Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Dude, there are like 100 elementary schools in FCPS. Or more. Are you really suggesting that every one has a rich academic gen ed experience, because your children have been to three different schools?

Not at all. I'm just wondering how much of the idea that above average kids will be ignored and learn nothing in gen ed is real, and how much of it is an exaggeration/urban legend. I hope FCPS focuses more on the fidelity of implementation. The schools with dismal gen ed are doing something very wrong.

DP with example from last year (4th grade) I've shared in the past. We are in western FCPS. I had a parent teacher conference with my gen ed kid's teacher in late, late January. Teacher admitted to me what my kid had told me: she had not met with his reading group since December. She had them working independently because it takes so much time to get the other groups back on track especially after breaks and snow days. She is a good, seasoned teacher stretched too thin. Part of the issue is that Teachers are pulled into so many dang meetings (for IEPs, work sessions, etc.) that suck time away during the school day. The issue isn't always bad teachers. It is the system.

its still the teachers fault. When the teacher is pulled away they often know in advance and have a sub who they can give instructions. And if that isn’t enough they should be able to ask the administration for help instead of just neglecting the educational experience of the students because they are overwhelmed for what ever reason

Are you familiar with the current educational system? Many subs can barely teach, and they don't have access to laptops to project notes, videos, etc. A sub can't execute semi-complex lessons or science labs. Good subs get picked up for long-term jobs, not the meeting fill-ins. And how is Admin supposed to change that? They can't screen substitutes, and there is not enough money to pay for qualified subs. This has been the case for years.

Anonymous wrote:AAP is what gen ed used to be. Not too much to be excited about as it stands now. Current AAP circulum should be back in gen ed along with consistent expectations e.g., correct spelling and grammar, basic knowledge of multiplication facts by end of 3rd grade, etc. We fail everyone but we specially low SES by lowering expectations.

!00% true.

Anonymous wrote:There are many kiddos in Level IV who are not placed appropriately - they are struggling with the advanced material. If we’re going to add more kids to Level IV, then we need to create a Level V to meet the needs of the kids who truly are advanced.

- AAP Teacher

^^ Thank you! My class is filled with kids (about 75% percent) with NNAT and CogAt scores between 95 and 110.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP with example from last year (4th grade) I've shared in the past. We are in western FCPS. I had a parent teacher conference with my gen ed kid's teacher in late, late January. Teacher admitted to me what my kid had told me: she had not met with his reading group since December. She had them working independently because it takes so much time to get the other groups back on track especially after breaks and snow days. She is a good, seasoned teacher stretched too thin. Part of the issue is that Teachers are pulled into so many dang meetings (for IEPs, work sessions, etc.) that suck time away during the school day. The issue isn't always bad teachers. It is the system.

DP from Western Fairfax: We had a similar experience where I asked my child if the teacher was meeting with him or in a group for LA and the answer was no. I noticed the same writing mistakes in his stories. He said the teacher was busy working with the other kids. I went in to volunteer to find many children who were just beginning to read and write. (This was 2nd grade.) We ended up referring and my child got in. Much better experience in AAP. Surrounded by kids who read similar books, etc., involved parents. Also, the kids would be encouraged take an assignment to the next level.

I'm the PP you responded to: in 5th grade there are kids still at 2nd grade reading level. My kids had similar scores (like a 2 point difference) , but my older gen ed kid is quiet and behaves so he didn't get noticed. They later recognized his abilities after evaluating him in small groups and saw vastly different results. Anyway, my AAP kid isn't getting anything mind blowing, and NOTHING like G&T of my youth. The only benefit is a bit more enrichment and expectations emphasizing proper spelling, grammar, etc. in gen ed, those things aren't important except maybe during infrequent L3 pullouts.

I believe the full time AAP circulumn is appropriate for gen ed BUT I think classrooms need to have a smaller deltas between student skills. I'm not opposed to having multiple levels in one classroom -- I think it benefits the bottom and top kids. However, when there are too many kids who are behind in the classroom, the top kids are ignored. If only a couple kids were behind, I think they might also be ignored and just plain lost in class. There has to be a way to balance classrooms better. There are just so many levels between special needs and gifted kids that need to be addressed. Having 4 levels of AAP isn't working.

It should be since it's the same curriculum. It's the cohort that is different.

Sort of. Gen Ed doesn't have, for example, Ceasars English. Learning these Latin prefixes, suffixes and roots shouldn't be extensions limited to levels 3 and 4. In fact I would argue that leaving ning them would actually benefit some ESOL kids like native Spanish speakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP with example from last year (4th grade) I've shared in the past. We are in western FCPS. I had a parent teacher conference with my gen ed kid's teacher in late, late January. Teacher admitted to me what my kid had told me: she had not met with his reading group since December. She had them working independently because it takes so much time to get the other groups back on track especially after breaks and snow days. She is a good, seasoned teacher stretched too thin. Part of the issue is that Teachers are pulled into so many dang meetings (for IEPs, work sessions, etc.) that suck time away during the school day. The issue isn't always bad teachers. It is the system.

DP from Western Fairfax: We had a similar experience where I asked my child if the teacher was meeting with him or in a group for LA and the answer was no. I noticed the same writing mistakes in his stories. He said the teacher was busy working with the other kids. I went in to volunteer to find many children who were just beginning to read and write. (This was 2nd grade.) We ended up referring and my child got in. Much better experience in AAP. Surrounded by kids who read similar books, etc., involved parents. Also, the kids would be encouraged take an assignment to the next level.

I'm the PP you responded to: in 5th grade there are kids still at 2nd grade reading level. My kids had similar scores (like a 2 point difference) , but my older gen ed kid is quiet and behaves so he didn't get noticed. They later recognized his abilities after evaluating him in small groups and saw vastly different results. Anyway, my AAP kid isn't getting anything mind blowing, and NOTHING like G&T of my youth. The only benefit is a bit more enrichment and expectations emphasizing proper spelling, grammar, etc. in gen ed, those things aren't important except maybe during infrequent L3 pullouts.

I believe the full time AAP circulumn is appropriate for gen ed BUT I think classrooms need to have a smaller deltas between student skills. I'm not opposed to having multiple levels in one classroom -- I think it benefits the bottom and top kids. However, when there are too many kids who are behind in the classroom, the top kids are ignored. If only a couple kids were behind, I think they might also be ignored and just plain lost in class. There has to be a way to balance classrooms better. There are just so many levels between special needs and gifted kids that need to be addressed. Having 4 levels of AAP isn't working.

It should be since it's the same curriculum. It's the cohort that is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP with example from last year (4th grade) I've shared in the past. We are in western FCPS. I had a parent teacher conference with my gen ed kid's teacher in late, late January. Teacher admitted to me what my kid had told me: she had not met with his reading group since December. She had them working independently because it takes so much time to get the other groups back on track especially after breaks and snow days. She is a good, seasoned teacher stretched too thin. Part of the issue is that Teachers are pulled into so many dang meetings (for IEPs, work sessions, etc.) that suck time away during the school day. The issue isn't always bad teachers. It is the system.

DP from Western Fairfax: We had a similar experience where I asked my child if the teacher was meeting with him or in a group for LA and the answer was no. I noticed the same writing mistakes in his stories. He said the teacher was busy working with the other kids. I went in to volunteer to find many children who were just beginning to read and write. (This was 2nd grade.) We ended up referring and my child got in. Much better experience in AAP. Surrounded by kids who read similar books, etc., involved parents. Also, the kids would be encouraged take an assignment to the next level.

I'm the PP you responded to: in 5th grade there are kids still at 2nd grade reading level. My kids had similar scores (like a 2 point difference) , but my older gen ed kid is quiet and behaves so he didn't get noticed. They later recognized his abilities after evaluating him in small groups and saw vastly different results. Anyway, my AAP kid isn't getting anything mind blowing, and NOTHING like G&T of my youth. The only benefit is a bit more enrichment and expectations emphasizing proper spelling, grammar, etc. in gen ed, those things aren't important except maybe during infrequent L3 pullouts.

I believe the full time AAP circulumn is appropriate for gen ed BUT I think classrooms need to have a smaller deltas between student skills. I'm not opposed to having multiple levels in one classroom -- I think it benefits the bottom and top kids. However, when there are too many kids who are behind in the classroom, the top kids are ignored. If only a couple kids were behind, I think they might also be ignored and just plain lost in class. There has to be a way to balance classrooms better. There are just so many levels between special needs and gifted kids that need to be addressed. Having 4 levels of AAP isn't working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Above average is an IQ from about 110 to 125. Do you really think those kids belong in AAP? Parents certainly are trying to push kids in that intelligence range into AAP. Something is deeply broken with gen ed if it can't accommodate the needs of kids with IQs in that range.

But who cares what other parents do? There is an impartial selection committee so it's not up to the parents. (I am not talking about principal placed LLIV students here).

The impartial selection committee expanded AAP from 6% in 2000 to over 20% today, and this whole thread started because they're talking about lowering the standards even more to get more URMs into the program. Like everything else in FCPS, AAP also teaches to the lowest common denominator, which is starting to become pretty low. Weren't you paying attention when the AAP teachers on this forum were saying that they're getting a lot of kids in their classrooms who can't handle AAP.

White kids arent URM’s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP with example from last year (4th grade) I've shared in the past. We are in western FCPS. I had a parent teacher conference with my gen ed kid's teacher in late, late January. Teacher admitted to me what my kid had told me: she had not met with his reading group since December. She had them working independently because it takes so much time to get the other groups back on track especially after breaks and snow days. She is a good, seasoned teacher stretched too thin. Part of the issue is that Teachers are pulled into so many dang meetings (for IEPs, work sessions, etc.) that suck time away during the school day. The issue isn't always bad teachers. It is the system.

DP from Western Fairfax: We had a similar experience where I asked my child if the teacher was meeting with him or in a group for LA and the answer was no. I noticed the same writing mistakes in his stories. He said the teacher was busy working with the other kids. I went in to volunteer to find many children who were just beginning to read and write. (This was 2nd grade.) We ended up referring and my child got in. Much better experience in AAP. Surrounded by kids who read similar books, etc., involved parents. Also, the kids would be encouraged take an assignment to the next level.

Another Western Fairfax parent here with the exact same experience. The AART is great, but she's part time and was obviously stretched thin. Between snow days and meetings, Level III pullouts were not once a week, as they were supposed to be. There were more than a few kids who were not at all prepared for the looming SOLs and the teacher spent a ton of time trying to get them to the bare minimum level. Some of the kids who got SpEd services had serious behavior issues and the IA who was supposed to work with them kept getting pulled to cover for local screening and to cover when other teachers were out and there were no available substitutes. I'm somewhat surprised that to my knowledge 1. No parents have raised hell about their kids not getting the Level III services they're supposed to get and 2. No parents of kids who are required by law to get a certain # of SpEd hours have raised hell about the IA getting pulled. With the former group, a lot probably just end up going to the center (we did). I'm not too sure about the latter group.

Anonymous wrote:

DP with example from last year (4th grade) I've shared in the past. We are in western FCPS. I had a parent teacher conference with my gen ed kid's teacher in late, late January. Teacher admitted to me what my kid had told me: she had not met with his reading group since December. She had them working independently because it takes so much time to get the other groups back on track especially after breaks and snow days. She is a good, seasoned teacher stretched too thin. Part of the issue is that Teachers are pulled into so many dang meetings (for IEPs, work sessions, etc.) that suck time away during the school day. The issue isn't always bad teachers. It is the system.

DP from Western Fairfax: We had a similar experience where I asked my child if the teacher was meeting with him or in a group for LA and the answer was no. I noticed the same writing mistakes in his stories. He said the teacher was busy working with the other kids. I went in to volunteer to find many children who were just beginning to read and write. (This was 2nd grade.) We ended up referring and my child got in. Much better experience in AAP. Surrounded by kids who read similar books, etc., involved parents. Also, the kids would be encouraged take an assignment to the next level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Above average is an IQ from about 110 to 125. Do you really think those kids belong in AAP? Parents certainly are trying to push kids in that intelligence range into AAP. Something is deeply broken with gen ed if it can't accommodate the needs of kids with IQs in that range.

But who cares what other parents do? There is an impartial selection committee so it's not up to the parents. (I am not talking about principal placed LLIV students here).

The impartial selection committee expanded AAP from 6% in 2000 to over 20% today, and this whole thread started because they're talking about lowering the standards even more to get more URMs into the program. Like everything else in FCPS, AAP also teaches to the lowest common denominator, which is starting to become pretty low. Weren't you paying attention when the AAP teachers on this forum were saying that they're getting a lot of kids in their classrooms who can't handle AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it hurts people feelings but "average" and "above average", by definition, don't mean the same thing. If a kid is above average, they are not going to be "fine" in gen ed. So I take great issue with your bolded comment above. That doesn't mean gen ed is remedial or broken, it just means its above average kids need something different.

Above average is an IQ from about 110 to 125. Do you really think those kids belong in AAP? Parents certainly are trying to push kids in that intelligence range into AAP. Something is deeply broken with gen ed if it can't accommodate the needs of kids with IQs in that range.

But who cares what other parents do? There is an impartial selection committee so it's not up to the parents. (I am not talking about principal placed LLIV students here).

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it hurts people feelings but "average" and "above average", by definition, don't mean the same thing. If a kid is above average, they are not going to be "fine" in gen ed. So I take great issue with your bolded comment above. That doesn't mean gen ed is remedial or broken, it just means its above average kids need something different.

Above average is an IQ from about 110 to 125. Do you really think those kids belong in AAP? Parents certainly are trying to push kids in that intelligence range into AAP. Something is deeply broken with gen ed if it can't accommodate the needs of kids with IQs in that range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP kids will not be better served or perfectly fine in Gen Ed. I mean, is there not enough data and studies out there to convince some of you otherwise? Is the earth possibly flat?

Most gifted kids would be extremely bored in gen ed. It does no one any favors to have extremes of intelligence in the same class. An AAP child would almost be better served staying at home and watching online videos to learn at their own pace.

No one is talking about putting gifted kids back in gen ed. Earlier in the thread, people stated that their kids didn't get the test scores, but they pushed them into AAP anyway because they would rather have their kids earning 2s but learning than sitting around doing nothing in gen ed. Above average kids should be served fine in gen ed. It's a huge failure of the system if gen ed is being taught at such a remedial level that people need to push their above average kids into AAP just to get an appropriate education.

Maybe it hurts people feelings but "average" and "above average", by definition, don't mean the same thing. If a kid is above average, they are not going to be "fine" in gen ed. So I take great issue with your bolded comment above. That doesn't mean gen ed is remedial or broken, it just means its above average kids need something different.

Anonymous wrote:AAP kids will not be better served or perfectly fine in Gen Ed. I mean, is there not enough data and studies out there to convince some of you otherwise? Is the earth possibly flat?

Most gifted kids would be extremely bored in gen ed. It does no one any favors to have extremes of intelligence in the same class. An AAP child would almost be better served staying at home and watching online videos to learn at their own pace.

No one is talking about putting gifted kids back in gen ed. Earlier in the thread, people stated that their kids didn't get the test scores, but they pushed them into AAP anyway because they would rather have their kids earning 2s but learning than sitting around doing nothing in gen ed. Above average kids should be served fine in gen ed. It's a huge failure of the system if gen ed is being taught at such a remedial level that people need to push their above average kids into AAP just to get an appropriate education.

I think AAP could be moved back to base schools but I also think things would need to be changed at most (or at least my) base schools to accommodate.

I don't necessarily love the idea of one LLIV class. For the kids in that class, I think that is a lot of time and years all together without changing classmates, etc. I also don't love the idea of what would become the one "good" class etc. as compared to the others.

If I were to bring LLIV AAP back to base schools, I think I would envision something with more class / teacher switching starting in grade 3. I think the class / teacher switching would allow for differentiation. Of course, there would be some kids who would be in all advanced classes but you could add some new ideas / new bodies / new personalities / new people with some kids who would only join for math or reading, for example, etc. I might start with switching for math and reading in grade 3 and 4, and maybe switching for math, reading, science, and social studies in grade 5, 6.

I really have a different worldview from the people on here who are always complaining about AAP being too watered down. And I guess that's all there is to say about that.