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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.

All the kids are taking the same standardized tests. They all have equal access to the same programs. If you are able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in subjects, it makes perfect sense to be able to receive a higher level of acceleration and material taught. Just the same if a child tests low, remedial measures are put in place.

So you prepped your kids for the tests. That is essentially cheating - it is not indicative of your child’s giftedness. Which, again, is a HUGE part of the problem.

(Also, does no one else think it’s insane to basically permanently track kids at ages 6-7? Johnny didn’t score as well on a test he didn’t prepare for in second grade [because you’re not supposed to prepare for it] as Timmy whose Mommy was giving him practice tests for three months, so Johnny is essentially screwed for the the rest of his time in FCPS?)

To get rid of APP, everyone needs to vote for the Democrat-backed candidates running for school board positions.

The republicans will only keep AAP in place.

Vote D and put an end to AAP.

Although I agree the GOP is usually okay with segregation, this is accurate. I've looked at the candidate's platform and haven't seen anything about eliminating AAP.

Segregation is a result of individual learning preferences. Students who prefer a standard pace opt for a regular class, while those seeking a more in-depth understanding choose to enroll in Honors class for the same subject. And, students who aim to take their learning to an advanced level decide to join corresponding AP class. This segregation of students into these various classes happens because of student's choice and their learning preference.

But politicians want their sheep followers to take note of race of students in these three different classes, and what skin color is majority and what other skin color is out numbered especially in the advanced class, to drive a wedge between racial groups.

Or maybe they just want a fair system that elevates all students and helps them develop their ptoential

The truth is that that system exists but it is not accessed by many families in ES because the parents are not engaged. Teachers are allowed to refer kids for LIV because there is a concern about deserving kids who did not hit the in-pool score not being referred by parents. The recent change to localized in-pool scores is an effort to get more kids in front of the committee who were not in the past because their test scores were not high enough. Young Scholars is more active at Title 1 schools then it is at UMC schools for a reason. Class sizes are intentionally small at Title 1 schools for a reason.

But you need the parents to buy in and encourage their kids. Get their kids to school. Care about their grades and activities at school. And that is missing at most Title 1 schools.

It is not because the parents don’t love their kids, because they do. But the parents are trying to take care of their families and don’t have time for meetings and info sessions and parent teacher conferences. The parents don’t have the money to enroll their kids in after school activities at the school and probably don’t have the time to research scholarships for their kid. They sure don’t have the time to run math club or STEM Scouts or some other enrichment activity. Most importantly, the parents don’t have an education themselves and do not value a high school degree.

A kid at a Title 1 school who shows any interest in school is going to receive so much help and encouragement and you can only help that will take them into HS and beyond because the likelihood that they get that support at home is small.

The problem with the current system is a lot of families with means are able to access this programming through appeals, prep or providing outside diagnosis to bolster their claims of giftedness.

Exactly it provides a way around desegregation laws. Families with money have their kids put into AAP whereas those without are in gened. It's that simple.

This is an incredibly obtuse take. I personally know lower income children who not only got in but thrived in AAP. Stop making stuff up.

Sure there are a few rare exceptions, but AAP has a much lower FARMS rate than Gen-ed. It is a way to segregate the rich from the poor. That isn't even up for debate.

Agree that may be an effect, but that doesn't mean it's the intent/motivation. The motivation/intent is to meet kids where they are. If you think the entire program is driven by a desire for socioeconomic segregation, then we live in different worlds. Housing policy and choices and school boundaries have FAR more to do with socioeconomic segregation than the AAP/GenEd split does within a given school.

Of course it's not the intent but it is the result.AAP ends up being socioeconomic segregation.

It's unfortunate that this is true.

I wonder where you are in the county. Because that's not what I see at all.

FCPS and it's exactly what I see everytime I go to my kids AAP center. A bunch of kids from wealthy families segregated from the rest of the county.

And that’s OK. Those kids didn’t choose their parents and can’t help being more prepared for education.

This program only widens the achievement gap.

You seem to be suggesting we close the racial achievement gap not by lifting up the lower performing students, but instead, by taking away learning opportunities for the best performing students.

“Closing the racial achievement gap from the top down,” in other words.

[Anonymous]

I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.

All the kids are taking the same standardized tests. They all have equal access to the same programs. If you are able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in subjects, it makes perfect sense to be able to receive a higher level of acceleration and material taught. Just the same if a child tests low, remedial measures are put in place.

So you prepped your kids for the tests. That is essentially cheating - it is not indicative of your child’s giftedness. Which, again, is a HUGE part of the problem.

(Also, does no one else think it’s insane to basically permanently track kids at ages 6-7? Johnny didn’t score as well on a test he didn’t prepare for in second grade [because you’re not supposed to prepare for it] as Timmy whose Mommy was giving him practice tests for three months, so Johnny is essentially screwed for the the rest of his time in FCPS?)

To get rid of APP, everyone needs to vote for the Democrat-backed candidates running for school board positions.

The republicans will only keep AAP in place.

Vote D and put an end to AAP.

Although I agree the GOP is usually okay with segregation, this is accurate. I've looked at the candidate's platform and haven't seen anything about eliminating AAP.

Segregation is a result of individual learning preferences. Students who prefer a standard pace opt for a regular class, while those seeking a more in-depth understanding choose to enroll in Honors class for the same subject. And, students who aim to take their learning to an advanced level decide to join corresponding AP class. This segregation of students into these various classes happens because of student's choice and their learning preference.

But politicians want their sheep followers to take note of race of students in these three different classes, and what skin color is majority and what other skin color is out numbered especially in the advanced class, to drive a wedge between racial groups.

Or maybe they just want a fair system that elevates all students and helps them develop their ptoential

The truth is that that system exists but it is not accessed by many families in ES because the parents are not engaged. Teachers are allowed to refer kids for LIV because there is a concern about deserving kids who did not hit the in-pool score not being referred by parents. The recent change to localized in-pool scores is an effort to get more kids in front of the committee who were not in the past because their test scores were not high enough. Young Scholars is more active at Title 1 schools then it is at UMC schools for a reason. Class sizes are intentionally small at Title 1 schools for a reason.

But you need the parents to buy in and encourage their kids. Get their kids to school. Care about their grades and activities at school. And that is missing at most Title 1 schools.

It is not because the parents don’t love their kids, because they do. But the parents are trying to take care of their families and don’t have time for meetings and info sessions and parent teacher conferences. The parents don’t have the money to enroll their kids in after school activities at the school and probably don’t have the time to research scholarships for their kid. They sure don’t have the time to run math club or STEM Scouts or some other enrichment activity. Most importantly, the parents don’t have an education themselves and do not value a high school degree.

A kid at a Title 1 school who shows any interest in school is going to receive so much help and encouragement and you can only help that will take them into HS and beyond because the likelihood that they get that support at home is small.

The problem with the current system is a lot of families with means are able to access this programming through appeals, prep or providing outside diagnosis to bolster their claims of giftedness.

Exactly it provides a way around desegregation laws. Families with money have their kids put into AAP whereas those without are in gened. It's that simple.

This is an incredibly obtuse take. I personally know lower income children who not only got in but thrived in AAP. Stop making stuff up.

Sure there are a few rare exceptions, but AAP has a much lower FARMS rate than Gen-ed. It is a way to segregate the rich from the poor. That isn't even up for debate.

Agree that may be an effect, but that doesn't mean it's the intent/motivation. The motivation/intent is to meet kids where they are. If you think the entire program is driven by a desire for socioeconomic segregation, then we live in different worlds. Housing policy and choices and school boundaries have FAR more to do with socioeconomic segregation than the AAP/GenEd split does within a given school.

Of course it's not the intent but it is the result.AAP ends up being socioeconomic segregation.

It's unfortunate that this is true.

I wonder where you are in the county. Because that's not what I see at all.

FCPS and it's exactly what I see everytime I go to my kids AAP center. A bunch of kids from wealthy families segregated from the rest of the county.

And that’s OK. Those kids didn’t choose their parents and can’t help being more prepared for education.

This program only widens the achievement gap.

You seem to be suggesting we close the racial achievement gap not by lifting up the lower performing students, but instead, by taking away learning opportunities for the best performing students.

“Closing the racial achievement gap from the top down,” in other words.

I hate to break this to you but this is what has been going on for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.

All the kids are taking the same standardized tests. They all have equal access to the same programs. If you are able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in subjects, it makes perfect sense to be able to receive a higher level of acceleration and material taught. Just the same if a child tests low, remedial measures are put in place.

So you prepped your kids for the tests. That is essentially cheating - it is not indicative of your child’s giftedness. Which, again, is a HUGE part of the problem.

(Also, does no one else think it’s insane to basically permanently track kids at ages 6-7? Johnny didn’t score as well on a test he didn’t prepare for in second grade [because you’re not supposed to prepare for it] as Timmy whose Mommy was giving him practice tests for three months, so Johnny is essentially screwed for the the rest of his time in FCPS?)

To get rid of APP, everyone needs to vote for the Democrat-backed candidates running for school board positions.

The republicans will only keep AAP in place.

Vote D and put an end to AAP.

Although I agree the GOP is usually okay with segregation, this is accurate. I've looked at the candidate's platform and haven't seen anything about eliminating AAP.

Segregation is a result of individual learning preferences. Students who prefer a standard pace opt for a regular class, while those seeking a more in-depth understanding choose to enroll in Honors class for the same subject. And, students who aim to take their learning to an advanced level decide to join corresponding AP class. This segregation of students into these various classes happens because of student's choice and their learning preference.

But politicians want their sheep followers to take note of race of students in these three different classes, and what skin color is majority and what other skin color is out numbered especially in the advanced class, to drive a wedge between racial groups.

Or maybe they just want a fair system that elevates all students and helps them develop their ptoential

The truth is that that system exists but it is not accessed by many families in ES because the parents are not engaged. Teachers are allowed to refer kids for LIV because there is a concern about deserving kids who did not hit the in-pool score not being referred by parents. The recent change to localized in-pool scores is an effort to get more kids in front of the committee who were not in the past because their test scores were not high enough. Young Scholars is more active at Title 1 schools then it is at UMC schools for a reason. Class sizes are intentionally small at Title 1 schools for a reason.

But you need the parents to buy in and encourage their kids. Get their kids to school. Care about their grades and activities at school. And that is missing at most Title 1 schools.

It is not because the parents don’t love their kids, because they do. But the parents are trying to take care of their families and don’t have time for meetings and info sessions and parent teacher conferences. The parents don’t have the money to enroll their kids in after school activities at the school and probably don’t have the time to research scholarships for their kid. They sure don’t have the time to run math club or STEM Scouts or some other enrichment activity. Most importantly, the parents don’t have an education themselves and do not value a high school degree.

A kid at a Title 1 school who shows any interest in school is going to receive so much help and encouragement and you can only help that will take them into HS and beyond because the likelihood that they get that support at home is small.

The problem with the current system is a lot of families with means are able to access this programming through appeals, prep or providing outside diagnosis to bolster their claims of giftedness.

Exactly it provides a way around desegregation laws. Families with money have their kids put into AAP whereas those without are in gened. It's that simple.

This is an incredibly obtuse take. I personally know lower income children who not only got in but thrived in AAP. Stop making stuff up.

Sure there are a few rare exceptions, but AAP has a much lower FARMS rate than Gen-ed. It is a way to segregate the rich from the poor. That isn't even up for debate.

Agree that may be an effect, but that doesn't mean it's the intent/motivation. The motivation/intent is to meet kids where they are. If you think the entire program is driven by a desire for socioeconomic segregation, then we live in different worlds. Housing policy and choices and school boundaries have FAR more to do with socioeconomic segregation than the AAP/GenEd split does within a given school.

Of course it's not the intent but it is the result.AAP ends up being socioeconomic segregation.

It's unfortunate that this is true.

I wonder where you are in the county. Because that's not what I see at all.

It's exactly what I see and is aligned with the statistic that AAP has a lower free lunch percentage than gen ed.

You could get rid of AAP and you'd still have the same basic level of socioeconomic segregation between schools. You could keep AAP but lose "centers" and there'd still be segregation. It's housing, not the program. Sure, within a given school you might see a bit of a different distribution socioeconomically between AAP and GenEd, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to housing-based socioeconomic segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.

All the kids are taking the same standardized tests. They all have equal access to the same programs. If you are able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in subjects, it makes perfect sense to be able to receive a higher level of acceleration and material taught. Just the same if a child tests low, remedial measures are put in place.

So you prepped your kids for the tests. That is essentially cheating - it is not indicative of your child’s giftedness. Which, again, is a HUGE part of the problem.

(Also, does no one else think it’s insane to basically permanently track kids at ages 6-7? Johnny didn’t score as well on a test he didn’t prepare for in second grade [because you’re not supposed to prepare for it] as Timmy whose Mommy was giving him practice tests for three months, so Johnny is essentially screwed for the the rest of his time in FCPS?)

To get rid of APP, everyone needs to vote for the Democrat-backed candidates running for school board positions.

The republicans will only keep AAP in place.

Vote D and put an end to AAP.

Although I agree the GOP is usually okay with segregation, this is accurate. I've looked at the candidate's platform and haven't seen anything about eliminating AAP.

Segregation is a result of individual learning preferences. Students who prefer a standard pace opt for a regular class, while those seeking a more in-depth understanding choose to enroll in Honors class for the same subject. And, students who aim to take their learning to an advanced level decide to join corresponding AP class. This segregation of students into these various classes happens because of student's choice and their learning preference.

But politicians want their sheep followers to take note of race of students in these three different classes, and what skin color is majority and what other skin color is out numbered especially in the advanced class, to drive a wedge between racial groups.

Or maybe they just want a fair system that elevates all students and helps them develop their ptoential

The truth is that that system exists but it is not accessed by many families in ES because the parents are not engaged. Teachers are allowed to refer kids for LIV because there is a concern about deserving kids who did not hit the in-pool score not being referred by parents. The recent change to localized in-pool scores is an effort to get more kids in front of the committee who were not in the past because their test scores were not high enough. Young Scholars is more active at Title 1 schools then it is at UMC schools for a reason. Class sizes are intentionally small at Title 1 schools for a reason.

But you need the parents to buy in and encourage their kids. Get their kids to school. Care about their grades and activities at school. And that is missing at most Title 1 schools.

It is not because the parents don’t love their kids, because they do. But the parents are trying to take care of their families and don’t have time for meetings and info sessions and parent teacher conferences. The parents don’t have the money to enroll their kids in after school activities at the school and probably don’t have the time to research scholarships for their kid. They sure don’t have the time to run math club or STEM Scouts or some other enrichment activity. Most importantly, the parents don’t have an education themselves and do not value a high school degree.

A kid at a Title 1 school who shows any interest in school is going to receive so much help and encouragement and you can only help that will take them into HS and beyond because the likelihood that they get that support at home is small.

The problem with the current system is a lot of families with means are able to access this programming through appeals, prep or providing outside diagnosis to bolster their claims of giftedness.

Exactly it provides a way around desegregation laws. Families with money have their kids put into AAP whereas those without are in gened. It's that simple.

This is an incredibly obtuse take. I personally know lower income children who not only got in but thrived in AAP. Stop making stuff up.

Sure there are a few rare exceptions, but AAP has a much lower FARMS rate than Gen-ed. It is a way to segregate the rich from the poor. That isn't even up for debate.

Agree that may be an effect, but that doesn't mean it's the intent/motivation. The motivation/intent is to meet kids where they are. If you think the entire program is driven by a desire for socioeconomic segregation, then we live in different worlds. Housing policy and choices and school boundaries have FAR more to do with socioeconomic segregation than the AAP/GenEd split does within a given school.

Of course it's not the intent but it is the result.AAP ends up being socioeconomic segregation.

It's unfortunate that this is true.

I wonder where you are in the county. Because that's not what I see at all.

FCPS and it's exactly what I see everytime I go to my kids AAP center. A bunch of kids from wealthy families segregated from the rest of the county.

And that’s OK. Those kids didn’t choose their parents and can’t help being more prepared for education.

This program only widens the achievement gap.

You seem to be suggesting we close the racial achievement gap not by lifting up the lower performing students, but instead, by taking away learning opportunities for the best performing students.

“Closing the racial achievement gap from the top down,” in other words.

Reducing opportunities for high-achieving students is the only reliable way to reduce the gap. Nothing else works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

You realize that this is what many European school systems do, correct? There are different schools that track kids for trade or college professions starting in 4th or 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

[Anonymous]

Really it is equity that should be eliminated. There is no equity and there cannot be. You have to take people where they are and give them a chance but equity --- no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

LOL please cite your source for this nonsense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

And… this would be a terrible way to select a team for any competitive sport.

You DO realize that in athletics the kids (and even professional level adults!) have to make the team every single year, don’t you? You don’t get selected after one good tryout and then have a guaranteed spot forever. Some kids who aren’t necessarily natural athletes end up being scrappy overachievers and incredible assets to their teams, and some naturally gifted athletes just can’t or won’t perform in a competitive setting.

And academic achievement isn’t really different. Make the “gifted” kids earn their spot every year, and allow other kids a fair chance to see if they can “overachieve” despite less than gifted IQ scores…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

I know this was meant to be snarky, but this will eventually be proposed and then maaaaybe the madness will stop bc people will finally decide that’s a bridge too far.

I think it will first hit the music programs before that though. After all, not fair that some kids can afford to have weekly private lessons on their instrument after school. And those kids end up in the top Orchestra or top band through a school-sanctioned auditions process. Isn’t that essentially “prepping”?? Why is that okay if “prepping” for a test that helps determine AAP placement is not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

And… this would be a terrible way to select a team for any competitive sport.

You DO realize that in athletics the kids (and even professional level adults!) have to make the team every single year, don’t you? You don’t get selected after one good tryout and then have a guaranteed spot forever. Some kids who aren’t necessarily natural athletes end up being scrappy overachievers and incredible assets to their teams, and some naturally gifted athletes just can’t or won’t perform in a competitive setting.

And academic achievement isn’t really different. Make the “gifted” kids earn their spot every year, and allow other kids a fair chance to see if they can “overachieve” despite less than gifted IQ scores…

New kids are found eligible past 2nd grade every year.

The “once you’re in you’re in” has its issues but it would be a logistical nightmare for kids to be moving out and then possibly back in, especially with math, so I get it.

Also? It’s not a gifted program anymore. Hasn’t been for a long time. Traditionally, gifted is top 2 1/2 percent by IQ. Nobody (or almost nobody) is claiming that’s what AAP is now. It has gifted learners IN it, and it’s how FCPS satisfies the state law for meeting the needs of gifted learners.

There are some holdovers in language— center teachers are officially defined as “Gifted Education Teachers”— but I think that’s because it would require regulation changes to fix it and centers are probably on their way out anyway.

[Anonymous]

OPs goal is to race to the bottom. If anyone fails, all should fail.

[Anonymous]

The sports and music analogies don’t hold because they are not mandatory. PE and Music classes are but you are not graded on if you are the best in the class just that you meet certain benchmarks. Math, Science, Social Studies, and LA are all mandatory for kids and how they are taught matters.

What most people are saying is that we need a return to leveled classes and not the all inclusive classrooms that Gen Ed has become.

A few people are just screaming equity and Dr Reid is evil because that is all that they have, it adds nothing to the conversation but it is all that they have.

A few people are passionate about keeping the Centers because they see them as important for kids who are ahead or different because they provide a good social and academic cohort for their kid who struggled socially at the base school.

A few people are ok with the idea of giving up centers if the base schools would level the classes.

A few people probably like to troll by saying that we should get rid of AAP because it is not equitable but really don’t provide reasons other then it isn’t equitable.

Some people see that the larger issue as being what kids are exposed to at home by their parents and that the gap is less because of intelligence and more because of exposure. Not every kid who is read to and attends a good preschool is going to end up in AAP but the large gaps in learning tend to be between the economic classes based on what the parents can provide at home.