Anonymous wrote:They're going to get rid of the whole program with the Boundary Review. Everyone will go back to their base school. They will track for math only.
Anonymous wrote:They're going to get rid of the whole program with the Boundary Review. Everyone will go back to their base school. They will track for math only.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's be real. A poor kid from a disadvantaged area that scores in the 92nd percentile probably has more potential and ability than a high SES kid that scores in the 97th percentile. This is one area where the FCPS model makes a lot of sense. And I say that as a rich mom with privileged kids.
Why do you think this? I mean, assuming the high SES kid wasn't heavily prepped, etc.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.
So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.
Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.
The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?
The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.
This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.
I am all for giving the top kids at title 1 schools opportunity to advance.
I’m not sure why the kids at UMC have to be hurt in the process.
Your kid is not hurt if they are in a gen ed class at a high income school. Their peer group is already ahead and their teachers are most likely going beyond the required curriculum. You are worried about a label that means nothing and is forgotten by most everyone by the time they are in college and has no impact in HS. Your kids will take Honors and AP/IB classes and will do just fine. YOu are stuck on this nothing that AAP is something that is massively different then Gen Ed. It is not. The only area with a marked difference is in math and kids are pushed in through Advanced Math.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.
So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.
So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.
Yes, for sure. That is a complaint every year. You will see as the result posts come out that if you are in Langley or McLean pyramids you will see lots of kiddos with 97th percentiles and higher not getting in to AAP whereas kids in Annandale routinely get in with scores in the lower to mid 90s.
The local norms are meant to meet the needs of the kids at a particular school. Schools with lower scoring kids should have a program that looks different then kids at a higher scoring school. The top kids at a title 1 school are not going to have their needs met in the class at their school but they are not as likely to hit the threshold at a higher SES school. So those kids should be stuck in a class that nowhere meets their needs because they have not had the same academic exposure as a kid from McLean or Navy or Crossfield or whatever MC to UMC school we select?
The UMC ES should be including more challenging material in their gen ed classes because most of their students can handle it. That is the solution. That is pretty much what the cluster programs are doing. All of the kids are being exposed to the LIV material. Some cluster programs have an additional math pull outs for the LIV and Advanced Math kids, that is what our school is doing.
This is the "equitable" approach. Basically people are punished for buying homes in high performing/high SES areas. Children who are highly advanced for their grade will not be challenged because there are many students in the building who are in the same boat.
I am all for giving the top kids at title 1 schools opportunity to advance.
I’m not sure why the kids at UMC have to be hurt in the process.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.
No, the point of AAP is to differentiate curriculum for kids above the average of the school. If all the kids are above average, then everyone gets curriculum at a higher level— which means only kids who are exceptionally gifted need differentiated curriculum in those schools. Your kid is *highly* advantaged to be in the McLean pyramid, whether in AAP or not.
Anonymous wrote:Yes and it's stupid and dare I say inequitable? I am confident my child would have gotten into AAP at our old school (lower average income school with a good amount of native Spanish-speakers), but we moved to a wealthier area and my child was rejected (and rejected on appeal) last year despite 130+ on the NNAT and COGAT, 99th percentile scores in iReady math, and good grades. We didn't bother this year. It appears that the only difference nowadays is advanced math anyway, and that's really not a big deal to us.
Anonymous wrote:
So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One school at a time is what I have read here. Also their attempt to make sure they are comparing students of the same building giving the top students of each school a chance to be in the program. Committee members look at students that are not from their school as to remove bias.
So my child is at a disadvantage being at an elementary school in McLean. I would assume half or more of the school parent referred and all these kids tested well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's be real. A poor kid from a disadvantaged area that scores in the 92nd percentile probably has more potential and ability than a high SES kid that scores in the 97th percentile. This is one area where the FCPS model makes a lot of sense. And I say that as a rich mom with privileged kids.
Why do you think this? I mean, assuming the high SES kid wasn't heavily prepped, etc.
Right? Our family is likely considered high SES compared to the average in Fairfax, and I wouldn't even know where to begin with test prep. We simply have no time for that with 3 kids and 2 jobs. To those saying it's outrageous to suggest kids at McLean schools with high test scores and abilities are at a disadvantage by not having access to AAP, I guess until you experience it firsthand, you won't believe it. But it's truly unfair for loads of kids to come to your neighborhood school, to get the most highly qualified teachers in the grade, to have a cohort of motivated, engaged peers with a challenging curriculum, and to see that your kid with at least as high scores and capability as those kids (and probably higher than some), is stuck is a class with kids ranging from the high 90s percentile all the way down to zero, those learning how to speak English, those with learning disabilities and emotional disregulation, and so on. And your child accessing a challenging curriculum is at the complete mercy of the individual teacher and school. Some years they might have a teacher that has the ability and bandwidth to differentiate, or an AART who is committed to regular pullouts for those kids, and other years none of that may happen.
I completely agree and find it disheartening and infuriating. I wish I could afford to go private.