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:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.

Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.

How many kids end up taking and doing well in AP/IB classes in high school? I am pretty sure that there are a lot more kids in those classes then just the LIV kids. LIV does not lead to kids who are uber advanced and out pacing their peers. LLIV works well for a lot of kids. The notion that Centers are needed for kids to excel is BS.

The parents I know who are obsessed with Centers are the parents who valued a bigger house in a Title 1 school boundary and want their kid at a better school without having to buy a smaller house. They are the same parents who apply for the magnet schools and dual language immersion programs, anything to move their kid out of the school that they bought into.

There is the subset that want the Center so they can show how smart their kid is or because they are obsessed with TJ and see AAP as a step on the path to TJ.

Since we don't live in a Title I school boundary or a TJ mania area, we don't see any of that.

Centers are better for everyone because the AAP kids leave the base schools rather than stay in a single "smart" class making the other students constantly aware of it and the AAP kids themselves get several classes to mingle with rather than being stuck in one class for 4 years.

LOL. Yes, better for the other kids to be constantly aware that the AAP kids are so much better than them that they can’t even be in the same building!! Oh nevermind, the gen ed kids are just a bunch of goldfish - out of sight out of mind, right?

And when people drive by the centers and see their flashy new playground equipment that was purchased by the high-income-earning families whose kids are most often the ones identified as AAP-eligible (due to correlation between family income and standardized test outcomes), will you be bitter that the base schools are no longer able to raise the same kind of funding for similar equipment due to fcps siphoning off the wealthier families from the potential giving pool?

Our system is broken.

Schools made of straw to argue about and knock down...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.

Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.

How many kids end up taking and doing well in AP/IB classes in high school? I am pretty sure that there are a lot more kids in those classes then just the LIV kids. LIV does not lead to kids who are uber advanced and out pacing their peers. LLIV works well for a lot of kids. The notion that Centers are needed for kids to excel is BS.

The parents I know who are obsessed with Centers are the parents who valued a bigger house in a Title 1 school boundary and want their kid at a better school without having to buy a smaller house. They are the same parents who apply for the magnet schools and dual language immersion programs, anything to move their kid out of the school that they bought into.

There is the subset that want the Center so they can show how smart their kid is or because they are obsessed with TJ and see AAP as a step on the path to TJ.

Since we don't live in a Title I school boundary or a TJ mania area, we don't see any of that.

Centers are better for everyone because the AAP kids leave the base schools rather than stay in a single "smart" class making the other students constantly aware of it and the AAP kids themselves get several classes to mingle with rather than being stuck in one class for 4 years.

LOL. Yes, better for the other kids to be constantly aware that the AAP kids are so much better than them that they can’t even be in the same building!! Oh nevermind, the gen ed kids are just a bunch of goldfish - out of sight out of mind, right?

And when people drive by the centers and see their flashy new playground equipment that was purchased by the high-income-earning families whose kids are most often the ones identified as AAP-eligible (due to correlation between family income and standardized test outcomes), will you be bitter that the base schools are no longer able to raise the same kind of funding for similar equipment due to fcps siphoning off the wealthier families from the potential giving pool?

Our system is broken.

Schools made of straw to argue about and knock down...

Total strawman argument. FCPS spends tons on capital projects at schools in lower-income pyramids. If families at some AAP centers are chipping in for new playground equipment, it’s just as likely because FCPS ignored them or spent the absolute minimum on their renovation projects.

[Anonymous]

If you bring those rich AAP kids back they'll run the tables as the top 2% at all the local schools, preventing poor kids from getting into elite colleges. AAP kids are sacrificing college admissions odds in exchange for a more intensive education their home school peers don't want.

Instead of telling AAP kids to stop studying, tell the others to study more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you bring those rich AAP kids back they'll run the tables as the top 2% at all the local schools, preventing poor kids from getting into elite colleges. AAP kids are sacrificing college admissions odds in exchange for a more intensive education their home school peers don't want.

Instead of telling AAP kids to stop studying, tell the others to study more.

This is a truly brain dead take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you bring those rich AAP kids back they'll run the tables as the top 2% at all the local schools, preventing poor kids from getting into elite colleges. AAP kids are sacrificing college admissions odds in exchange for a more intensive education their home school peers don't want.

Instead of telling AAP kids to stop studying, tell the others to study more.

I can’t even understand what point you’re trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Equity is only one among many goals. I want my kids to be challenged, actually challenged, by their classes. Not by having teachers distracted by kids who are at substantially different levels, an no by students who have persistent unmediated behavioral problems. No by having to mentor and coach their peers. By the actual content of the classes. I don't care anyone's family income, the color of their skin, or their life story. I just want you to be able to function as a true peer in substantive subjects are we are all good. But this simply isn't happening in our district, so we went private. So now we, like the rest of the taxpayer base, just fund public schools with no personal benefit. We'll be leaving, along with the trend of our high-level taxpayer base, as soon as our youngest goes to college in a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.

Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.

How many kids end up taking and doing well in AP/IB classes in high school? I am pretty sure that there are a lot more kids in those classes then just the LIV kids. LIV does not lead to kids who are uber advanced and out pacing their peers. LLIV works well for a lot of kids. The notion that Centers are needed for kids to excel is BS.

The parents I know who are obsessed with Centers are the parents who valued a bigger house in a Title 1 school boundary and want their kid at a better school without having to buy a smaller house. They are the same parents who apply for the magnet schools and dual language immersion programs, anything to move their kid out of the school that they bought into.

There is the subset that want the Center so they can show how smart their kid is or because they are obsessed with TJ and see AAP as a step on the path to TJ.

Since we don't live in a Title I school boundary or a TJ mania area, we don't see any of that.

Centers are better for everyone because the AAP kids leave the base schools rather than stay in a single "smart" class making the other students constantly aware of it and the AAP kids themselves get several classes to mingle with rather than being stuck in one class for 4 years.

LOL. Yes, better for the other kids to be constantly aware that the AAP kids are so much better than them that they can’t even be in the same building!! Oh nevermind, the gen ed kids are just a bunch of goldfish - out of sight out of mind, right?

And when people drive by the centers and see their flashy new playground equipment that was purchased by the high-income-earning families whose kids are most often the ones identified as AAP-eligible (due to correlation between family income and standardized test outcomes), will you be bitter that the base schools are no longer able to raise the same kind of funding for similar equipment due to fcps siphoning off the wealthier families from the potential giving pool?

Our system is broken.

No, not bitter. These folks worked their asses off (and their parents worked their asses off) so thier kids can have nicer equipment. Don't feel bad about it all. Smart and rich go hand in hard. Genetics of having a good brain will mean your kid likely inherited the good brain. Why don't people get this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

[Anonymous]

Not happening.

Your jealousy is unbecoming. No, don’t lie now and say your kids are in AAP. They aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you restrict AAP, or anything else, only to poor people, then rich people will have more of it because that's what "rich" means.

If you want to hurt rich people, just raise taxes. Don't dumb down all of society.

a version of Restricted AAP is young scholars program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

any studious kid at FCPS is assumed to be a rich kid?

[Anonymous]

My prediction - this will have the same net result as restorative justice. Lower the bar, get worse stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

Or you can be like me, rich with effortlessly intelligent, athletic and talented kids. No extra tutors needed. Since we're all for equity, sports no longer cost money either. Win win!