AAP should be eliminated as it’s not the path to equity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's another angle to this that gets missed a lot. One of the big complaints to any form of specialized opportunities for "advanced" kids (honors/advanced classes, AAP, G&T, anything) is that you end up a cohort of kids in the advanced track who are richer and whiter and so it's seen as a form of segregation. I think this is a reasonable concern. Segregation in housing and in educational opportunities is a huge problem in the US, and has been an ongoing problem since before Civil Rights. This is something we need to try to address.

But simplistic ideas like getting rid of AAP are missing the bigger picture. Yes, you can segregate kids within a school, and that's not good. But what's worse than that is to segregate kids into different schools. And what's worse than that is to segregate kids into completely different communities.

If a diverse school in a diverse community offers an advanced option that is somewhat segregated, and then they simply remove that advanced option to avoid segregation in the name of equity, some of the parents whose kids were or would be in the advanced option may choose a different school if they have that option. They may move into a neighborhood where the gen ed educational path has more rigor, if they can afford it. Those schools and neighborhoods are likely to be richer and whiter, exacerbating the problem.

Removing an AAP program that's 75% white from a school that's 75% students of color, but then causing most of those white kids (over time) to decamp to adjacent mostly white school districts, INCREASES segregation. No, you won't have the visual anymore of gen ed classes filled with students of color and the AAP classes filled with white kids. But those kids will be even more segregated, going to completely different schools and living in completely different neighborhoods.

So to me, the better option is to dig deeper into causes of inequality and try to address them. If there's a test for admission, don't allow families with resources to retake or try another option or talk their kids into the program. But maybe, allow at risk kids whose scores are slightly below the cutoff to join the advanced track. Provide high-quality early education programs. Make sure that special needs are addressed for all kids. These kinds of changes are much more expensive and complex than "end AAP because of segregation" but they're a better path to equity in the long run.

So your justifying segregation, got it.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they could offer AAP for all? I mean it's not like it's a real gifted program anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they could offer AAP for all? I mean it's not like it's a real gifted program anyway.

Such a clueless post. Gen ed kids aren't dumb and they don't need to be made to feel dumb because some people want to make some sort of point.

Never mind the teachers.

SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they could offer AAP for all? I mean it's not like it's a real gifted program anyway.

I read an article in the Washington Post about Youngkin’s tutoring program for kids who are failing. The article said that 1/3 of FCPS kids fail their SOLs and need tutoring or remediation. How, exactly, would AAP material work for kids who are failing the 3rd grade SOLs?

There are kids in AAP who struggle with the material. Some of the kids stronger in Math struggle with the LA. Some of the kids strong in LA struggle with the math. There is a group that is strong enough in both areas that they don’t struggle in either. If the kids who are selected for AAP are struggling with the material, how do you expect a kid at grade level or below grade level to do with AAP material?

Rotating kids to different teachers based on their abilities at their base school allows the kids who are strong in math to take Advanced Math but not have to take the more Advanced LA if they are not strong in that area. Maybe they end up in the group just below Advanced LA because it is not their strength. The kids strong in LA end up int he advanced group for LA but not Advanced Math. The kids strong in both end up in both. And now we have an Advanced group for Science and Social Studies as well.

It provides the acceleration for the kids who need the acceleration, provides differentiation levels that Teachers can handle, and it saves the County from having to pay for extra busses that are partially full because we don’t have Centers. DS’s class is doing this in 6th grade. The other benefit is that there is one Teacher teaching each subject so that we have Teachers who are specialized in math teaching math, same for science, social studies, and LA. Each Teacher is working with each kid so no one Teacher has to Teach to only the low group, they teach to all of the kids.

And kids can be shifted in groups based on how they are performing.

It makes more sense. It removes a cost from the County, provides the advanced learning some kids needs, and meets everyone where they are. It does not lead to the prestige points that some parents want and it does not provide a new school for kids to attend, which is important to some of you.

[Anonymous]

The admission criteria (testing scores) are the same for everyone and there aren’t additional fees or private transportation involved- you cannot claim inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The admission criteria (testing scores) are the same for everyone and there aren’t additional fees or private transportation involved- you cannot claim inequitable.

Actually, the admission criteria is holistic and not just based on testing scores. As far as in-pool scores for automatically creating a referral file, they are no longer the same for everyone. It used to consistently be 132 (98/99%) countywide. Now, it varies based on local school. At our high SES, for example, the in-pool cutoff is over 140. At other schools, it’s much lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The admission criteria (testing scores) are the same for everyone and there aren’t additional fees or private transportation involved- you cannot claim inequitable.

As the parent of 3 non-AAP students, we are constrained by our base ES and MS. Meanwhile, my neighbors with DC in AAP get school choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admission criteria (testing scores) are the same for everyone and there aren’t additional fees or private transportation involved- you cannot claim inequitable.

Actually, the admission criteria is holistic and not just based on testing scores. As far as in-pool scores for automatically creating a referral file, they are no longer the same for everyone. It used to consistently be 132 (98/99%) countywide. Now, it varies based on local school. At our high SES, for example, the in-pool cutoff is over 140. At other schools, it’s much lower.

In pool scores now vary by school but the admissions criteria does not (or at least that's what they say).Two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they could offer AAP for all? I mean it's not like it's a real gifted program anyway.

I read an article in the Washington Post about Youngkin’s tutoring program for kids who are failing. The article said that 1/3 of FCPS kids fail their SOLs and need tutoring or remediation. How, exactly, would AAP material work for kids who are failing the 3rd grade SOLs?

There are kids in AAP who struggle with the material. Some of the kids stronger in Math struggle with the LA. Some of the kids strong in LA struggle with the math. There is a group that is strong enough in both areas that they don’t struggle in either. If the kids who are selected for AAP are struggling with the material, how do you expect a kid at grade level or below grade level to do with AAP material?

Rotating kids to different teachers based on their abilities at their base school allows the kids who are strong in math to take Advanced Math but not have to take the more Advanced LA if they are not strong in that area. Maybe they end up in the group just below Advanced LA because it is not their strength. The kids strong in LA end up int he advanced group for LA but not Advanced Math. The kids strong in both end up in both. And now we have an Advanced group for Science and Social Studies as well.

It provides the acceleration for the kids who need the acceleration, provides differentiation levels that Teachers can handle, and it saves the County from having to pay for extra busses that are partially full because we don’t have Centers. DS’s class is doing this in 6th grade. The other benefit is that there is one Teacher teaching each subject so that we have Teachers who are specialized in math teaching math, same for science, social studies, and LA. Each Teacher is working with each kid so no one Teacher has to Teach to only the low group, they teach to all of the kids.

And kids can be shifted in groups based on how they are performing.

It makes more sense. It removes a cost from the County, provides the advanced learning some kids needs, and meets everyone where they are. It does not lead to the prestige points that some parents want and it does not provide a new school for kids to attend, which is important to some of you.

Just by believing in them we'd raise them to a higher standard! AAP for everyone would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they could offer AAP for all? I mean it's not like it's a real gifted program anyway.

I read an article in the Washington Post about Youngkin’s tutoring program for kids who are failing. The article said that 1/3 of FCPS kids fail their SOLs and need tutoring or remediation. How, exactly, would AAP material work for kids who are failing the 3rd grade SOLs?

There are kids in AAP who struggle with the material. Some of the kids stronger in Math struggle with the LA. Some of the kids strong in LA struggle with the math. There is a group that is strong enough in both areas that they don’t struggle in either. If the kids who are selected for AAP are struggling with the material, how do you expect a kid at grade level or below grade level to do with AAP material?

Rotating kids to different teachers based on their abilities at their base school allows the kids who are strong in math to take Advanced Math but not have to take the more Advanced LA if they are not strong in that area. Maybe they end up in the group just below Advanced LA because it is not their strength. The kids strong in LA end up int he advanced group for LA but not Advanced Math. The kids strong in both end up in both. And now we have an Advanced group for Science and Social Studies as well.

It provides the acceleration for the kids who need the acceleration, provides differentiation levels that Teachers can handle, and it saves the County from having to pay for extra busses that are partially full because we don’t have Centers. DS’s class is doing this in 6th grade. The other benefit is that there is one Teacher teaching each subject so that we have Teachers who are specialized in math teaching math, same for science, social studies, and LA. Each Teacher is working with each kid so no one Teacher has to Teach to only the low group, they teach to all of the kids.

And kids can be shifted in groups based on how they are performing.

It makes more sense. It removes a cost from the County, provides the advanced learning some kids needs, and meets everyone where they are. It does not lead to the prestige points that some parents want and it does not provide a new school for kids to attend, which is important to some of you.

I agree that meeting every kid where they are should be the goal. The idea that all outcomes need to be equal is a fool's errand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they could offer AAP for all? I mean it's not like it's a real gifted program anyway.

If others believed in them and had higher expectations many would do so much better! And if this helps just 1 in 10 kids it is completely worth it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you get rid of AAP, then what is a teacher to do with a class of 30 kids with widely ranging skill levels and aptitudes? I'd like to hear from teachers about this not overly-opinionated parents who despise AAP because they actually don't care that much about their kids education and resent that others do and get something for it.

They already have to deal with that range. My kid's 6th grade gen ed class ranged from kids reading at a 3nd grade level to a couple reading at an 8th grade level. The way they teachers handle it is to meet with the kids who are above grade level for maybe 15 minutes every second week.

AAP acceptance doesn't heavily rely on the kid's level of advancement. There are kids who are advanced in all subjects, have decent test scores, and have a high GBRS who don't get in. There are also kids who are below or on grade level in one or several subjects who do get in. Gen ed classes range from 3 or so years below grade level to 2 or so years above. AAP classes range from a year below grade level to maybe 3 years above. If the goal is to reduce the need for teachers to differentiate across too wide of a range of learners, the selection process does a poor job of achieving that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you get rid of AAP, then what is a teacher to do with a class of 30 kids with widely ranging skill levels and aptitudes? I'd like to hear from teachers about this not overly-opinionated parents who despise AAP because they actually don't care that much about their kids education and resent that others do and get something for it.

They already have to deal with that range. My kid's 6th grade gen ed class ranged from kids reading at a 3nd grade level to a couple reading at an 8th grade level. The way they teachers handle it is to meet with the kids who are above grade level for maybe 15 minutes every second week.

AAP acceptance doesn't heavily rely on the kid's level of advancement. There are kids who are advanced in all subjects, have decent test scores, and have a high GBRS who don't get in. There are also kids who are below or on grade level in one or several subjects who do get in. Gen ed classes range from 3 or so years below grade level to 2 or so years above. AAP classes range from a year below grade level to maybe 3 years above. If the goal is to reduce the need for teachers to differentiate across too wide of a range of learners, the selection process does a poor job of achieving that goal.

At our school 4th graders reading at the 8th grade level get ignored because they know they'll be all right in the long run and mom and dad will cover the costs of educating these kids. Kids that are below grade level get daily reading groups and 95% of the teacher's time. This is all in the name of equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you get rid of AAP, then what is a teacher to do with a class of 30 kids with widely ranging skill levels and aptitudes? I'd like to hear from teachers about this not overly-opinionated parents who despise AAP because they actually don't care that much about their kids education and resent that others do and get something for it.

They already have to deal with that range. My kid's 6th grade gen ed class ranged from kids reading at a 3nd grade level to a couple reading at an 8th grade level. The way they teachers handle it is to meet with the kids who are above grade level for maybe 15 minutes every second week.

AAP acceptance doesn't heavily rely on the kid's level of advancement. There are kids who are advanced in all subjects, have decent test scores, and have a high GBRS who don't get in. There are also kids who are below or on grade level in one or several subjects who do get in. Gen ed classes range from 3 or so years below grade level to 2 or so years above. AAP classes range from a year below grade level to maybe 3 years above. If the goal is to reduce the need for teachers to differentiate across too wide of a range of learners, the selection process does a poor job of achieving that goal.

At our school 4th graders reading at the 8th grade level get ignored because they know they'll be all right in the long run and mom and dad will cover the costs of educating these kids. Kids that are below grade level get daily reading groups and 95% of the teacher's time. This is all in the name of equity.

And they still don't improve.

Ultimately, Ive accepted that the schools will not educate my above average non-AAP kid. As we've supplemented with basic foundational stuff at home like reading novels and the occasional kahn academy, the gaps have grown dramatically, so we are definitely stuck with supplementing otherwise our kid does nothing. I enjoy knowing that this kid has a great education.

It's also amusing to watch FCPS make these gaps larger as they ruin the education of on-level students or other above average students who don't have the time and resources that my kid has while claiming to try and close the gaps of kids who don't have the time and resources my kid has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admission criteria (testing scores) are the same for everyone and there aren’t additional fees or private transportation involved- you cannot claim inequitable.

As the parent of 3 non-AAP students, we are constrained by our base ES and MS. Meanwhile, my neighbors with DC in AAP get school choice.

Kids that qualify for special Ed services or ESL services also get priority for school of choice to attend the local schools that offer these programs. No one seems to complain about that