It's telling that some of the center schools that are so large aren't getting the PTA dedication that they need. They are turning off new parents coming in to the County with small children who have no idea whether their kids will get into the program or not and do not want to live in neighborhoods where their child might be marginalized at their base school if they don't get into AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would a center or LLIV program that doesn't overwhelm a school using either a Chesterbrook or Wolftrap/Flint Hill model be enough of a change to make AAP work for everyone? This seems to still work well enough for AAP students and bright students who don't qualify for AAP while not ostracizing anyone else in the school.

One size does not fit all. FCPS is too diverse and too large a school system for that. In the areas where there are high concentrations of AAP qualified students, the Chesterbrook model works well. IN areas where there are few students per school grade that qualify, the center model works well.

That isn't what I was referring to. I think the Chesterbrook or Wolftrap/Flint Hill model can work well as a center model too. Yes, in areas where there are not high concentrations of AAP qualified students, a center is better I think and in areas where there are high concentrations of AAP students a LLIV program is better, however that doesn't mean the center has to have an entirely separate program separated from the GE kids at those schools. If it really is true that the AAP students don't want to interact with the GE students at these center schools for certain reasons, than the boundaries really should be redrawn to allow the GE students to go to other schools and make a center school an AAP only school for 3rd-6th grade. I don't think it's fair to the GE students left there in 3rd-6th grade to be marginalized at their own base school.

Anonymous wrote:So would a center or LLIV program that doesn't overwhelm a school using either a Chesterbrook or Wolftrap/Flint Hill model be enough of a change to make AAP work for everyone? This seems to still work well enough for AAP students and bright students who don't qualify for AAP while not ostracizing anyone else in the school.

One size does not fit all. FCPS is too diverse and too large a school system for that. In the areas where there are high concentrations of AAP qualified students, the Chesterbrook model works well. IN areas where there are few students per school grade that qualify, the center model works well.

So would a center or LLIV program that doesn't overwhelm a school using either a Chesterbrook or Wolftrap/Flint Hill model be enough of a change to make AAP work for everyone? This seems to still work well enough for AAP students and bright students who don't qualify for AAP while not ostracizing anyone else in the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scrap the AAP model. It's time to reinvent.

Level IV curriculum in every school and classroom.

Very top 3-4% of students that simply cannot function in a normal classroom with differentiation are bussed to a special center for truly gifted, extreme IQ students.

These kids need special education the same way kids need special education on the other side of the spectrum. Mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible with differentiation in their home school and if that cannot work then they can be provided highly specialized teaching at a center that suits their needs.

This AAP madness is a burden on the school system and is simply lowering the standards for the majority of students in FCPS.

+1000
You, my friend, need to be in charge.

LOL. Yes, submit this with your resume, Im sure you'll be hired in a jiffy with your brilliant proposal. Good luck actually substantiating any of your claims though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scrap the AAP model. It's time to reinvent.

Level IV curriculum in every school and classroom.

Very top 3-4% of students that simply cannot function in a normal classroom with differentiation are bussed to a special center for truly gifted, extreme IQ students.

These kids need special education the same way kids need special education on the other side of the spectrum. Mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible with differentiation in their home school and if that cannot work then they can be provided highly specialized teaching at a center that suits their needs.

This AAP madness is a burden on the school system and is simply lowering the standards for the majority of students in FCPS.

Bad idea.

My kid is in that upper 99% and the more inclusive program is more beneficial to these kids at the extreme.

And how, exactly, does this "inclusive" program benefit my child, who attends a center where she is in the minority (two GE classes/four AAP classes in her grade alone). Not exactly "inclusive" when it's excluding more than half the kids in a single grade.

The fact that you child is not in AAP does mean the program is not inclusive. Your child was tested twice and you had an opportunity to refer if she wasn't automatically in the pool. And in Gen Ed, she still has opportunity for differentiation.

The AAP kids at your child's school came from several feeder schools - they were small percentages of wherever they came from - its not like over half of one school was selected for AAP.

As one PP suggested, perhaps you should lobby for reassigning feeder schools so your school wouldn't be so AAP heavy. Although, again, I don't see how it is a detriment to the Gen Ed curriculum. If the Gen Ed curriculum is lacking, you should address that - but its not lacking because of the existence of AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scrap the AAP model. It's time to reinvent.

Level IV curriculum in every school and classroom.

Very top 3-4% of students that simply cannot function in a normal classroom with differentiation are bussed to a special center for truly gifted, extreme IQ students.

These kids need special education the same way kids need special education on the other side of the spectrum. Mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible with differentiation in their home school and if that cannot work then they can be provided highly specialized teaching at a center that suits their needs.

This AAP madness is a burden on the school system and is simply lowering the standards for the majority of students in FCPS.

Bad idea.

My kid is in that upper 99% and the more inclusive program is more beneficial to these kids at the extreme.

And how, exactly, does this "inclusive" program benefit my child, who attends a center where she is in the minority (two GE classes/four AAP classes in her grade alone). Not exactly "inclusive" when it's excluding more than half the kids in a single grade.

Anonymous wrote:Scrap the AAP model. It's time to reinvent.

Level IV curriculum in every school and classroom.

Very top 3-4% of students that simply cannot function in a normal classroom with differentiation are bussed to a special center for truly gifted, extreme IQ students.

These kids need special education the same way kids need special education on the other side of the spectrum. Mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible with differentiation in their home school and if that cannot work then they can be provided highly specialized teaching at a center that suits their needs.

This AAP madness is a burden on the school system and is simply lowering the standards for the majority of students in FCPS.

+1000
You, my friend, need to be in charge.

Me again. And at my children's center school, the AAP classes do mix with Gen Ed classes -

Anonymous wrote:To the 2 posters above, then why not keep your AAP qualified kid in Gen Ed? You say there's good differentiation and talented, creative teachers. Why the need for a separate center then?

Both of my children moved from our base school to a center for AAP starting in 3rd grade, so I can't compare first hand Gen Ed to AAP in 3rd grade and beyond. My kids tested way beyond end of year benchmarks at the beginning of the year in grades K-2. They were pulled out of class weekly for advanced math/writing, but it wasn't much. Our base school is a Title I school without a Local Level IV option. When we got the eligibility letters, we thought it was worth a shot for a more accelerated pace for them. It has worked out well. They're no longer coasting at the top, but rather in the mix with many students at similar levels.

Anonymous wrote:To the 2 posters above, then why not keep your AAP qualified kid in Gen Ed? You say there's good differentiation and talented, creative teachers. Why the need for a separate center then?

Because my kid who went to the center is highly gifted, has a photographic memory, understood concepts very quickly, and was able to move through concepts at a very fast pace that far exceeded tye pace of most kids in the same grade level and was much more matched in the AAP cohort than in any other school setting.

From our experience, the biggest difference between the AAP classes and our bright center class is the depth and the speed in which the AAP class as a whole was able to move through the material. Even when the same curriculum was used, the AAP classes as a group learned at a much quicker pace and was able to cover the same material in more depth, even with all the 2E behavior distractions.

To the 2 posters above, then why not keep your AAP qualified kid in Gen Ed? You say there's good differentiation and talented, creative teachers. Why the need for a separate center then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scrap the AAP model. It's time to reinvent.

Level IV curriculum in every school and classroom.

Very top 3-4% of students that simply cannot function in a normal classroom with differentiation are bussed to a special center for truly gifted, extreme IQ students.

These kids need special education the same way kids need special education on the other side of the spectrum. Mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible with differentiation in their home school and if that cannot work then they can be provided highly specialized teaching at a center that suits their needs.

This AAP madness is a burden on the school system and is simply lowering the standards for the majority of students in FCPS.

Bad idea.

My kid is in that upper 99% and the more inclusive program is more beneficial to these kids at the extreme.

Agreed. There is a whole other thread for folks to call AAP "madness" and "evil". As others have observed many times, the negative center experience is far from universal. If there are problem schools/neighborhoods, those should be addressed.

Exactly - sadly, I don't think we'll ever be able to shake the rabid AAP haters. They pop up everywhere. Even with threads like "where do you send your child for enrichment?" get nasty responses like "if your child is so gifted, why do they need it?"

Seems DCUM is a safe, anonymous place for these folks to vent their insecurities.

Its not madness, nonsense or evil - its not destroying the fabric our communities. It's not that dramatic. The friends (mine and my kids) that we had before AAP, we still have. If your 'community relationships' are that fragile, maybe you need to make some new, real friends?

I don't see any problem with the community, we still have the same friends. I actually feel more sadness for the kids in AAP where we are since in our community they get out later so by the time they're getting of the bus, the other kids have been out playing for an hour and are heading back in or to sports practices. Less spontaneous playtime with their neighborhood friends.

What I have a problem with is an inefficient program that lowers the standards for children in Gen Ed classes and brings down FCPS overall as a system. It's a program that has completely veered away from it's original intent and needs to be brought back into alignment for the bettering of the entire school system.

Do you also feel sad for the kids stuck at SACC until their parents get out of work? Or kids who don't live in houses with yards to play in? Many different circumstances for families - I don't think that is a reason to eliminate AAP.

How does AAP lower the GE standards? There is still differentiation in GE, isn't there?

I was commenting to the community problem poster.

It lowers the GenEd standards because the bar for AAP has been set, so they won't implement those things in GenEd classrooms. Not the curriculum, not the extra teacher training, not the higher expectations of students, because then AAP wouldn't be so different.

There is damn good reason parents love the AAP program, it's because the education and expectations are better and higher. That comes from the teachers and the curriculum. That's something that should be in every classroom in FCPS, not just for some students, for all.

So yes, it very much lowers the bar for GenEd and in turn the majority of students in FCPS.

I find the teachers overall in my kids' gen ed classes to be just as talented, creative and engaging as my kid's center teachers were.

What school are you at where the gen ed teachers and program are so substandard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scrap the AAP model. It's time to reinvent.

Level IV curriculum in every school and classroom.

Very top 3-4% of students that simply cannot function in a normal classroom with differentiation are bussed to a special center for truly gifted, extreme IQ students.

These kids need special education the same way kids need special education on the other side of the spectrum. Mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible with differentiation in their home school and if that cannot work then they can be provided highly specialized teaching at a center that suits their needs.

This AAP madness is a burden on the school system and is simply lowering the standards for the majority of students in FCPS.

Bad idea.

My kid is in that upper 99% and the more inclusive program is more beneficial to these kids at the extreme.

Agreed. There is a whole other thread for folks to call AAP "madness" and "evil". As others have observed many times, the negative center experience is far from universal. If there are problem schools/neighborhoods, those should be addressed.

Exactly - sadly, I don't think we'll ever be able to shake the rabid AAP haters. They pop up everywhere. Even with threads like "where do you send your child for enrichment?" get nasty responses like "if your child is so gifted, why do they need it?"

Seems DCUM is a safe, anonymous place for these folks to vent their insecurities.

Its not madness, nonsense or evil - its not destroying the fabric our communities. It's not that dramatic. The friends (mine and my kids) that we had before AAP, we still have. If your 'community relationships' are that fragile, maybe you need to make some new, real friends?

I don't see any problem with the community, we still have the same friends. I actually feel more sadness for the kids in AAP where we are since in our community they get out later so by the time they're getting of the bus, the other kids have been out playing for an hour and are heading back in or to sports practices. Less spontaneous playtime with their neighborhood friends.

What I have a problem with is an inefficient program that lowers the standards for children in Gen Ed classes and brings down FCPS overall as a system. It's a program that has completely veered away from it's original intent and needs to be brought back into alignment for the bettering of the entire school system.

Do you also feel sad for the kids stuck at SACC until their parents get out of work? Or kids who don't live in houses with yards to play in? Many different circumstances for families - I don't think that is a reason to eliminate AAP.

How does AAP lower the GE standards? There is still differentiation in GE, isn't there?

I was commenting to the community problem poster.

It lowers the GenEd standards because the bar for AAP has been set, so they won't implement those things in GenEd classrooms. Not the curriculum, not the extra teacher training, not the higher expectations of students, because then AAP wouldn't be so different.

There is damn good reason parents love the AAP program, it's because the education and expectations are better and higher. That comes from the teachers and the curriculum. That's something that should be in every classroom in FCPS, not just for some students, for all.

So yes, it very much lowers the bar for GenEd and in turn the majority of students in FCPS.

Really? I just can't imagine Gen Ed teachers slowing down or capping the curriculum at a certain level just to keep it "different" than AAP. That doesn't make sense.

How does AAP lower the GE standards? There is still differentiation in GE, isn't there?

I was commenting to the community problem poster.

It lowers the GenEd standards because the bar for AAP has been set, so they won't implement those things in GenEd classrooms. Not the curriculum, not the extra teacher training, not the higher expectations of students, because then AAP wouldn't be so different.

There is damn good reason parents love the AAP program, it's because the education and expectations are better and higher. That comes from the teachers and the curriculum. That's something that should be in every classroom in FCPS, not just for some students, for all.

So yes, it very much lowers the bar for GenEd and in turn the majority of students in FCPS.