Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of one LLIV program where the 12 or so identified kids are purposefully split evenly across the four classes. The principal says this counts as a “cluster” (of three!) in each class. The principal is anti-AAP in principle and doesn’t think it’s fair to give one teacher “all the smart kids.”

(What SHOULD be happening is the 12 identified kids stay together and the class is rounded out with Level 3/Advanced math kids. All the teachers have a slightly less insane range of levels to teach to this way.)

Supposedly these kids are getting full time AAP. They are not. Is this actually a legit cluster model or way of implementing LLIV? Nope. But nobody’s stepping in, either.

I’ve heard several horror stories from teachers at new LLIV schools. Some of these principals did NOT want L4 at their schools and they have no problem essentially sabotaging it— in their eyes, that’s what’s best for everyone. Right now, when that happens at least the parents have the option of a center.

—AAP school lead who has heard some crazy things at district meetings

From everything I've read, this is in fact what FCPS intends by "cluster model".

3 full-time eligible kids in each class isn’t a cluster. It’s just… what happens if AAP doesn’t exist at all.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but that's what our school has told us in the past they consider the cluster model. I presumed the other elementary schools also did clustering this way.

I kind of wondered if it was organized that way as an incentive so the LIV eligible kids would be more likely to leave (I suspect the center school has a slightly lower SES/English as a first language on average for the student population, and I figured putting the center there was a way to 'bring up' the test scores)

No, the district is far too large for that. At the HS level, students and parents can make the decision to endure the extended travel for that experience, but that's way too much to put on 8-and-9-yo kids. Even region doesn't make sense because in some cases the regions aren't geographically clustered (e.g. Region 5 has both Tysons and Dulles)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need one(1) school designated for gifted students per district. Not this many…Inside it would be housing students who should be in college academically but that would hinder their proper social development.

The 99% of student population, should still be challenged with high expectation and encouraged. Dis trick should offer extra help for those who need it, instead of lowering the bar.

Per district? You mean, all of FCPS? Or by region or pyramid?

Do you know how large FCPS is?

Perhaps by region, but definitely not by pyramid.

Although, I doubt there will be so many ES students that should be in college. Like how there is one TJ, wouldn’t one GT school for ES level for FCPS work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need one(1) school designated for gifted students per district. Not this many…Inside it would be housing students who should be in college academically but that would hinder their proper social development.

The 99% of student population, should still be challenged with high expectation and encouraged. Dis trick should offer extra help for those who need it, instead of lowering the bar.

Per district? You mean, all of FCPS? Or by region or pyramid?

Do you know how large FCPS is?

Perhaps by region, but definitely not by pyramid.

That’s one way to look at it. Maybe in this era offering the same level to all is the way to go. More inclusive programs are needed.

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not going anywhere but being ruined to be useful by any means, which sort of, may be, almost like dismantled?

Anonymous wrote:You need one(1) school designated for gifted students per district. Not this many…Inside it would be housing students who should be in college academically but that would hinder their proper social development.

The 99% of student population, should still be challenged with high expectation and encouraged. Dis trick should offer extra help for those who need it, instead of lowering the bar.

Per district? You mean, all of FCPS? Or by region or pyramid?

Do you know how large FCPS is?

You need one(1) school designated for gifted students per district. Not this many…Inside it would be housing students who should be in college academically but that would hinder their proper social development.

The 99% of student population, should still be challenged with high expectation and encouraged. Dis trick should offer extra help for those who need it, instead of lowering the bar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of one LLIV program where the 12 or so identified kids are purposefully split evenly across the four classes. The principal says this counts as a “cluster” (of three!) in each class. The principal is anti-AAP in principle and doesn’t think it’s fair to give one teacher “all the smart kids.”

(What SHOULD be happening is the 12 identified kids stay together and the class is rounded out with Level 3/Advanced math kids. All the teachers have a slightly less insane range of levels to teach to this way.)

Supposedly these kids are getting full time AAP. They are not. Is this actually a legit cluster model or way of implementing LLIV? Nope. But nobody’s stepping in, either.

I’ve heard several horror stories from teachers at new LLIV schools. Some of these principals did NOT want L4 at their schools and they have no problem essentially sabotaging it— in their eyes, that’s what’s best for everyone. Right now, when that happens at least the parents have the option of a center.

—AAP school lead who has heard some crazy things at district meetings

From everything I've read, this is in fact what FCPS intends by "cluster model".

3 full-time eligible kids in each class isn’t a cluster. It’s just… what happens if AAP doesn’t exist at all. Which I realize is what a lot of people want.

According to the AAP office, what PP described above in parentheses (all full-time eligible in one class with part time students to round out) or AT MINIMUM 6-8 full-time students in one class is what is meant by cluster model.

Local norms should mean that a mostly or at least majority full-time class is doable.

Anonymous wrote:I know of one LLIV program where the 12 or so identified kids are purposefully split evenly across the four classes. The principal says this counts as a “cluster” (of three!) in each class. The principal is anti-AAP in principle and doesn’t think it’s fair to give one teacher “all the smart kids.”

(What SHOULD be happening is the 12 identified kids stay together and the class is rounded out with Level 3/Advanced math kids. All the teachers have a slightly less insane range of levels to teach to this way.)

Supposedly these kids are getting full time AAP. They are not. Is this actually a legit cluster model or way of implementing LLIV? Nope. But nobody’s stepping in, either.

I’ve heard several horror stories from teachers at new LLIV schools. Some of these principals did NOT want L4 at their schools and they have no problem essentially sabotaging it— in their eyes, that’s what’s best for everyone. Right now, when that happens at least the parents have the option of a center.

—AAP school lead who has heard some crazy things at district meetings

From everything I've read, this is in fact what FCPS intends by "cluster model".

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.

I am from one of those countries where some kids kill themselves due to the academic pressure. Yet, I never had this type of ES experience myself, or heard anyone else did. I never even had to take an IQ test of any sort. And I grew up in the center of competition craziness. Just put yourself in the shoes of your poor children, eligible or not for AAP. The intent and the needs of a GT program is real—why it’s mandated statutorily. Reality is, AAP has been watered down to include 20-30% of total student population and became a social/class division. With this current model, it would be more beneficial to mimic AP courses. It’s available for anyone who can handle it, by subject (math and LA). If you call it “AAP for all” sure, why not. As long as we continue this model, we cannot do better, as parents, students, and teachers. (What’s wrong with a teacher encouraging her AAP students, “You are in AAP, we have high expectation, you can do this.” Or a parent that wants and tells her child to be in that top 30% academic cohort where teachers give that kind of encouragement? Damn, it’s 30%… not 3% or 0.3%. It’s almost like being identified for Realschule in Germany in 4th grade—that eventually goes to college rather than trade school and workforce. And for some parents this is the biggest fear—all they know is to study in school and go to college to get a job. They know no other kind of life or connection or entrepreneurship or old money.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am an AAP teacher at a LL4. I don’t think the program should be dismantled, but I do think centers should go away. My school has one dedicated AAP class per grade. I am against cluster model too. It irritates me beyond belief that people think the education is superior at the center. That is completely false.

I am also for tracking kids and having AAP be subject based.

You stand for a lot of things that are practically impossible to implement.

No it isn’t impossible. Kids get educated at their base school.

Come teach at our center school that has students from 4-5 surrounding base schools. Then you'll see what you think you want to get rid of.

I am an AAP teacher at a LL4. We have kids every year come back from the center. The education is just as rigorous as a center school. We have the same curriculum. It is ridiculous that kids can choose where to go to school when their base offers LL4. I totally get if schools are using cluster methods, parents don’t want that. But many schools do offer a LL4 class per grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am an AAP teacher at a LL4. I don’t think the program should be dismantled, but I do think centers should go away. My school has one dedicated AAP class per grade. I am against cluster model too. It irritates me beyond belief that people think the education is superior at the center. That is completely false.

I am also for tracking kids and having AAP be subject based.

You stand for a lot of things that are practically impossible to implement.

No it isn’t impossible. Kids get educated at their base school.

Come teach at our center school that has students from 4-5 surrounding base schools. Then you'll see what you think you want to get rid of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am an AAP teacher at a LL4. I don’t think the program should be dismantled, but I do think centers should go away. My school has one dedicated AAP class per grade. I am against cluster model too. It irritates me beyond belief that people think the education is superior at the center. That is completely false.

I am also for tracking kids and having AAP be subject based.

You stand for a lot of things that are practically impossible to implement.

No it isn’t impossible. Kids get educated at their base school.

Anonymous wrote:There is NO gossip about AAP being dismantled. There is, however, a poster who keeps posting about it every so often.
Is it you?

I actually think they're going to do away with centers. I believe that is why they're making all schools offer LLIV now. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory and it probably makes sense to stop the busing.

I don't really think it matters, to answer the OP. They'll get the instruction locally, rather than at a center.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am an AAP teacher at a LL4. I don’t think the program should be dismantled, but I do think centers should go away. My school has one dedicated AAP class per grade. I am against cluster model too. It irritates me beyond belief that people think the education is superior at the center. That is completely false.

I am also for tracking kids and having AAP be subject based.

You stand for a lot of things that are practically impossible to implement.