Reading level went down because of the book selection at school? I find that hard to believe.

Were there no challenging books available at home, in the library or at the community library?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP here. Maybe gen ed teachers don't cap curriculum just to keep it different, but here's what happens at ours -- I've posted on another thread about some of this: only grade level books are kept in the classrooms, so if your kid reads above grade level, oh well. Three of DC's friends left for AAP center, and cited this as one of the major reasons for leaving. The reading level of one of these kids actually regressed in 2nd grade. My DC's scores were on the cusp for AAP, and had no choice but to remain. Not sure if a center would be the right choice for DC, given DC's personality, but that is a separate matter. The focus in gen ed is closing the achievement gap, which is great, but it needs to be done without capping the top. Unfortunately, the system does not incentivize teachers and administrators to do this. I believe IEPs are needed for every student, but at this point in time it doesn't seem possible within the public school system. I see homeschooling as the only way to get the customization students need and parents want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very simple to figure out who is AAP in a LLIV.

LLIV is far worse for schools than the center model.

Hit send too soon.

Worse at the elementary level.

Not a big deal in MS because we are only talking about three subjects and everyone switches all day.

How is LLIV worse?

There are no issues with transportation. Kids are in their neighborhood school. The number of AAP kids does not overwhelm the school.

Depends how the LLIV is done. More LLIVs are now moving to a less segregated model which I wish the centers would Also do.

Anonymous wrote:It is very simple to figure out who is AAP in a LLIV.

LLIV is far worse for schools than the center model.

Hit send too soon.

Worse at the elementary level.

Not a big deal in MS because we are only talking about three subjects and everyone switches all day.

It is very simple to figure out who is AAP in a LLIV.

LLIV is far worse for schools than the center model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

Summarized beautifully.

Why exactly dues a Chesterbrook model not work at an AAP center?

It could work in a modified way. Chesterbrook is LLIV and all students are in the neighborhood so it is harder for the students to figure out who is in what class and why during the day. With a Center model, it would be obvious from the start who is AAP and who isn't since there would be an influx of new students in 3rd grade. Plus, with a LLIV is it easier to buyild community as everyone already lives in the same community. It is harder to build community when families are spread out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advanced math is supposed to be offered at every grade level at every school. If it isn't, are parents telling FCPS higher ups about the discrepancy? What is the response?

The response is always something along the lines of, "Not our problem. We only are responsible for teaching to minimal standards of the grade level. We have our hands full with students who can't pass the tests, and they make us look bad, so it's all we can focus on."

Is it possible that your school actually does have advanced math, but you are not aware of it because your kid does not qualify?

I can see this easily happening, especially in the younger grades.

Of my two kids, one has received advanced math pull outs since kindergarten and is now almost finished with the official advance math elementary track. We knew he was getting pull outs for math since the first parent conference in K.

My other kid did not get advanced math pullouts and missed qualifying for the official advance math program. The first time advanced math was mentioned with him is when they did the formal assessments in third grade, and even then it was very low key in how it was presented. If it had not been for my older kid I would not have been aware that the school offered advanced math and language pullouts starting in K.

New poster. Our school does not offer advanced math except to Level III kids starting in 3rd grade. My son was identified as Level II beginning in Kindergarten, always got 4s in math, and was not offered advanced math until 3rd grade.

Another NP. Our school does not offer advanced math until 6th grade. 6th grade!

They offer level II services which are basically just "extension worksheets" until then.

But are either of you in the TJ areas where they apparently send all of the students to the AAP centers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advanced math is supposed to be offered at every grade level at every school. If it isn't, are parents telling FCPS higher ups about the discrepancy? What is the response?

The response is always something along the lines of, "Not our problem. We only are responsible for teaching to minimal standards of the grade level. We have our hands full with students who can't pass the tests, and they make us look bad, so it's all we can focus on."

Is it possible that your school actually does have advanced math, but you are not aware of it because your kid does not qualify?

I can see this easily happening, especially in the younger grades.

Of my two kids, one has received advanced math pull outs since kindergarten and is now almost finished with the official advance math elementary track. We knew he was getting pull outs for math since the first parent conference in K.

My other kid did not get advanced math pullouts and missed qualifying for the official advance math program. The first time advanced math was mentioned with him is when they did the formal assessments in third grade, and even then it was very low key in how it was presented. If it had not been for my older kid I would not have been aware that the school offered advanced math and language pullouts starting in K.

New poster. Our school does not offer advanced math except to Level III kids starting in 3rd grade. My son was identified as Level II beginning in Kindergarten, always got 4s in math, and was not offered advanced math until 3rd grade.

Another NP. Our school does not offer advanced math until 6th grade. 6th grade!

They offer level II services which are basically just "extension worksheets" until then.

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.

Centers such as Haycock, Colvin Run, Louise Archer, etc. should send all AAP kids back to their base schools. The center model is ridiculous in areas like these, in which every other child is in AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

Summarized beautifully.

Why exactly dues a Chesterbrook model not work at an AAP center?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advanced math is supposed to be offered at every grade level at every school. If it isn't, are parents telling FCPS higher ups about the discrepancy? What is the response?

The response is always something along the lines of, "Not our problem. We only are responsible for teaching to minimal standards of the grade level. We have our hands full with students who can't pass the tests, and they make us look bad, so it's all we can focus on."

Is it possible that your school actually does have advanced math, but you are not aware of it because your kid does not qualify?

I can see this easily happening, especially in the younger grades.

Of my two kids, one has received advanced math pull outs since kindergarten and is now almost finished with the official advance math elementary track. We knew he was getting pull outs for math since the first parent conference in K.

My other kid did not get advanced math pullouts and missed qualifying for the official advance math program. The first time advanced math was mentioned with him is when they did the formal assessments in third grade, and even then it was very low key in how it was presented. If it had not been for my older kid I would not have been aware that the school offered advanced math and language pullouts starting in K.

New poster. Our school does not offer advanced math except to Level III kids starting in 3rd grade. My son was identified as Level II beginning in Kindergarten, always got 4s in math, and was not offered advanced math until 3rd grade.

Piggybacking on your post -- I think there should be more transparency at each elementary school about advanced math offerings. I understand that some ES allow for parent referral for Level III services, including advanced math. However, all parents are not well-informed about this option.

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.

+1000

Summarized beautifully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advanced math is supposed to be offered at every grade level at every school. If it isn't, are parents telling FCPS higher ups about the discrepancy? What is the response?

The response is always something along the lines of, "Not our problem. We only are responsible for teaching to minimal standards of the grade level. We have our hands full with students who can't pass the tests, and they make us look bad, so it's all we can focus on."

Is it possible that your school actually does have advanced math, but you are not aware of it because your kid does not qualify?

I can see this easily happening, especially in the younger grades.

Of my two kids, one has received advanced math pull outs since kindergarten and is now almost finished with the official advance math elementary track. We knew he was getting pull outs for math since the first parent conference in K.

My other kid did not get advanced math pullouts and missed qualifying for the official advance math program. The first time advanced math was mentioned with him is when they did the formal assessments in third grade, and even then it was very low key in how it was presented. If it had not been for my older kid I would not have been aware that the school offered advanced math and language pullouts starting in K.

New poster. Our school does not offer advanced math except to Level III kids starting in 3rd grade. My son was identified as Level II beginning in Kindergarten, always got 4s in math, and was not offered advanced math until 3rd grade.

Anonymous wrote:From my other post:

* Ensure all elementary schools provide options for advanced mathematics to all qualified students
* Improve and standardize delivery of Level 3 services at all elementary schools.

This!

Also redrawing boundaries to attempt to achieve a balance of socio-ecomic status At each school where possible rather than intentionally concentrating low income students in one school.