Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Abolishing centers would only be a problem for schools that have too few kids above grade level in each subject.
This is my worry. My school is very small - only 2 classes per grade level - so not as many students are identified for full-time AAP. You need to have at least half of a class or 3/4 of a class and they don’t have enough eligible students so the experience is very different.
Just bus those who need AAP to the next closest school with a sufficient cohort. Centers aren't required.
Anonymous wrote:The “dismantle AAP” crowd are privileged white parents angry that their precious snowflakes didn’t get accepted into the program.
And LLIV is not Level 4. It’s a watered down version of an already watered down program that inevitably brings more children of various capabilities into a classroom and forces the teacher to teach to the bottom. The only equity achieved is that everyone loses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Abolishing centers would only be a problem for schools that have too few kids above grade level in each subject.
This is my worry. My school is very small - only 2 classes per grade level - so not as many students are identified for full-time AAP. You need to have at least half of a class or 3/4 of a class and they don’t have enough eligible students so the experience is very different.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:More comments at yesterday’s work session against AAP, most seem grounded in a member or their family not having been identified for LIV services. This time Megan McLaughlin started it saying her sons weren’t identified and they did great so the identification must be wrong.
Isn't it possible she is correct?
It’s absolutely possible that she is correct - the point of AAP isn’t to make a class of people who are successful while the rest are doomed — it’s about kids whose development happens differently. Eventually people reach full development and have their strengths. But the meaning of aap isn’t to give a success path to some and not to others. Come on.
Also - MM has been saying that for years - aren’t her kids in their 30s now or something? Enough of the stories about how things were 15 years ago.
Anonymous wrote:
Abolishing centers would only be a problem for schools that have too few kids above grade level in each subject.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:More comments at yesterday’s work session against AAP, most seem grounded in a member or their family not having been identified for LIV services. This time Megan McLaughlin started it saying her sons weren’t identified and they did great so the identification must be wrong.
Isn't it possible she is correct?
Anonymous wrote: AAP currently has only different subjects like math, science, social studies, and English, and only advanced learners are getting to be part of it. But Equity requires everyone be part of AAP. So FCPS is considering adding other relatively easier subjects like painting, music, drama, crafts, etc., to AAP, so that remaing kids can be enrolled into atleast one of these namesake classes. That way everyone is part of AAP. Equity problem solved!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:More comments at yesterday’s work session against AAP, most seem grounded in a member or their family not having been identified for LIV services. This time Megan McLaughlin started it saying her sons weren’t identified and they did great so the identification must be wrong.
Isn't it possible she is correct?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:More comments at yesterday’s work session against AAP, most seem grounded in a member or their family not having been identified for LIV services. This time Megan McLaughlin started it saying her sons weren’t identified and they did great so the identification must be wrong.
Isn't it possible she is correct?
Anonymous wrote:More comments at yesterday’s work session against AAP, most seem grounded in a member or their family not having been identified for LIV services. This time Megan McLaughlin started it saying her sons weren’t identified and they did great so the identification must be wrong.