Science says: never get rid of AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn’t tracking. It’s segregation.

Incorrect. It's an application system, with an equal application across SES. If anything, now with lowered standards for struggling schools, there's a greater chance of diversity in the program.

which requires parents to often file complex appeals and pay for expensive private diagnostics to ensure their children are admitted...

No one is required to do any of those things. The appeal form isn't largely different than the initial application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

Does that benefit the top learners though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

How so?

But why would you want to hurt the top learners?

What do the top learners owe to the bottom learners?

Why should *public* education help the top learners at the expense of those at the bottom? If you don’t like it you can do private or hire a tutor.

Currently, *public* education caters to the bottom learners at the expense of the top. My oldest kid's reading group got to meet with the teacher 15 minutes every second week, while the bottom kids got every day for 30 minutes + another 30 minutes with the resource teacher. It's unconscionable to abandon the top learners and expect them to teach themselves all day, yet that is exactly what public schools do thanks to No Child Left Behind.

But, for the sake of argument, let's follow your train of thought. If it's perfectly fine for schools to teach to the bottom, ignore the top, and abolish tracking/AAP, then pretty much every child who is upper middle class will leave for private school. In turn, schools lose the kids who are easy to educate along with their funding, and the level of discourse in the classroom decreases. Who is the most hurt by this? Above average poor kids. They can't afford private, but now their neighborhood schools aren't bothering to teach them. Their intellectual peers are off receiving a strong private school education, while they're learning almost nothing. Even if the achievement gap in the public schools appears lower because the high achievers have mostly left, the real world achievement gap is larger than ever.

[Anonymous]

Teachers can't do it all, so they have to focus on the kids who need more help. Don't we want them to? I think it's awesome that FCPS has AAP and is at least trying to serve kids who are academically advanced. I wish we all had magical ninja teachers who could do everything for everyone all the time, but that's just not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

How so?

But why would you want to hurt the top learners?

What do the top learners owe to the bottom learners?

Why should *public* education help the top learners at the expense of those at the bottom? If you don’t like it you can do private or hire a tutor.

Currently, *public* education caters to the bottom learners at the expense of the top. My oldest kid's reading group got to meet with the teacher 15 minutes every second week, while the bottom kids got every day for 30 minutes + another 30 minutes with the resource teacher. It's unconscionable to abandon the top learners and expect them to teach themselves all day, yet that is exactly what public schools do thanks to No Child Left Behind.

But, for the sake of argument, let's follow your train of thought. If it's perfectly fine for schools to teach to the bottom, ignore the top, and abolish tracking/AAP, then pretty much every child who is upper middle class will leave for private school. In turn, schools lose the kids who are easy to educate along with their funding, and the level of discourse in the classroom decreases. Who is the most hurt by this? Above average poor kids. They can't afford private, but now their neighborhood schools aren't bothering to teach them. Their intellectual peers are off receiving a strong private school education, while they're learning almost nothing. Even if the achievement gap in the public schools appears lower because the high achievers have mostly left, the real world achievement gap is larger than ever.

You made the correct argument for AAP. AAP should exist to take above average poor kids out of crappy school environments so they can excel. More wealthy kids already attend better schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers can't do it all, so they have to focus on the kids who need more help. Don't we want them to? I think it's awesome that FCPS has AAP and is at least trying to serve kids who are academically advanced. I wish we all had magical ninja teachers who could do everything for everyone all the time, but that's just not possible.

Honestly, no. Every child deserves his or her fair share of the teacher's time. It's completely absurd to imagine that high performing ES aged kids have the maturity and focus to teach themselves all day. It's also absurd to say that it's fine not to teach the kids and not to see a full year of growth from them because they're already ahead.

Also, IME, the majority of the kids who "need more help" have no motivation or interest in learning much of anything. Focusing on the kids who are unwilling to even try to learn at the expense of the kids who are eager to learn is complete insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers can't do it all, so they have to focus on the kids who need more help. Don't we want them to? I think it's awesome that FCPS has AAP and is at least trying to serve kids who are academically advanced. I wish we all had magical ninja teachers who could do everything for everyone all the time, but that's just not possible.

Honestly, no. Every child deserves his or her fair share of the teacher's time. It's completely absurd to imagine that high performing ES aged kids have the maturity and focus to teach themselves all day. It's also absurd to say that it's fine not to teach the kids and not to see a full year of growth from them because they're already ahead.

Also, IME, the majority of the kids who "need more help" have no motivation or interest in learning much of anything. Focusing on the kids who are unwilling to even try to learn at the expense of the kids who are eager to learn is complete insanity.

Did you read the post? It says that AAP is needed so that academically advanced kids get the instruction they need. What's your point? Also, what you said about high needs learners who need help is vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn’t tracking. It’s segregation.

Incorrect. It's an application system, with an equal application across SES. If anything, now with lowered standards for struggling schools, there's a greater chance of diversity in the program.

Citation?

The application for students from Elementary School A is the same as the application for students from Elementary School Z.

Kids at lower SES schools have lowered ranges to be "in pool."

OK. It's still segregation.

I thought you were saying there are equal rates of applications of students across the SES spectrum. It's probably crazy-skewed towards UMC. AKA self-segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn’t tracking. It’s segregation.

Incorrect. It's an application system, with an equal application across SES. If anything, now with lowered standards for struggling schools, there's a greater chance of diversity in the program.

Citation?

The application for students from Elementary School A is the same as the application for students from Elementary School Z.

Kids at lower SES schools have lowered ranges to be "in pool."

OK. It's still segregation.

I thought you were saying there are equal rates of applications of students across the SES spectrum. It's probably crazy-skewed towards UMC. AKA self-segregation.

I would agree with you if students could simply opt in to the program. That would be self segregation. But that's not the reality of how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

How so?

But why would you want to hurt the top learners?

What do the top learners owe to the bottom learners?

Why should *public* education help the top learners at the expense of those at the bottom? If you don’t like it you can do private or hire a tutor.

Ever volunteered at an “equity” class, where there are four different groups of learning levels because of this mentality? The teachers burn out fast and leave the school. Ever wonder why *your* ES can’t seem to keep a gened teacher but the AAP teachers stay forever? Ever see the top learners teach a class while a teacher cries at her desk?

Equity classes are so hard. Those bottom level kids struggle. They know they are behind. They (the kids) cry in class (I saw this as a volunteer.) the top level kids learn nothing and end up thinking school is pointless.

+100

AAP classes aren’t just to “tutor” smart kids. It’s to give the kids that are Gen Ed the ability to thrive in school. To find joy in school. When the comparison is in separate classes, the Gen Ed kids thrive more too because they don’t find school so hard and don’t see the comparison as starkly. Comparison is the thief of joy- and Gen Ed kids feel this even more acutely when they are in the same class as AAP kids.

That’s the whole point of tracking. I know it sucks to have to teach your kids at home- but if you really want to help your kids do better in school- you have to push them at home with workbooks and enrich in every way possible.

And that is why some high achievers are in AAP. Even the laziest high achieving parent will force their kids to do summer workbooks. And if your kid is doing the workbooks and still isn’t in AAP- then please get a tutor. If your kid isn’t doing workbooks- they stay in Gen Ed.

This is how it has worked from when I went to school 30 years ago. The parents with kids in AAP don’t share that they force their kids to do more workbooks and homework after school- they assume you are doing that too. They do three sports- because they assume that’s what you are doing too. They don’t do church. (Ever noticed that AAP kids tend to have sports on Sunday?)

All of this because it’s not the schools job to teach your kids at home. Just like it’s not your job to teach at the school or make the policies at school.

If high achieving kids are separated out, this is a good thing. Make the parents do more at home if they want more than Gen Ed. But Gen Ed is basically what you are going to get in private and in any other state public- because you aren’t the ones supporting at home. Your kid won’t be in the special class. Because you aren’t supporting them at home.

Stop blaming the schools. Stop blaming the teachers. If your kid is in Gen Ed- it’s a good fit for them. But if you want more- you do the work at home or pay for private.

Finally- so many transplants come here and wonder why they gifted kid from Arkansas is in special Ed here. We high a higher population of type A overachievers here. That’s why you can’t just do nothing at home and have a gifted kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP isn’t tracking. It’s segregation.

Incorrect. It's an application system, with an equal application across SES. If anything, now with lowered standards for struggling schools, there's a greater chance of diversity in the program.

Citation?

The application for students from Elementary School A is the same as the application for students from Elementary School Z.

Kids at lower SES schools have lowered ranges to be "in pool."

OK. It's still segregation.

I thought you were saying there are equal rates of applications of students across the SES spectrum. It's probably crazy-skewed towards UMC. AKA self-segregation.

I would agree with you if students could simply opt in to the program. That would be self segregation. But that's not the reality of how it works.

Everything about the process skews UMC. Parents self-segregate to get away from “the poors”.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny when posters lecture about “high-performing” kids (or +1 them) and can’t even use the quote function properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny when posters lecture about “high-performing” kids (or +1 them) and can’t even use the quote function properly.

-100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.

The science says nothing of the sort. Further, AAP is not at all what you're pretending it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.

The science says nothing of the sort. Further, AAP is not at all what you're pretending it is.

AAP isn’t “tracking” - it’s segregation.