Some of you are missing the point I was trying to make in favor of AAP centers vs gen ed for a bright child. Of course there are kids in AAP centers with issues. Our kids have been in various AAP centers (as we moved around the county) for quite a few years. We've seen it all. There are now a few too many kids who were prepped and who struggle in AAP centers, who would be better served staying in a good gen. ed setting, with flexible ability tracking in place.

However, we are "poors," and have had our kids in several base schools with the highest FARMS and non-English speaking rates in the area. Our kids weren't taught much of anything new in school until they left for AAP centers. The difference in the amount of attention and challenge the kids got at their various AAP centers has been much higher than the base schools had been able to offer. If you go from one higher SES school to its AAP center, you're not going to see how big a difference it makes for less privileged children to get to go to AAP centers.

Anonymous wrote:2:51 Your post is exceptionally misguided and very insulting to kids in general ed.

And on a side note, you obviously have no clue what AAP classes are like. It is not some well behaved, perfect student utopia. There are plenty of kids with behavior problems or special needs in AAP. Lots of 2E kids. If you think AAP segregates your kid from that faction of student, you are dead wrong. You are searching for the wrong thing in the wrong program.

+1
I was talking to someone whose child got into AAP. This mom was complaining about the other kids who also got in, because she somehow thought AAP kids would all be so "well-behaved". Shocker!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

I think you are forgetting that bright kids can also not speak much English, cant read anywhere near grade level, have severe behavioral, attention issues and learning challenges. AAP does not exclude for those issues. If you want that, go private.

Exactly. The AAP classes at our center are just as much a "hot mess" of kids with behavioral issues, ESOL, and learning challenges as any other class. In fact, the AAP classes are the ones that consistently have kids getting in trouble and being lectured out in the hall by either the teacher or the principal.

It's such a myth to say that AAP kids are somehow better behaved than Gen Ed kids. They most definitely are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

teachers I've seen aren't put out by pullouts; the receiving teacher has dedicated, participating students and the sending teacher can focus their efforts w/ a smaller class

The above post is 100% accurate. My son started 3rd grade Level IV this year and came home daily with stories about kids crying in class, and it wasn't just the same child either. This is definitely not something we experienced at all in 2nd grade (or even K and 1st). A lot of children get prepped and pushed into the program by their parents and once those children are sitting in the classroom they seem to lose it emotionally.

2:51 Your post is exceptionally misguided and very insulting to kids in general ed.

And on a side note, you obviously have no clue what AAP classes are like. It is not some well behaved, perfect student utopia. There are plenty of kids with behavior problems or special needs in AAP. Lots of 2E kids. If you think AAP segregates your kid from that faction of student, you are dead wrong. You are searching for the wrong thing in the wrong program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

It sounds like you have a very specific problem unique to your school.

Please don't assume your experience is the norm for the county. It is not.

We have a level IV kid and a level III kid.

We are very pleased with the implementation of the level three program at our school, particularly in math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

I think you are forgetting that bright kids can also not speak much English, cant read anywhere near grade level, have severe behavioral, attention issues and learning challenges. AAP does not exclude for those issues. If you want that, go private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Have you even been in a school lately? Kids are pulled out all the time, to work with reading specialists and a slew of other specialists. Gen ed is often a hot mess of kids who can't speak much English, kids who can't read anywhere near grade level, kids with severe behavioral, attention issues, and learning challenges, etc. Bright kids spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for the teacher to get the others under control and seen to. Most teachers are not skilled or talented enough to do justice to the range of kids in a gen ed classroom. And squeaky wheels get the grease. Parents especially like the centers because at least there's more of a chance for bright kids to get some challenge every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Level 3 works great at our school. DD gets pullouts twice a week for LA and once a week for math. The AART schedules the pullouts during the the classroom teacher's scheduled LA and math times.

Maybe you should be raise the Level 3 issue with your school principal. It does work well at other schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Sorry, but these "Level" are B.S., especially Level II and III. It's just slapping a title on what may or may not be a 15 min. pullout once a week. What could be more disruptive to a teacher than having certain kids be pulled out then, and other kids pulled out later, etc. I would be so irate if I was trying to teach a lesson and the AART showed up to pull out some of my kids for a silly "enrichment" exercise. Just place all the kids in the correct group for their level, and let the teachers teach that particular level, leaving plenty of room for kids to move up as needed.

Common sense seems to be in short supply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

No, it is not.

Level I is for all.
Level II is differentiation provided by the classroom teacher with the assistance of the AART.
Level III is part-time ("pull out" or "push in") instruction by the AART.
Level IV is full-time instruction by an AAP teacher.

Hardly complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's more comparable to athletics. Kids can see who's most athletic, who runs the fastest, and no one sees any shame in ranking. They get put on different tiers of teams and that's just life. What's important is that you don't keep the slower runners from racing and being challenged, and you don't give the message that your worth as a person is defined by how fast you can run.

Kids have always been able to see who is brighter and more academically oriented. In a well-run school, they can know these things and it doesn't affect them negatively. But people who cry over the existence of different programs, like AAP differentiation, are just trying to pound everyone into a soothing mush of mediocrity, where we pretend there are no intellectual equivalents of faster runners and never really challenge those intellects because somebody might feel bad about themselves.

Sorry, but no. Saying AAP needs to go (or be vastly revamped) isn't the same as saying advanced instruction needs to go - merely the segregation of two very similar groups of kids into completely separate classrooms. Of course there needs to be differentiation and multiple levels of grouping. But that could easily be accomplished by having the kids cycle in and out of flexible groupings, as needed. There is zero need for separate AAP vs. Gen Ed classrooms. Parents who insist there is simply enjoy the perceived cache of saying their child is in AAP. They like the separateness of it all.

Teachers cannot manage differentiation now, and they continue to have even larger class sizes. How are teachers supposed to successfully differentiate by adding even more levels of differentiation? Adding more complexity to an already overly complex situation is a recipe for disaster.

And the current implementation of AAP isn't overly complex?? The point is doing away with the complete segregation found in center schools, and simply making flexible groups for all. So many kids in Gen Ed could be doing AAP work in language arts, social studies, etc. There is no reason to have those classes only for AAP kids. Math is already differentiated for Gen Ed and there are plenty of GE kids doing AAP math; the other subjects need to be available to all as well. The system would become less complex, not more, if all kids could cycle into and out of whichever classes suited their abilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here - I should have actually said, center schools are a horrible experience for ANY Gen Ed child. No matter who they are or how bright they are, it is assumed by the other kids, parents, and teachers, that they are in the "dumb" class. It's a terrible thing to do to these kids.

Actually, you should have said SOME center schools are not an ideal experience for SOME gen end kids.

Depends on the center. And tue administration. And the parents at that particular school, not just the AAP parents but the gen ed parents as well.

There are many factors and not all centers and regions of the country are the same.

The correct wording is SOME centers.

+1000

Also, it depends on the expectations of the parents. During the fall 2012 (?) FCPS AAP expansion proposal season, there were parents in attendance at the community dialogue sessions. Parents from the same school could not agree if the existing AAP Center was a good thing or a bad thing for their school.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/centers/reorg/index.shtml

Anonymous wrote:PP here - I should have actually said, center schools are a horrible experience for ANY Gen Ed child. No matter who they are or how bright they are, it is assumed by the other kids, parents, and teachers, that they are in the "dumb" class. It's a terrible thing to do to these kids.

Actually, you should have said SOME center schools are not an ideal experience for SOME gen end kids.

Depends on the center. And tue administration. And the parents at that particular school, not just the AAP parents but the gen ed parents as well.

There are many factors and not all centers and regions of the country are the same.

The correct wording is SOME centers.