations last year regarding the possibility of opening new AAP centers in every middle school, the presenter said their was no distinction between honors and AAP in midddle school. Now, the students in the AAP classes as a whole have tested higher on IQ tests and have performed at a higher level in class. Their ability to actually write to the theme would be greater. Their work product is probably as a whole better. However, FCPS is moving towards all students have access to the AAP standards.

I posted the example above to which you responded. Of course general ed students could write to a theme; I'm just giving the simplified examples used on one school's parent night.

We also attended a parent information night for a middle school with honors classes but not an AAP center. The principal emphasized how "ALL students take honors social studies and science!" Yes, everyone in one grade is in the honors classes in two subjects. A parent asked how that worked -- how did teachers deal with kids working at different speeds and needing different levels of challenge in the same "honors' classroom? The principal only mentioned "the teachers will differentiate in the classroom." Many parents were confused and wondered how the classes are honors if everyone takes them whether they choose to or not. (Honors in MS is self-selecting and kids can choose to take it -- it's not like AAP where the kids qualify. That's fine, but if all kids MUST do honors, then...how is it honors if some kids don't want to be in it in the first place?) It smacked of the school wanting to project a certain image by being able to say "all our kids take honors classes."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Your snark is pointless. Nothing wrong with stating a child is thriving. The word often comes up because it is an accurate description what happens when kids move to AAP.

please. Whose kid isn't "thriving" Really it's not that hard.

Exactly. For the student who scores in the 70-80% range and attends a strong base school with a high SES population, do people really think that they would turn out any different (better) by going to AAP vs. staying in their base school? If the base schools now have compacted math, differentiated reading and writing groups, and are applying the AAP standards to the gen ed, it is hard to believe there is that big a difference between the AAP class and the gen ed. If AAP was really only the top 95-99%, then I think we'd see a much bigger gap in the depth that the teachers could go with the curriculum. If the base is an under-performing school, the gap would be bigger as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[At one of the presentations last year regarding the possibility of opening new AAP centers in every middle school, the presenter said their was no distinction between honors and AAP in middle school.

If this occurred, the presenter was incorrect.

See:

"The following diagram highlights the major similarities and differences between the Advanced Academic Level IV Center and the Honors classes in the middle school."

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/AAPforMSdiagram.pdf

Agreed. Classes can only move as quickly as their poorest students. AAP English might make it through 5 books, while honors kids only read 2.

Anonymous wrote:[At one of the presentations last year regarding the possibility of opening new AAP centers in every middle school, the presenter said their was no distinction between honors and AAP in middle school.

If this occurred, the presenter was incorrect.

See:

"The following diagram highlights the major similarities and differences between the Advanced Academic Level IV Center and the Honors classes in the middle school."

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/AAPforMSdiagram.pdf

Anonymous wrote:^^ Your snark is pointless. Nothing wrong with stating a child is thriving. The word often comes up because it is an accurate description what happens when kids move to AAP.

please. Whose kid isn't "thriving" Really it's not that hard.

Anonymous wrote:As others note -- for the challenge. I would add: We recently heard a very good presentation (at a middle school, for rising 7th graders' parents) about how teachers taught differently for different groups. For instance, in a general ed history class, the student might have to write a biographical research paper of a certain length. In honors class, a student would do the same but would be expected to write a longer, more detailed paper with more sources. And in AAP, the student would do all the above, but also be expected to write to a theme of "How would this historical figure handle one of today's problems" -- such as, how would Teddy Roosevelt respond to the Arab Spring, for instance (that example is mine). You can see the difference -- the curriculum is the same; the level of depth and expectation is not. I found that and other examples very helpful in understanding what the differences are between general ed, honors and AAP.

The students in the gen ed classes could also have the opportunity to write to a theme. In some clusters, they are applying the AAP approach to the gen ed. This is how they are now doing it in McLean. At one of the presentations last year regarding the possibility of opening new AAP centers in every middle school, the presenter said their was no distinction between honors and AAP in midddle school. Now, the students in the AAP classes as a whole have tested higher on IQ tests and have performed at a higher level in class. Their ability to actually write to the theme would be greater. Their work product is probably as a whole better. However, FCPS is moving towards all students have access to the AAP standards.