Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If "acceleration is inequitable," then what do you call AAP?
DP

DP.

What do I call AAP? Soon-to-be-cancelled, that’s what.

The prior School Board was equity-obsessed, and the new one seems just as unbalanced.

Their number 1 priority is equity (not academics). And they also view AAP as “inequitable.”

If your child is currently in AAP, your best move would be to look for a private school as soon as possible.

There are many issues with AAP.

People constantly complaining about “equity” should definitely move to private.

If you care at all about your children receiving a quality education, you should definitely move to private.

You should move your kids ASAP.

People mix up the word equity vs equality. Equity means everyone gets their needs met whether they are advanced or below. Getting rid of advanced classes is not equitable. Current Gen Ed classes aren’t equitable either.
The problem with Gen Ed lays with the high needs of ESL and SPED students with the lack of staffing. If these kids got the services they actually needed then the classroom teacher could focus more on the other kids who are on or slightly below.

Currently my school has 3 ESL teachers but at least 150-200 ESL kids. How are these kids truly getting their needs met? They aren’t. Tje staffing ratio is a joke.

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.

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.

If "acceleration is inequitable," then what do you call AAP?
DP

DP.

What do I call AAP? Soon-to-be-cancelled, that’s what.

The prior School Board was equity-obsessed, and the new one seems just as unbalanced.

Their number 1 priority is equity (not academics). And they also view AAP as “inequitable.”

If your child is currently in AAP, your best move would be to look for a private school as soon as possible.

There are many issues with AAP.

People constantly complaining about “equity” should definitely move to private.

If you care at all about your children receiving a quality education, you should definitely move to private.

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.

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.

If "acceleration is inequitable," then what do you call AAP?
DP

DP.

What do I call AAP? Soon-to-be-cancelled, that’s what.

The prior School Board was equity-obsessed, and the new one seems just as unbalanced.

Their number 1 priority is equity (not academics). And they also view AAP as “inequitable.”

If your child is currently in AAP, your best move would be to look for a private school as soon as possible.

There are many issues with AAP.

People constantly complaining about “equity” should definitely move to private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. That's why there is a need to end AAP and reimplement with flexible groupings so that kids who are advanced, on grade level, and below grade level can each get the challenge they need - and move within groups as needed.

But how is having advanced groups equitable? Why are we having advanced anything? Replacing AAP with this still requires separating kids into ability groups that are just based off of external enrichment and privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. That's why there is a need to end AAP and reimplement with flexible groupings so that kids who are advanced, on grade level, and below grade level can each get the challenge they need - and move within groups as needed.

But how is having advanced groups equitable? Why are we having advanced anything? Replacing AAP with this still requires separating kids into ability groups that are just based off of external enrichment and privilege.

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.

They don’t stop or repeat for the slow ones. They don’t have time. They all must keep to the SOL pace guide.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. That's why there is a need to end AAP and reimplement with flexible groupings so that kids who are advanced, on grade level, and below grade level can each get the challenge they need - and move within groups as needed.

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.

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.

If "acceleration is inequitable," then what do you call AAP?
DP

DP.

What do I call AAP? Soon-to-be-cancelled, that’s what.

The prior School Board was equity-obsessed, and the new one seems just as unbalanced.

Their number 1 priority is equity (not academics). And they also view AAP as “inequitable.”

If your child is currently in AAP, your best move would be to look for a private school as soon as possible.

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.

Absolutely this. Kids who are perfectly bright and on grade level are considered "less than" by their AAP peers. It's completely absurd. If there were flexible groupings, AAP kids would find many/most of those GE kids in the same advanced groups as them. Dividing kids into two huge monoliths does no one any favors.

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.

If "acceleration is inequitable," then what do you call AAP?
DP

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.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again - forgot to mention that if there had simply been flexible groupings, he would have benefitted far more from being in the advanced language arts group than this exercise in wasted time.

I don’t think your example has anything to do with flexible groupings I think it has to do with the person that runs the flexible groupings did not do a good job. But your son was in fact, pulled out for a flexible grouping based on his skills.

No, you are not correct. This wasn't a "flexible grouping" type of situation. It was a very specific, once a week "Socratic Seminar" for selected students. Not an advanced language arts grouping that would have been held every day. That was the point, which I bolded.

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.

But any teacher will let you know that flexible grouping is not consistently used, especially in FCPS.

Neither is AAP. Why do some kids have to change schools? Why do some kids get their own AAP class at their base school? Why do some kids have to change classes to AAP just for Math? Why do some not get any true AAP class but a mixture of L4 eligible and L3 high achievers?

+1
AAP is a mess and the different "L2, L3, L4" labels are just nonsense that means nothing.

Are t those labels the different groups? I.e. differentiation

They can mean whatever the school/teacher wants them to mean. There is no consistency, it's just (as another poster said) an easy way to appease parents who want to believe their kid is getting something special.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If they were in flexible groupings for those subjects, yes.