More Hypocrisy from Hynes & Palchik

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time you add more testing and metrics to the programs, you are adding more layers of bureaucracy and money that is not going to the classroom. More unintended consequences that are not helpful.

+1

And, don't forget, LOTS more money for those conducting the "studies."

Agree with this. Put a full-time qualified AART and a full-time parent liaison at every single school with >30% FARMS and I guarantee you'd see the numbers of underrepresented kids in AAP increase, probably by a lot. You don't need more money for studies about why these kids aren't well-represented in the program. Our base school is a good example of this--over 30% FARMS with a p/t person in both positions. They are overworked and have a tough time coordinating with each other and reaching out to parents who may or may not understand English well because the AART and parent liasion are on different schedules. There are plenty of kids who would more than likely qualify for Level IV if the AART had more time to visit the classrooms and could better reach their parents in collaboration with someone who could translate.

[Anonymous]

What bothers me is that the goal does not appear to be improving the quality of education for all students. It's simply finding a way to shoehorn more non-Asian minority kids into AAP so Hynes and Palchik can get an award from the NAACP.

And that's probably only going to happen if AAP gets even bigger, further marginalizing the GenEd classes, or qualified Asian and white kids are penalized.

If they really care so much, they should act now to shrink AAP dramatically and improve the quality of GenEd in FCPS. Not use our money to pay for yet another study.

[Anonymous]

+1000000 to full-time AARTs and PLsLevel the playing field by lowering the qualifying scores for URM and raise the qualifying scores for prepped and pushy parented ORM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1000000 to full-time AARTs and PLsLevel the playing field by lowering the qualifying scores for URM and raise the qualifying scores for prepped and pushy parented ORM.

AARTs do not score the tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1000000 to full-time AARTs and PLsLevel the playing field by lowering the qualifying scores for URM and raise the qualifying scores for prepped and pushy parented ORM.

What is this going to fix? You would be lowering standards if you change qualifying scores. Get rid of AAP altogether.

[Anonymous]

It's time for charter schools.

[Anonymous]

How come nobody complains about the demographics at TJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How come nobody complains about the demographics at TJ?

You are not serious, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, their solution is more bureaucracy, metrics, etc.

You can close an achievement gap from the top or the bottom. This whole concept should be trashed.

Education should be getting the best from every child. Quit worrying about the gaps and focus on each student.

Get rid of the AAP program and provide for every child in every class.

Yeah, right. The whole concept of differentiation is a mirage. In order for a teacher to teach to five different levels, she has to ignore 4 groups while focusing on one. In my experience, that meant my child got 15 min. of "small group" reading time with the teacher PER WEEK. The kids who were not getting any help learning to read at home (probably b/c no one told the parents that they should be coaching their child on reading every day), got small group sessions with the teacher 3-5 times a week. The rest of the time (which was usually a 90 min. language arts block every day), my child was left to her own devices at "stations" where she was supposed to self entertain. Newsflash -- kids who can't read won't make use of "read to self station."

I would support getting rid of AAP IF and only IF kids were grouped in classes that were based on their levels. You can call it tracking -- although I don't think that is an accurate term b/c kids should be allowed to change groups each year. But, we can't expect ONE teacher to teach five different speeds. If similar kids are put in classes together, then the teacher can spend 80% of her time teaching the whole group and perhaps 20% (or less) attending to specific needs. At least in that scenario, each kid would get 80% of the time being TAUGHT something -- as opposed to fiddling about waiting for their one 15-min. session per week when the teacher teaches them something.

Also, there is great variation among principals in understanding and/or supporting the needs of advanced learners. Some principals simply do not believe in advanced learners and would actively work to keep the faster kids back so as not to make the rest of the kids feel bad. Everyone must be uniformly in the middle so we don't look like we are favoring the smart kids. Some schools have large groups of AAP kids, but other feeder schools have very few. There is an advantage in putting advanced kids together.

I teach elementary students and I agree with you. I am stretched thin. It's pretty much impossible to plan quality Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop, and reading groups (in addition to a morning meeting, math workshop, social studies and science) to meet the needs of 25 students in a classroom with DRA instructional levels that fall between 16-40. Having a class of students all at the same (or similar) reading levels would help with planning and instruction.

Plus one to both these posts. Listen to the teacher. It is not doable for teachers to "differentiate within the classroom" and meet even the basic needs of kids across a huge range of aptitudes. AAP meant our DC did not have to stay at a base school where the attempts at differentiation were well meant but failed both the kids who needed remedial help and the kids who needed more challenges. If they dump the AAP structure they'd better replace it with tracking so that classes can contain similar levels. AAP-haters here will also squawk that tracking is evil and somehow hurts kids. It can't hurt them as much as trying to differentiate teaching--which stretches teachers too thin and shortchanges kids of all abilities.

[Anonymous]

You can tell that some people don’t really care if AAP is academically rigorous or divisive - as long as their own kids get in, it’s all good. No wonder Hynes and Palchik behave this way. They know continuing to expand this bloated program will be hailed as a win-win by enough people who’ll write checks to Dalia’s next campaign.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of one kid in 5th grade Gen Ed (Level III AAP at a Center, which is our base school) and a 2nd grader who likely will remain in Gen Ed, I would much prefer "tracking" to the over-inflated AAP program. If you do "tracking", which is what I had growing up, kids can be placed in higher or lower levels for different subjects and it is flexible year to year. Instead, kids are selected based on ridiculous tests in first and second grade that may have nothing to do with how high achieving they are. I agree that kids that truly are Gifted would need something more, but the current AAP is mostly high-achieving (not gifted) kids, many of whom were prepped for the tests so that they could stay at the Center school that their older sibling attended but has since graduated from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, their solution is more bureaucracy, metrics, etc.

You can close an achievement gap from the top or the bottom. This whole concept should be trashed.

Education should be getting the best from every child. Quit worrying about the gaps and focus on each student.

Get rid of the AAP program and provide for every child in every class.

THIS x1,000,000

Get rid of the teachers and principals who discriminate and unnecessarily punish students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of one kid in 5th grade Gen Ed (Level III AAP at a Center, which is our base school) and a 2nd grader who likely will remain in Gen Ed, I would much prefer "tracking" to the over-inflated AAP program. If you do "tracking", which is what I had growing up, kids can be placed in higher or lower levels for different subjects and it is flexible year to year. Instead, kids are selected based on ridiculous tests in first and second grade that may have nothing to do with how high achieving they are. I agree that kids that truly are Gifted would need something more, but the current AAP is mostly high-achieving (not gifted) kids, many of whom were prepped for the tests so that they could stay at the Center school that their older sibling attended but has since graduated from.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you have a valid point and I would suggest you bring it up with them. We had an issue related to schools and I asked to meet with them. They took time out of their Sunday afternoon and met with us for a couple of hours at a coffee shop - they both started as advocates for things and ended up running for school board so they are very open to hearing from parents. Their email addresses are public but in case you can't find: [e-mail] and [e-mail].


Hynes has not met with her constituents or sent out a newsletter in close to 2 years! It's ridiculous. Who cares if she meets with a couple of people on an issue? If she never poses the change to the public, then it's just backroom politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you have a valid point and I would suggest you bring it up with them. We had an issue related to schools and I asked to meet with them. They took time out of their Sunday afternoon and met with us for a couple of hours at a coffee shop - they both started as advocates for things and ended up running for school board so they are very open to hearing from parents. Their email addresses are public but in case you can't find: [e-mail] and [e-mail].

Hynes has not met with her constituents or sent out a newsletter in close to 2 years! It's ridiculous. Who cares if she meets with a couple of people on an issue? If she never poses the change to the public, then it's just backroom politics.