Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of the detractors ITT are misinterpreting a lot other parents choices. Many are just choosing what education they think is best for their kid, not evaluating non-AAP kids.

Kids have different abilities and personalities and all the options provide something for everyone. It really is great.

Spoken like an AAP parent whose kid has never been told that they just need to "work harder" to get into AAP and that they must not be as smart as their friends. Of course you think it's "great."

Yeah that was not our experience, but it’s true that some kids are not as smart as their friends and could use the advice to work harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the AAP hate absolutely tells me it’s the right answer for my AAP kid.

Imagine trying to claim FCPS is pumping millions and millions of dollars and logistics challenges, and overhead into an advanced learning infrastructure that is really just some extra math….

Love this forum.

DP. FCPS doesn't spend millions on AAP but I agree that the hostility towards academically gifted kids makes AAP the right place for some kids to escape to, including mine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest bunch of nonsense is the "Level 1,2,3,4". None of it means anything and is all completely at the discretion of the individual schools/teachers.

This is true. That's why we went for the center in ES and wish my youngest DC went to the center MS where they continued to read full length novels. "Oh, they'll read", the teacher said. Turns out that local level 4 MS was piloting another program that is supposed to get kids in Title 1 schools to read SOMETHING. It fit with their "no homework" policy.

Many of the kids in the AAP classes love to read, would not look at it as a chore, and if it's a really good book, will finish it by the end of the week.

Same goes for many kids in Gen Ed. That's why on a Venn diagram of Gen Ed and AAP kids, the overlapping segment in the middle is enormous. With the exception of a few on either end of the spectrum, these kids are almost identical groups. Book lovers abound.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of the detractors ITT are misinterpreting a lot other parents choices. Many are just choosing what education they think is best for their kid, not evaluating non-AAP kids.

Kids have different abilities and personalities and all the options provide something for everyone. It really is great.

Spoken like an AAP parent whose kid has never been told that they just need to "work harder" to get into AAP and that they must not be as smart as their friends. Of course you think it's "great."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the AAP hate absolutely tells me it’s the right answer for my AAP kid.

Imagine trying to claim FCPS is pumping millions and millions of dollars and logistics challenges, and overhead into an advanced learning infrastructure that is really just some extra math….

Love this forum.

DP. FCPS doesn't spend millions on AAP but I agree that the hostility towards academically gifted kids makes AAP the right place for some kids to escape to, including mine.

it’s not gifted, it’s accelerated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the AAP hate absolutely tells me it’s the right answer for my AAP kid.

Imagine trying to claim FCPS is pumping millions and millions of dollars and logistics challenges, and overhead into an advanced learning infrastructure that is really just some extra math….

Love this forum.

DP. FCPS doesn't spend millions on AAP but I agree that the hostility towards academically gifted kids makes AAP the right place for some kids to escape to, including mine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest bunch of nonsense is the "Level 1,2,3,4". None of it means anything and is all completely at the discretion of the individual schools/teachers.

Level 1 isn’t really a level, it is Gen Ed with the AART dropping in to do some different activities with every student.

Level 2 is a joke at our school. It was a specific reading group and some extra math worksheets. There was no drop in to do some extra work that was more engaging or a pull out to do some different work that was more engaging. The reading group didn’t do anything different then the other high level reading groups and met with the Teacher infrequently. The math worksheets were figured out on his own or with a brief explination from the Teacher.

Level 3 has been good at our school. DS reports reading and discussing novels in LIII. Not having the Teacher read to them but actually reading the books. He has enjoyed the different activities and discussions. Our school meets pretty regularly for an hour, which has been great. I know not every school meets consistently or for the same period of time.

Local Level 4 is different at each school, which I think is problematic. I think there should be a consistent LL4 model across the schools. I am not a fan of the clustering, it doesn’t work well. Essentially it is L2 but in 3-6 grade. The LL4 kids have their groups and nothing is really done to engage them. Kids who are below grade level get the bulk of the Teachers attention, as they should, and the grade level kids don’t beneifit from the L4 curriculum because it isn’t being taught since the Teacher is catching up the kids who are below grade level.

LL4 should be a class with the committee selected kids that has the L3 kids attending for LA, Social Studies, and Science and nthe Advanced Math kids joining for Math. Kids who are in L3 and Advanced Math would simply be principal placed in the class.

Even better, the schools adjust how they teach the various subjects and let kids change classes for the different subjects. That would allow for grouping kids by ability for each subject. A group of 4 classes now becomes one large cohort. One Teacher is LA, one Social Studies, one Math, and one Science. Now you have 4 groups of kids for each subject. The group that is barely at grade level or below grade level will, hopefully at most non-Title 1 schools, be smaller and get each Teachers undivided attention. You can push in the reading or math specialist into the classes. Kids who are ahead are in one group. Kids on grade level or a bit ahead, probably most of the kids, are split into two groups. Now we can meet each kids needs a bit more easily, Teachers are less overwhelmed because they are preparing for one subject, and we don’t need to worry about judging kids for special programs.

This is flexible grouping and exactly what I was advocating earlier in the thread. The Level 1-4 idiocy is just a bunch of confusion that means nothing.

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of the detractors ITT are misinterpreting a lot other parents choices. Many are just choosing what education they think is best for their kid, not evaluating non-AAP kids.

Kids have different abilities and personalities and all the options provide something for everyone. It really is great.

Anonymous wrote:I found the Center school to be discriminatory against Gen Ed. Not the same number of field trips, less schoolwide/gradewide activities, parties and events. Favor given to AAP kids over the neighborhood kids. One year, they needed more kids to make the AAP class size work so they chose some Gen Ed kids to include. They didn’t need them the next year so these kids were OUT and back to Gen Ed. How is that acceptable? They have new leadership now but the damage was done. We moved. I don’t like that for either group of kids.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Sounds good but at the wealthier schools with parents who have more time, parents will constantly be nagging teachers about getting their kids into the top groups.

The Local level 4 model allows principal placements whereas the center only has students selected by a central committee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest bunch of nonsense is the "Level 1,2,3,4". None of it means anything and is all completely at the discretion of the individual schools/teachers.

Level 1 isn’t really a level, it is Gen Ed with the AART dropping in to do some different activities with every student.

Level 2 is a joke at our school. It was a specific reading group and some extra math worksheets. There was no drop in to do some extra work that was more engaging or a pull out to do some different work that was more engaging. The reading group didn’t do anything different then the other high level reading groups and met with the Teacher infrequently. The math worksheets were figured out on his own or with a brief explination from the Teacher.

Level 3 has been good at our school. DS reports reading and discussing novels in LIII. Not having the Teacher read to them but actually reading the books. He has enjoyed the different activities and discussions. Our school meets pretty regularly for an hour, which has been great. I know not every school meets consistently or for the same period of time.

Local Level 4 is different at each school, which I think is problematic. I think there should be a consistent LL4 model across the schools. I am not a fan of the clustering, it doesn’t work well. Essentially it is L2 but in 3-6 grade. The LL4 kids have their groups and nothing is really done to engage them. Kids who are below grade level get the bulk of the Teachers attention, as they should, and the grade level kids don’t beneifit from the L4 curriculum because it isn’t being taught since the Teacher is catching up the kids who are below grade level.

LL4 should be a class with the committee selected kids that has the L3 kids attending for LA, Social Studies, and Science and nthe Advanced Math kids joining for Math. Kids who are in L3 and Advanced Math would simply be principal placed in the class.

Even better, the schools adjust how they teach the various subjects and let kids change classes for the different subjects. That would allow for grouping kids by ability for each subject. A group of 4 classes now becomes one large cohort. One Teacher is LA, one Social Studies, one Math, and one Science. Now you have 4 groups of kids for each subject. The group that is barely at grade level or below grade level will, hopefully at most non-Title 1 schools, be smaller and get each Teachers undivided attention. You can push in the reading or math specialist into the classes. Kids who are ahead are in one group. Kids on grade level or a bit ahead, probably most of the kids, are split into two groups. Now we can meet each kids needs a bit more easily, Teachers are less overwhelmed because they are preparing for one subject, and we don’t need to worry about judging kids for special programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest bunch of nonsense is the "Level 1,2,3,4". None of it means anything and is all completely at the discretion of the individual schools/teachers.

This is true. That's why we went for the center in ES and wish my youngest DC went to the center MS where they continued to read full length novels. "Oh, they'll read", the teacher said. Turns out that local level 4 MS was piloting another program that is supposed to get kids in Title 1 schools to read SOMETHING. It fit with their "no homework" policy.

Many of the kids in the AAP classes love to read, would not look at it as a chore, and if it's a really good book, will finish it by the end of the week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget internships, scholarships, masters, PhD, first job, promotions, etc. For the people who fuss about such things, it never stops 🙃

Well if everyone had the same things, then they wouldn’t have to compete in this toxic culture of getting ahead.

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget internships, scholarships, masters, PhD, first job, promotions, etc. For the people who fuss about such things, it never stops 🙃