Fairfax County Public Schools spends, per-pupil, per-year, nearly $20,000–part of a roughly $4 billion budget, of which more than 85% is dedicated to classroom instruction. The question remains, however, if this massive investment delivers equitable acceleration, or rather simply fuels divides through programs such as the Advanced Academic Program (AAP), FCPS’ gifted and talented track.
AAP is designed to provide accelerated instruction to students identified—via the Naglieri General Abilities Test (NGAT) or, more commonly, a referral—as having advanced academic abilities.
Within AAP itself, there exist four distinct levels. Level I is general education, the standard curriculum. AAP Level II is subject-specific, meaning students take specific accelerated core classes. To gain entry into Level III, which is part-time and school-based, students may enter through the NGAT or a referral–though, of the two, referrals are by far the most prevalent, with 70% of students joining AAP this way. Participation in Level III, which includes grades 3-7, involves students being pulled from normal classes for higher-level work in core subjects such as math, English and science. Though separated at times, this level still allows students, AAP or otherwise, to interact and develop together.
The final level of AAP, IV, is full-time and is offered to students grades 3-8. Students in Level IV are taken to dedicated learning centers that consist solely of their fellow Level IV peers, further segregating and isolating them from their broader peer group–unlike high school, where honors, AP and other advanced courses are open-enrollment and mixed with everyone else.
Among students interviewed, both those who took AAP and those who did not, a common sentiment expressed itself: early placement in advanced academics shaped course choices and overall mindsets even in high school. Sometimes, for the better, sometimes not.
“I think if I were not in AAP throughout elementary and middle school, I would not have ended up taking the advanced courses that I’m taking now,” Sabrina Remy (’29) said.
She, along with other ninth-grade former AAP students such as Sophia Schmitt (’29), felt that it built, and builds, independence that directly led to their current honors courses.
“We learned about independence and stuff,” Schmitt said. “It was more advanced.”
Others, however, weren’t as convinced that AAP made a large deal of difference and believed they would be taking advanced classes regardless. For some students, elementary and middle school posed no challenge, AAP or not. However, the real cracks within the AAP system emerge when one considers the criticisms.
“I feel like it makes kids have these really ridiculously high expectations for themselves,” Amelia Hornbuckle (’27) said. “And when [they] try to do something new, something [they] may not be as good at, [they] just crumble because [they’re] not used to that failure.”
Others, such as Riya Datta (’27) expressed regret over barriers–from Individualized Education Plans (IEP) to school underestimation–that blocked early access, ultimately leading to delay in taking more advanced classes in high school.
“I do feel like I would have been able to take those classes, and I would have been willing to take those classes, especially for math and science,” Datta said.
These gripes are not simply limited to high schoolers, either. The heavy reliance on referrals favors families who already know the oftentimes confusing system, can advocate for their students aggressively or afford test prep–raising further questions about the fairness of the system as a whole.
With per-pupil spending as high as it is, a myriad of barriers for students with IEPs and 504s, long-ongoing debates about underrepresentation within the AAP program and the psychological toll of being told as early as 3rd grade that you are not smart enough, AAP begins to appear less a necessary accelerator and more a flawed, exclusive system that divides students when it could, instead, challenge them all together.
The purpose of AAP is to recognize and develop student academic excellence, but student voices suggest the program can fall short of its goal. It is time to rethink separating children so young and to instead, redirect resources toward broader, more inclusive ways to challenge and support every student.
