AAP advisory committee recommends stronger data, teacher capacity and clearer communication as full‑time expansion continues

Cheryl Napoli, co‑chair of the Advanced Academic Program (AAP) Advisory Committee, told the school board advisory summit the committee’s 2025–26 charge was to review implementation of the local full‑time AP expansion and examine how the dual delivery model (local programs and centers) serves advanced learners.

Napoli said the expansion aimed to increase access rather than replace centers and stressed the need for objective program measures. “The full‑time AP program expansion addresses access inequities,” she said, and then summarized current coverage: 29 elementary schools designated as full‑time AAP centers, an additional 109 elementary schools offering at least one year of local full‑time advanced academics, and multiple schools that have newly become fully operational.

The committee’s key recommendation was to expand and strengthen data collection. It urged AP staff to “develop objective measures to evaluate program quality and student outcomes across all full‑time AP settings,” including fidelity checks on curriculum implementation, student growth measures, AP/IB enrollment and advanced diploma indicators. Committee members told the board the current fidelity tool relies heavily on self‑reporting and suggested adding standardized outcome measures and a clearer record of grouping models (cohorting vs clustering) so planners can monitor whether the intended access is occurring.

A second major recommendation asked the division to invest in teacher capacity: more professional learning targeted at advanced‑learner instruction, incentives and supports to complete AP endorsements, and protected time for teachers to collaborate across schools. “Teacher expertise is the most important factor in delivering rigorous, responsive instruction,” Napoli said.

The committee also recommended clearer, more consistent communication to families about the differences and similarities between local full‑time programs and centers, expanded joint orientation sessions, and systems to share outcome data with families once available.

Board members pressed the committee and staff on next steps. Several members asked whether the advisory group had taken a formal position on middle‑school AP center expansion; the committee said that topic was not part of its charge and no committee vote had been taken. Staff noted privacy and data‑de‑identification constraints when discussing student‑level longitudinal outcomes and suggested proxies (for example, MAP growth and subsequent course selection) as practical evaluation measures.

The committee’s recommendations are focused on strengthening implementation and accountability so both delivery models can serve advanced learners equitably. Board members asked staff to consider how those recommendations intersect with the division’s strategic plan and what specific metrics the board should request for future monitoring.

The advisory committee left time for follow‑up; board members and staff agreed to continue conversations about measurable indicators, communication plans for families, and potential supports for teacher collaboration.