What do you say to your student

[Anonymous]

I tell my kid everyone has different strengths and AAP are for kids who are strong in math and/or reading. I teach my kids to value everyone regardless of their strengths and weaknesses, so not being in aap does not make someone else less than. We also try to reward effort not outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never discussed it with my kid, until there was a disruption in class. He said a kid was rolling on the floor during class and principal had to be called. I said well if you get into AAP there would not be nonsense like this.

He's on travel soccer but on the third team, it's really just glorified rec. I analogized that AAP is like the first team, some kids are good at sports and some kids are good at school. It's not that who is smarter.

This seems a bit like you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid being straight with your DC.

Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

No, troll, that's not a thing. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

No, troll, that's not a thing. SMH

It actually is a thing. Committee placed kids are entitled to LIV services including advanced math. Those services can only be withdrawn with parental consent no matter how poorly the kid is performing. Push in kids have to earn their spaces and their presence in the class is contingent on their being space regardless of their scores or ability

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

No, troll, that's not a thing. SMH

It actually is a thing. Committee placed kids are entitled to LIV services including advanced math. Those services can only be withdrawn with parental consent no matter how poorly the kid is performing. Push in kids have to earn their spaces and their presence in the class is contingent on their being space regardless of their scores or ability

No. Doing poorly in math is no selling point for any kid - and kids in LIV are competitive, they are the last kids who happily skate. Unhappily, maybe, but not happily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

It wasn't a selling point for the kid, but it certainly was a fear/selling point for us as parents as motivation to prep for COGAT/NNAT and prepare the best package for admission, whereas we normally wouldn't care about reading/writing otherwise (and have now gone back to not emphasizing this area).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was at a parent information meeting tonight and they shared about How to Raise an Adult (Lythcot-Haines) and a book about Never Enough: Toxic Achievement Culture (Wallace) and what it’s doing to our kids.

It got me thinking about how we talk to kids about AAP and how it can not only be damaging to the community feeling but to kids both who are eligible and not eligible because of our focus as adults. It wasn’t like this where I grew up.

Can we change this? I want kids to have their needs met but I’m also worried about the messages kids are soaking in. There were some good tips in both books for me as a parent but it’s not how I hear many parents talking about school with other parents and even in front of their kids.

Let's change all grades to Pass/fail, all the way through high school. Drop APs and all the advanced crap. Implement a standardized test (like the SAT) at all grade levels starting in MS. Then the culture might change and kids might explore all courses rather than specialize in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never discussed it with my kid, until there was a disruption in class. He said a kid was rolling on the floor during class and principal had to be called. I said well if you get into AAP there would not be nonsense like this.

He's on travel soccer but on the third team, it's really just glorified rec. I analogized that AAP is like the first team, some kids are good at sports and some kids are good at school. It's not that who is smarter.

The problem is that you're telling your kid that the kids in AAP are "good at school" which in turn implies that the kids not in AAP are not "good at school." There is a huge overlap between the top kids who didn't get admitted to AAP and the bottom 2/3 of the AAP classroom, and you're perpetuating the idea that the top gen ed kids are somehow less than the AAP kids, rather than being completely indistinguishable from the AAP kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

No, troll, that's not a thing. SMH

It actually is a thing. Committee placed kids are entitled to LIV services including advanced math. Those services can only be withdrawn with parental consent no matter how poorly the kid is performing. Push in kids have to earn their spaces and their presence in the class is contingent on their being space regardless of their scores or ability

No. Doing poorly in math is no selling point for any kid - and kids in LIV are competitive, they are the last kids who happily skate. Unhappily, maybe, but not happily.

DP. The issue is that kids in advanced math or who are principal placed in the LLIV can be removed from the program, even if they're doing quite well, due to space constraints. AAP kids cannot be removed. Hypothetically speaking, say an AAP kid is struggling with the advanced math, failed the SOL the previous year, and is getting poor grades, while a gen ed advanced math kid is the top kid in the class and had a perfect SOL score. If another kid gets admitted to AAP and there's no longer room in the classroom to accommodate everyone, the gen ed, top-of-the-class kid will be the one removed and not the failing AAP kid. It's less stressful for both the parent and the kid when you know that your kid can't be kicked out of advanced math due to logistical issues or one somewhat-less-than-stellar SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

No, troll, that's not a thing. SMH

It actually is a thing. Committee placed kids are entitled to LIV services including advanced math. Those services can only be withdrawn with parental consent no matter how poorly the kid is performing. Push in kids have to earn their spaces and their presence in the class is contingent on their being space regardless of their scores or ability

No. Doing poorly in math is no selling point for any kid - and kids in LIV are competitive, they are the last kids who happily skate. Unhappily, maybe, but not happily.

DP. The issue is that kids in advanced math or who are principal placed in the LLIV can be removed from the program, even if they're doing quite well, due to space constraints. AAP kids cannot be removed. Hypothetically speaking, say an AAP kid is struggling with the advanced math, failed the SOL the previous year, and is getting poor grades, while a gen ed advanced math kid is the top kid in the class and had a perfect SOL score. If another kid gets admitted to AAP and there's no longer room in the classroom to accommodate everyone, the gen ed, top-of-the-class kid will be the one removed and not the failing AAP kid. It's less stressful for both the parent and the kid when you know that your kid can't be kicked out of advanced math due to logistical issues or one somewhat-less-than-stellar SOL.

No, Advanced Math is an official level, as long as they do well, they continue. It's not a principal placement that is subject to space considerations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, fwiw, "kid rolling on the floor" could be in AAP, that's not an indication of "smarter" or "not smarter".

PP here, this is misleading. A kid with behavioral problems is less likely to get a good teacher's GBRS/HOPE to be admitted into AAP. Is it possible, sure, but is it likely, no.

What's wrong with compare AAP to travel sports first team? I thought it's a straight forward analogy.

Some teachers will give kids with behavioral problems good GBRS/HOPE to get them out of the school and into the center. Other teachers just give accurate GBRS/HOPE without an ulterior motive, and behavioral problems are not an indication of low or high IQ.

What's wrong with comparison of AAP to travel sports? That's not a bad analogy but then you ended by saying it's not about who is smarter. If you tell your kid that, they won't believe you.

In sports you have to earn your position every year in tryouts and coaches will cut kids they are mistaken about. For LIV, once you are in you are in no matter how wrong the committee got it. Not having to do the work to stay in advanced math anymore was a huge selling point of LIV for our kid

No, troll, that's not a thing. SMH

It actually is a thing. Committee placed kids are entitled to LIV services including advanced math. Those services can only be withdrawn with parental consent no matter how poorly the kid is performing. Push in kids have to earn their spaces and their presence in the class is contingent on their being space regardless of their scores or ability

No. Doing poorly in math is no selling point for any kid - and kids in LIV are competitive, they are the last kids who happily skate. Unhappily, maybe, but not happily.

DP. The issue is that kids in advanced math or who are principal placed in the LLIV can be removed from the program, even if they're doing quite well, due to space constraints. AAP kids cannot be removed. Hypothetically speaking, say an AAP kid is struggling with the advanced math, failed the SOL the previous year, and is getting poor grades, while a gen ed advanced math kid is the top kid in the class and had a perfect SOL score. If another kid gets admitted to AAP and there's no longer room in the classroom to accommodate everyone, the gen ed, top-of-the-class kid will be the one removed and not the failing AAP kid. It's less stressful for both the parent and the kid when you know that your kid can't be kicked out of advanced math due to logistical issues or one somewhat-less-than-stellar SOL.

No, Advanced Math is an official level, as long as they do well, they continue. It's not a principal placement that is subject to space considerations.

That is not correct. Advanced Math placement is decided by each school, there is no committee placement. Any child who is committee placed and defers is guaranteed Advanced Math but any child who is not committee placed for LIV can be removed from Advanced Math.

Our school says it starts Advanced Math in third grade but it is a differentiated group in the classroom. It is easy to move kids in and out of the Advanced Math group. There is a separate Advanced Math class in fifth grade and at that time it becomes harder for kids to be dropped. That did not mean that kids were not moved out of the group, because a few were. I can only guess that the kids struggled with the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never even told my kid. Kid just assumed it was regular school.

My kid was told about an hour before orientation. Why tell them until you have to?

Bc it’s not just about telling your kid the moment they enter the class. It’s about adjusting attitudes, stereotypes and the way we speak to all of our kids about the reality that we have 2 educational programs in 1 school system. Frankly, the schools could do a better job helping parents message this.

Huh? Orientation was in the spring. AAP class didn’t start for months.