Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

[list]Teaching would be more hands on - project oriented instead of the standard verbal - response. Like the AAP program provides but not advanced academics. The hands on project oriented method is why many of the children in AAP are finding success because a large number of them have verbal processing issues. There are many studies which show people learn differntly.

Could you grasp and succeed with college lectures? I could - but many others could not. They had to reread the books on their own to grasp the information delivered. Were you successful in lab work? I wasn't but many others were.

This need could be (actually already is) easily identified in cluster schools and provided to these children within their home schools. In this way many more children would get what they need to be successful! I think it would be found that most children would succeed with a mix of both but many will fall into the hands-on/projects or verbal/response.

Hand-on experimentation is (should be) a central part of studying/learning physical and applied sciences. It seems your proposed approach involves having separate programs for kids with interest in science/engineering education and does with interest in liberal arts education where hands-on learning could plays a lesser role.

[list]I don't know how to respond to you except for Nope - it doesn't mean separating by interests. See you can't grasp this concept. I am not sure what the answer is but I know the process is not working.

[list]Here, maybe this will help you (from; http://www.learning-styles-online.com/overview/). Thank goodness FCPS has recognized this and is attempting to accomodate but their attempts are discriminatory.

Traditional schooling used (and continues to use) mainly linguistic and logical teaching methods. It also uses a limited range of learning and teaching techniques. Many schools still rely on classroom and book-based teaching, much repetition, and pressured exams for reinforcement and review. A result is that we often label those who use these learning styles and techniques as bright. Those who use less favored learning styles often find themselves in lower classes, with various not-so-complimentary labels and sometimes lower quality teaching. This can create positive and negative spirals that reinforce the belief that one is "smart" or "dumb".

By recognizing and understanding your own learning styles, you can use techniques better suited to you. This improves the speed and quality of your learning.
The Seven Learning Styles

Visual (spatial):You prefer using pictures, images, and spatial understanding.
Aural (auditory-musical): You prefer using sound and music.
Verbal (linguistic): You prefer using words, both in speech and writing.
Physical (kinesthetic): You prefer using your body, hands and sense of touch.
Logical (mathematical): You prefer using logic, reasoning and systems.
Social (interpersonal): You prefer to learn in groups or with other people.
Solitary (intrapersonal): You prefer to work alone and use self-study.

Why Learning Styles? Understand the basis of learning styles

Your learning styles have more influence than you may realize. Your preferred styles guide the way you learn. They also change the way you internally represent experiences, the way you recall information, and even the words you choose.

Research shows us that each learning style uses different parts of the brain. By involving more of the brain during learning, we remember more of what we learn. Researchers using brain-imaging technologies have been able to find out the key areas of the brain responsible for each learning style.

For example:

Visual: The occipital lobes at the back of the brain manage the visual sense. Both the occipital and parietal lobes manage spatial orientation.
Aural: The temporal lobes handle aural content. The right temporal lobe is especially important for music.
Verbal: The temporal and frontal lobes, especially two specialized areas called Broca�s and Wernicke�s areas (in the left hemisphere of these two lobes).
Physical: The cerebellum and the motor cortex (at the back of the frontal lobe) handle much of our physical movement.
Logical: The parietal lobes, especially the left side, drive our logical thinking.
Social: The frontal and temporal lobes handle much of our social activities. The limbic system (not shown apart from the hippocampus) also influences both the social and solitary styles. The limbic system has a lot to do with emotions, moods and aggression.
Solitary: The frontal and parietal lobes, and the limbic system, are also active with this style.

Proof it is not working:
https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

[list]Teaching would be more hands on - project oriented instead of the standard verbal - response. Like the AAP program provides but not advanced academics. The hands on project oriented method is why many of the children in AAP are finding success because a large number of them have verbal processing issues. There are many studies which show people learn differntly.

Could you grasp and succeed with college lectures? I could - but many others could not. They had to reread the books on their own to grasp the information delivered. Were you successful in lab work? I wasn't but many others were.

This need could be (actually already is) easily identified in cluster schools and provided to these children within their home schools. In this way many more children would get what they need to be successful! I think it would be found that most children would succeed with a mix of both but many will fall into the hands-on/projects or verbal/response.

Hand-on experimentation is (should be) a central part of studying/learning physical and applied sciences. It seems your proposed approach involves having separate programs for kids with interest in science/engineering education and does with interest in liberal arts education where hands-on learning could plays a lesser role.

[list]I don't know how to respond to you except for Nope - it doesn't mean separating by interests. See you can't grasp this concept. I am not sure what the answer is but I know the process is not working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

[list]Teaching would be more hands on - project oriented instead of the standard verbal - response. Like the AAP program provides but not advanced academics. The hands on project oriented method is why many of the children in AAP are finding success because a large number of them have verbal processing issues. There are many studies which show people learn differntly.

Could you grasp and succeed with college lectures? I could - but many others could not. They had to reread the books on their own to grasp the information delivered. Were you successful in lab work? I wasn't but many others were.

This need could be (actually already is) easily identified in cluster schools and provided to these children within their home schools. In this way many more children would get what they need to be successful! I think it would be found that most children would succeed with a mix of both but many will fall into the hands-on/projects or verbal/response.

I would suggest the Kings Park-Kings Glen Schools. Lots of differentiation in these schools and very involved caring teachers. The teachers there offers lots of different ways of learning to their students with many hands on project activities. At Kings Glen, some regular classes also have a special education teacher assigned to the teamed classes, so that there is a total of three teachers available. Lots of possibilities for pull-outs and groupings. They do not have AAP or LLIV, but they do have level IV pull out. Kids go on to Lake Braddock from here with a great elementary school foundation.
I'm not as familiar with other FC schools, but these schools are already providing what the PP describes.

[list]If this is truly what the Kings Park - Kings Glen Schools are providing then FCPS needs to take a serious look at their success. I believe this is what is missing and why so many parents are obsessed with getting their children a better education in the AAP program. This does not happen at our school. Attempts are made but they are not successful and the true differentiation is only given to a select few.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

[list]Teaching would be more hands on - project oriented instead of the standard verbal - response. Like the AAP program provides but not advanced academics. The hands on project oriented method is why many of the children in AAP are finding success because a large number of them have verbal processing issues. There are many studies which show people learn differntly.

Could you grasp and succeed with college lectures? I could - but many others could not. They had to reread the books on their own to grasp the information delivered. Were you successful in lab work? I wasn't but many others were.

This need could be (actually already is) easily identified in cluster schools and provided to these children within their home schools. In this way many more children would get what they need to be successful! I think it would be found that most children would succeed with a mix of both but many will fall into the hands-on/projects or verbal/response.

Hand-on experimentation is (should be) a central part of studying/learning physical and applied sciences. It seems your proposed approach involves having separate programs for kids with interest in science/engineering education and does with interest in liberal arts education where hands-on learning could plays a lesser role.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

[list]Teaching would be more hands on - project oriented instead of the standard verbal - response. Like the AAP program provides but not advanced academics. The hands on project oriented method is why many of the children in AAP are finding success because a large number of them have verbal processing issues. There are many studies which show people learn differntly.

Could you grasp and succeed with college lectures? I could - but many others could not. They had to reread the books on their own to grasp the information delivered. Were you successful in lab work? I wasn't but many others were.

This need could be (actually already is) easily identified in cluster schools and provided to these children within their home schools. In this way many more children would get what they need to be successful! I think it would be found that most children would succeed with a mix of both but many will fall into the hands-on/projects or verbal/response.

I would suggest the Kings Park-Kings Glen Schools. Lots of differentiation in these schools and very involved caring teachers. The teachers there offers lots of different ways of learning to their students with many hands on project activities. At Kings Glen, some regular classes also have a special education teacher assigned to the teamed classes, so that there is a total of three teachers available. Lots of possibilities for pull-outs and groupings. They do not have AAP or LLIV, but they do have level IV pull out. Kids go on to Lake Braddock from here with a great elementary school foundation.
I'm not as familiar with other FC schools, but these schools are already providing what the PP describes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

[list]Teaching would be more hands on - project oriented instead of the standard verbal - response. Like the AAP program provides but not advanced academics. The hands on project oriented method is why many of the children in AAP are finding success because a large number of them have verbal processing issues. There are many studies which show people learn differntly.

Could you grasp and succeed with college lectures? I could - but many others could not. They had to reread the books on their own to grasp the information delivered. Were you successful in lab work? I wasn't but many others were.

This need could be (actually already is) easily identified in cluster schools and provided to these children within their home schools. In this way many more children would get what they need to be successful! I think it would be found that most children would succeed with a mix of both but many will fall into the hands-on/projects or verbal/response.

Anonymous wrote:...

A solution here might be for FCPS to offer “alternative learning” schools where the curriculum is the same but taught differently and keep the AAP center for the truly “advanced top 5% learners” where admission would be based solely on their scholastic achievement and high IQ’s. I don’t know. But FCPS does need to correct this sooner than later. The program and process as it is today is discrimination – but not just for minorities.

Please elaborate: The curriculum is the same but it is taught differently? How? What would be the teaching differences between the two programs?

+1

yep!