Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

The same way they do in the Gen Ed classrooms where FCPS has eliminated ability grouping. My Gen Ed child is not with like ability peers for math. It's in the homeroom and somehow the teacher is expected to teach to the various levels. Is it possible? No, but that means a kid like mine falls farther behind while the AAP kids (who are only in the room with smart kids) get to be challenged and excel. Shouldn't everyone be challenged?

But, how is a AAP kid going to be challenged if your GE child is being catered to in the AAP program?

My GE kid is not in the AAP program. The point is that you are complaining about something that everyone else has to deal with already. We should be pushing for ability grouping for all, not just AAP. That might mean a non-AAP kid ends up in your AAP kid's math class because he or she might be accelerated in math but nothing else and keep up in the AAP math. Why should that child be held back in math because he or she didn't get a certain score on a random test on a random day? As it is now, the AAP kids get the challenge and everyone else is left in the dust.

Except many AAP children are not getting the challenge because so many in AAP programs are not qualified to be there under the original purposeful requirements.

I would not say many. I would say very few. Either way, there seem to be 2 groups of kids that are underserved: the extremely bright kids and the bright, but not quite bright enough for AAP. How do we work together to fix this. I want my not quite AAP child to be challenged in the same way that you want your top of the AAP pyramid kid to be challenged. What can we do to fix this broken system?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

The same way they do in the Gen Ed classrooms where FCPS has eliminated ability grouping. My Gen Ed child is not with like ability peers for math. It's in the homeroom and somehow the teacher is expected to teach to the various levels. Is it possible? No, but that means a kid like mine falls farther behind while the AAP kids (who are only in the room with smart kids) get to be challenged and excel. Shouldn't everyone be challenged?

But, how is a AAP kid going to be challenged if your GE child is being catered to in the AAP program?

My GE kid is not in the AAP program. The point is that you are complaining about something that everyone else has to deal with already. We should be pushing for ability grouping for all, not just AAP. That might mean a non-AAP kid ends up in your AAP kid's math class because he or she might be accelerated in math but nothing else and keep up in the AAP math. Why should that child be held back in math because he or she didn't get a certain score on a random test on a random day? As it is now, the AAP kids get the challenge and everyone else is left in the dust.

This. We have asked our center school countless times whether our GE student, who scored in the 99% in quantitative, could attend the AAP math class. The answer is always no. They cannot mix GE and AAP for math. It is incredibly frustrating to be told your child has to score higher in reading to have access to higher level math! Especially when your GE child has been receiving math pullouts since first grade and was always one of the best math students in the class. We're just getting private tutors and waiting until middle school when they have equal access to advanced education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

The same way they do in the Gen Ed classrooms where FCPS has eliminated ability grouping. My Gen Ed child is not with like ability peers for math. It's in the homeroom and somehow the teacher is expected to teach to the various levels. Is it possible? No, but that means a kid like mine falls farther behind while the AAP kids (who are only in the room with smart kids) get to be challenged and excel. Shouldn't everyone be challenged?

But, how is a AAP kid going to be challenged if your GE child is being catered to in the AAP program?

My GE kid is not in the AAP program. The point is that you are complaining about something that everyone else has to deal with already. We should be pushing for ability grouping for all, not just AAP. That might mean a non-AAP kid ends up in your AAP kid's math class because he or she might be accelerated in math but nothing else and keep up in the AAP math. Why should that child be held back in math because he or she didn't get a certain score on a random test on a random day? As it is now, the AAP kids get the challenge and everyone else is left in the dust.

Except many AAP children are not getting the challenge because so many in AAP programs are not qualified to be there under the original purposeful requirements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

The same way they do in the Gen Ed classrooms where FCPS has eliminated ability grouping. My Gen Ed child is not with like ability peers for math. It's in the homeroom and somehow the teacher is expected to teach to the various levels. Is it possible? No, but that means a kid like mine falls farther behind while the AAP kids (who are only in the room with smart kids) get to be challenged and excel. Shouldn't everyone be challenged?

But, how is a AAP kid going to be challenged if your GE child is being catered to in the AAP program?

My GE kid is not in the AAP program. The point is that you are complaining about something that everyone else has to deal with already. We should be pushing for ability grouping for all, not just AAP. That might mean a non-AAP kid ends up in your AAP kid's math class because he or she might be accelerated in math but nothing else and keep up in the AAP math. Why should that child be held back in math because he or she didn't get a certain score on a random test on a random day? As it is now, the AAP kids get the challenge and everyone else is left in the dust.

So the reason for the "tracking" would be not that the kids were inherently different, but that some learned more quickly with less attention and others needed more teacher attention (lower class sizes). There could be a factor that not all the kids started at the same point with the same preschool background, and this difference carried over from grade to grade, or some parents didn't have as much time to work with the kids at home. The belief would be that all kids were capable of reaching the same endpoint but just needed different levels of resources to get there.

An additional thought that the higher achievers could have larger class sizes and lower achievers could have smaller class sizes. That could make being in a "lower" grouping seem more appealing to those who could use more teacher attention. I think that many AAP classes already do have greater class sizes than gen ed, although I'm sure there are some exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand -- isn't ability-grouping better for everyone, at whatever point in the spectrum they may be? If higher-level, they have opportunity to work at that level; if lower level, they the support they need, from a teacher completely focused on what they need, instead of a teacher trying to be all things to all students and serving none of them particularly well.

Do you mean having separate classes by level? I've posted before on different threads that I had thought that having separate classes by level would make sense, but I was informed on DCUM that "tracking" is no longer in favor in education. The reason seems to be that it could look like segregation. Also, kids with lower ability levels don't do as well when grouped with only other kids at lower levels, I was told.

If it was very transparent what the standards for the divisions were, could that get around the issue of seeming to be segregation? (If indeed the resulting divisions would look like segregation. Not to stereotype any group or predict what the divisions would be, based even on socioeconomic factors stemming from racism and lack of opportunity.) For example use test scores where no personal information about the test takers is known (coded by only numbers and matched up later with test takers). Are we letting fear of how things would look keep us from providing the best and most targeted education for all?

Could the lowest achievers actually do better and make more progress in their own group if optimal teaching methods were used?

The groupings could be fluid and change at least once a year.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but I have one AAP and one not and I have to say, the one who is not (but is not LD/ED, tests around the 80th -85th percentile) is the one who loses out. That child sits through mind numbing worksheets and waits around for the bottom of the class to catch up. My AAP kid has a challenging curriculum and fun activities. Seriously. You have to stop with the whinging about the AAP kids getting the shaft. The kids getting the shaft are the bright but non-AAP kids who are in totally dumbed down classes because the top kids are skimmed off. The kids who seem to be essentially written off by FCPS because they will pass the SOLS so there is no need to spend time on them, but they are not "gifted."

Which is why we'll be spending a couple of hours going through the Mercer NNAT book with our younger child.

Oh, and to the poster who keeps cutting and pasting the exact same posting on how it is better to go to the Smithsonian than to test prep -- The Smithsonian is closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you talk about changing what is considered "gifted," you are diluting the program. AAP centers are now mainstreamed so the "average" child has a place to learn. The "base" classes are geared toward those with IEPs and LDs/EDs. The gifted child? Once again forgotten. Shame.

I'm sorry but I have one AAP and one not and I have to say, the one who is not (but is not LD/ED, tests around the 80th -85th percentile) is the one who loses out. That child sits through mind numbing worksheets and waits around for the bottom of the class to catch up. My AAP kid has a challenging curriculum and fun activities. Seriously. You have to stop with the whinging about the AAP kids getting the shaft. The kids getting the shaft are the bright but non-AAP kids who are in totally dumbed down classes because the top kids are skimmed off. The kids who seem to be essentially written off by FCPS because they will pass the SOLS so there is no need to spend time on them, but they are not "gifted."

I agree! Those "average"/not quite "gifted" children in the "base"/GE classes are also getting messed over. If they are meeting requirements for the SOLs, nobody seems to care that they are not learning. The focus is on getting those children with special needs up to "average" regardless of how that affects the rest of the class. That results in "average" children's parents appealing to get into AAP (allowed, more every year), which results in a dilution of that program. Those with IEPs win.

I just don't understand -- isn't ability-grouping better for everyone, at whatever point in the spectrum they may be? If higher-level, they have opportunity to work at that level; if lower level, they the support they need, from a teacher completely focused on what they need, instead of a teacher trying to be all things to all students and serving none of them particularly well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

The same way they do in the Gen Ed classrooms where FCPS has eliminated ability grouping. My Gen Ed child is not with like ability peers for math. It's in the homeroom and somehow the teacher is expected to teach to the various levels. Is it possible? No, but that means a kid like mine falls farther behind while the AAP kids (who are only in the room with smart kids) get to be challenged and excel. Shouldn't everyone be challenged?

But, how is a AAP kid going to be challenged if your GE child is being catered to in the AAP program?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you talk about changing what is considered "gifted," you are diluting the program. AAP centers are now mainstreamed so the "average" child has a place to learn. The "base" classes are geared toward those with IEPs and LDs/EDs. The gifted child? Once again forgotten. Shame.

Yes. I saw this coming back when they decided to stop using the term "gifted" in the center program. Gifted? What gifted?

+1

Anonymous wrote:Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

The same way they do in the Gen Ed classrooms where FCPS has eliminated ability grouping. My Gen Ed child is not with like ability peers for math. It's in the homeroom and somehow the teacher is expected to teach to the various levels. Is it possible? No, but that means a kid like mine falls farther behind while the AAP kids (who are only in the room with smart kids) get to be challenged and excel. Shouldn't everyone be challenged?

Re: Haycock mixing gen ed and aap - what is next English and Math? I agree in theory that it is good to mix kids...but in practice, how does a teacher meet all the needs of the children?

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you talk about changing what is considered "gifted," you are diluting the program. AAP centers are now mainstreamed so the "average" child has a place to learn. The "base" classes are geared toward those with IEPs and LDs/EDs. The gifted child? Once again forgotten. Shame.

I'm sorry but I have one AAP and one not and I have to say, the one who is not (but is not LD/ED, tests around the 80th -85th percentile) is the one who loses out. That child sits through mind numbing worksheets and waits around for the bottom of the class to catch up. My AAP kid has a challenging curriculum and fun activities. Seriously. You have to stop with the whinging about the AAP kids getting the shaft. The kids getting the shaft are the bright but non-AAP kids who are in totally dumbed down classes because the top kids are skimmed off. The kids who seem to be essentially written off by FCPS because they will pass the SOLS so there is no need to spend time on them, but they are not "gifted."