Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep reading on this thread that AAP vs non AAP is a wash once the kids get to middle school.

If this is the case, why have AAP in elementary at all?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

x1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know AAP parents don’t want I hear this but it’s a washout come high school. If the kid is bright and has good home support, they will end up in the same classes. Things that made a difference-love of reading, solid extracurriculars, encouraging them to pursue their interests.
The saddest part of all of this is that kids pick up on this whole AAP vs. not AAP in lower grades.

I think if you study the data - most AAP kids will do better in high school. There will be some outliers who don’t. And the reverse is true - there will be some outliers not in AAP who do just as well as the kids in AAP but it won’t be the majority.

What data? Please link to a specific FCPS study that backs up your claim.

Feel feted to share your data that shows the opposite. My data is only based on one school math data as a teacher.

What if a child is in advanced math but not AAP? Any data for that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know AAP parents don’t want I hear this but it’s a washout come high school. If the kid is bright and has good home support, they will end up in the same classes. Things that made a difference-love of reading, solid extracurriculars, encouraging them to pursue their interests.
The saddest part of all of this is that kids pick up on this whole AAP vs. not AAP in lower grades.

I think if you study the data - most AAP kids will do better in high school. There will be some outliers who don’t. And the reverse is true - there will be some outliers not in AAP who do just as well as the kids in AAP but it won’t be the majority.

What data? Please link to a specific FCPS study that backs up your claim.

Feel feted to share your data that shows the opposite. My data is only based on one school math data as a teacher.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So in summary-in ES, it makes a huge difference. MS-not as much. HS-not at all. Supplement in ES.

There's a lot of difference in the level of instruction between honors/AP and regular level subjects. But when enrollment is open at the MS/HS level, the effect of having been an AAP student or not is not super relevant (although I guess AAP kids might be better prepared for the level of rigor in honors - but as long as the kid can acclimate to honors level work, they'll be fine in those courses.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a child in both as well and the difference is major. My general ed child doesn't learn half of what my AAP child learned in the same school and in the same grades. My general Ed child also never had any homework ever. My AAP child in ES had it every night. They also never mingled the AAP kids with the gen ed kids. So the peer groups were gen ed kids with gen ed kids and AAP with AAP. They remained with their AAP friends in their AAP classes in middle.

Do the differences persist in high school?

The differences between the AP/Honors level instruction and the regular level instruction is a huge gulf.

However, there are former AAP and former gen-ed students who are in the honors/AP classes, and there's not necessarily a black & white difference between them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course there are differences. The peer group is most different.

Both my kids are in AAP and they do not get mixed with gen Ed kids. It is like a segregated school at their AAP center.

I’m an AAP parent and parents like you are so insufferable. The reality is that except for a small minority, the difference between bright gen ed kids and AAP is minimal. In middle school, it matters less and in high school, it doesn’t matter at all.

PP, you are reading that comment incorrectly. I ws not the one who wrote it. However, my own DS was accepted to AAP center school, and I kept him at a local school instead. That kind of environment was a major factor. DH is a narcissist and I did not want DS to grow up the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know AAP parents don’t want I hear this but it’s a washout come high school. If the kid is bright and has good home support, they will end up in the same classes. Things that made a difference-love of reading, solid extracurriculars, encouraging them to pursue their interests.
The saddest part of all of this is that kids pick up on this whole AAP vs. not AAP in lower grades.

I think if you study the data - most AAP kids will do better in high school. There will be some outliers who don’t. And the reverse is true - there will be some outliers not in AAP who do just as well as the kids in AAP but it won’t be the majority.

This input was shared by teacher fwiw.

Again-we are not talking about below average to average gen ed kids vs. AAP kids; we are talking about kids who are bright but did not make into the level IV program vs. AAP kids.

Gen Ed kids in level 3 verses AAP basically have four years where they don't get quite as high services. Why are you making such a big deal about this? Most schools still allow those kids now to take higher level math. It's an issue for these kids, but not a huge one. The majority of kids in general ed are not at the AAP level. Many are remedial.

BS. There are plenty of GE kids who barely missed getting into AAP and are no different in ability than those who did get in. That’s why AAP needs to return to being a true GT program, as it used to be when it had a much higher cutoff score and FAR fewer kids were in it. The current AAP curriculum needs to become the GE curriculum, with plenty of flexibility as mentioned before. Any remedial kids - which, btw, are a tiny portion of Gen Ed - could then receive the extra help they might need.

AAP is not the problem -- you have stated it but backwards. The problem with gen ed is not AAP, it's the large number of remedial kids, or the even the small number of remedial kids which take up the entire class and all of the teacher's time, focus, and energy.

That doesn'thave anything to do with AAP. It has to do with our current way of teaching, of small groups that only meet with the teacher according to need, and teaching to the test. Progressive schools and SOLs are the problem. Not AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know AAP parents don’t want I hear this but it’s a washout come high school. If the kid is bright and has good home support, they will end up in the same classes. Things that made a difference-love of reading, solid extracurriculars, encouraging them to pursue their interests.
The saddest part of all of this is that kids pick up on this whole AAP vs. not AAP in lower grades.

I think if you study the data - most AAP kids will do better in high school. There will be some outliers who don’t. And the reverse is true - there will be some outliers not in AAP who do just as well as the kids in AAP but it won’t be the majority.

This input was shared by teacher fwiw.

Again-we are not talking about below average to average gen ed kids vs. AAP kids; we are talking about kids who are bright but did not make into the level IV program vs. AAP kids.

Gen Ed kids in level 3 verses AAP basically have four years where they don't get quite as high services. Why are you making such a big deal about this? Most schools still allow those kids now to take higher level math. It's an issue for these kids, but not a huge one. The majority of kids in general ed are not at the AAP level. Many are remedial.

BS. There are plenty of GE kids who barely missed getting into AAP and are no different in ability than those who did get in. That’s why AAP needs to return to being a true GT program, as it used to be when it had a much higher cutoff score and FAR fewer kids were in it. The current AAP curriculum needs to become the GE curriculum, with plenty of flexibility as mentioned before. Any remedial kids - which, btw, are a tiny portion of Gen Ed - could then receive the extra help they might need.

Anonymous wrote:I would love for teachers to weigh on this discussion.

Teachers would have no idea which kids were previously in AAP vs Gen Ed. Once high school rolls around, it’s a level playing field.

Anonymous wrote:The difference between an AP English class and a gen ed English class in high school can be four years worth of school.

True - but the main thing is that kids can decide *for themselves* which level to take.

So what can a parent of a gen ed kid do to ensure they flourish/do well in later grades?

Read to your children, even older children, every day if possible.

Encourage math games and other board games and puzzles and free play and nature exploration.

Look up some gifted curriculums online, especially those that are often used for homeschoolers. These are not secret, and not expensive usually, often sold in small sets, and nowadays with the internet are easy to obtain. In fact, you would be shocked to know that what the AAP teachers and AART use are pulled directly from these very affordable curriculum ideas. Things like perplexor or critical thinking puzzles, or book extensions, or writing supplements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah. The top 10% of the kids left behind in gen ed are completely indistinguishable from the bottom half in AAP.

Which is why FCPS has a level 3 program. The handle the top 10% of kids left behind in general ed. I think they do a decent job of all of this. They even allow moving of kids for math or language arts based on ability now at most schools. And our LLIV program mixed all the kids for social studies and science. Maybe AAP is not needed as a label, but most schools in America have a higher level math and language arts program in elementary. FCPS will do a disservice to kids if they don't keep it in some fashion.

DP. Of course there need to be leveled groupings - but they need to be flexible so that kids can move up (or down) as needed. There does not need to be two monolithic groups that are set in stone. Many kids are ahead in one subject yet struggle in others. There absolutely needs to be flexible groupings, especially in language arts and math. That’s how most schools used to do it - including FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know AAP parents don’t want I hear this but it’s a washout come high school. If the kid is bright and has good home support, they will end up in the same classes. Things that made a difference-love of reading, solid extracurriculars, encouraging them to pursue their interests.
The saddest part of all of this is that kids pick up on this whole AAP vs. not AAP in lower grades.

I think if you study the data - most AAP kids will do better in high school. There will be some outliers who don’t. And the reverse is true - there will be some outliers not in AAP who do just as well as the kids in AAP but it won’t be the majority.

What data? Please link to a specific FCPS study that backs up your claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep reading on this thread that AAP vs non AAP is a wash once the kids get to middle school.

If this is the case, why have AAP in elementary at all?

I guess to serve the needs of those kids at that point in time bc they can’t learn in a traditional class. That’s the theory. Problem is it’s not a true GT program. Many kids are not well served now in gen ed not bc they are geniuses but bc gen ed is watered down.

If there are any kids in AAP who “can’t learn in a traditional classroom,” it’s a minuscule percentage. Everyone is well aware that AAP is merely an accelerated curriculum - not a gifted program.
DP

There is no difference at our high SES school other than the math.

It is drastic difference at the Title I school we attended prior.

Depends on school and even sometimes on teacher/teams.