Northam’s “Anti-Asian, Anti-Immigrant” School Initiative
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Defund AAP and improve all elementary schools. |
Anonymous
How will that help my 140iq kid? |
Anonymous
She doesn't care about your 140 IQ kid. She can't even comprehend what that could mean. She gets paid to dismantle this system. That's how she makes a living. |
Anonymous
AAP allows for segregated schools which is evil. |
Anonymous
How much do you get paid per post? |
Anonymous
You are a hypocrite. I bet you are a smug self-righteous liberal screaming for racial justice, affirmative action etc. yet when it comes to doing something that will really matter to provide an essential and viable solution to improve opportunities for all children, especially lower SES, black and Hispanic students by improving one thing that will give them a fighting chance to have opportunities for better life, you dismiss and mock it. As the saying goes, teach them how to fish rather than giving them fish. Affirmative action is a band-aid and temporary solution. A child must have a solid education from 1st grade to 6th (preferably earlier) grade and build a solid foundation in math, reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar. A child will struggle in middle/high school and college without such solid foundation and just expecting a child who has received poor quality education in elementary school to do well in later years is unrealistic and this child will be at a significant disadvantage for his/her entire life. In addition, fcps is only obligated to have a separate educational program for "Gifted" children (in addition to special ed) and AAP is certainly not a gifted education that it may have been many years ago. AAP just serves to provide additional advantages for mostly upper and upper middle class white children to receive better education than the gen ed children. It is unconscionable period not to mention all the shenanigans at the appeals stage perpetrated by mostly upper middle class white parents. Better to have a real gifted education that is limited to less than 5% at most and improve all schools especially the ones in poorer neighborhoods. |
Anonymous
DP, and this poster is spot on. Both CogAT and GBRS are heavily skewed to favor higher SES children. Even aside from prepping, tests like the CogAT will give inflated results to kids who do enrichment activities and have educated, involved parents. On top of that, many privileged kids do at least some amount of CogAT prepping. Likewise, kids who are articulate, advanced, and knowledgeable are likely to get a high GBRS score, even if that's more the product of the enrichment activities and home environment than it is indicative of anything special about the kid. Privileged kids who fail to meet the CogAT benchmark even after all of the enrichment and prepping flat out do not belong in AAP. The fact that so many of them push their way in anyway is a huge problem, since it is leading to pretty strong economic and racial segregation. Also, people may not want to acknowledge it, but removing all of the above average, upper middle class kids from gen ed absolutely does hurt the kids in gen ed. So many problems would be solved if AAP reverted to a top 5%/gifted kids only program. AAP would be able to be taught at a much higher level if they only had the top kids and not a lot of fairly average kids. Gen ed would be stronger if schools retained enough of their smart kids to be forced to plan for some advanced groupings and advanced instruction. It will never happen, though, since the parents of the somewhat above average, privileged kids will fight tooth and nail to keep them in a program in which they don't belong. |
Anonymous
How exactly would this help poor/disadvantaged kids? Even if teachers planned advanced concepts for children who are ahead, but not gifted, if the students can't keep up it wont help them at all. Thank goodness that poster actually posted something more than "defund AAP." Its still not a cohesive argument for how that helps disadvantaged kids though. All it really does it take a program away from some kids. |
Anonymous
Taking AAP away from some kids won't do anything to help other kids who still wouldnt have access to the program. |
Anonymous
It's kind of obvious how it would help. 1. Poor/disadvantaged kids would benefit from having some smart, motivated peers in their classroom. 2. Kids who are smart, but poor or disadvantaged often can't leverage their way into AAP the same way that equally or even less smart, privileged kids can. 2a. Those kids are more likely to get advanced course offerings in gen ed when there's a critical mass of advanced kids at the school. 2b. Many of those kids might be advanced in math/science but not yet in language arts, and having more of the advanced kids in their classroom should lead to more opportunities to work ahead in their area of strength. 2c. AAP is a fairly rigid, IN-or OUT system decided mostly in 2nd grade, but many poor or disadvantaged kids will catch up to the advanced kids later than 4th. Having more advanced courses would give these kids a better chance to be flexibly grouped into them when they're ready. Most importantly, though is point 3. It's horrible to tell the white and Asian above average affluent children that they're gifted and have potential, and at the same time tell the poor, black, or hispanic kids that they aren't smart. Intelligence is fluid and developmental, so it's awful to define kids at an early age, especially when the majority of kids who are defined as "smart" or "gifted" are neither, but rather, they're above average privileged kids. Sending most kids back to gen ed would eliminate the artificial ceiling placed over smart disadvantaged kids and remove the floor placed under the not-truly-all-that-smart, privileged kids who get in. |
Anonymous
Setting aside that you posted zero evidence for any of these assertions... 1. Who is to say that the poor kid can't be the smart, motivated kid in the class? Why does someone else's kid need to serve as their muse? what is the advantage to the former AAP kid? 2. Level 3 services are offered to kids not accepted into Level 4. That would be their outlet to get advanced instruction for the subjects where they are advanced. They can apply every years as well. 3. You're not even advocating to send all kids back to general we. You seem to want to keep gifted for some kids. In which case those same disadvantaged students would still be getting the message that as you put it "they aren't smart" because they wouldn't be included in the highly selective gifted program. You should be advocating for better general ed but not at the expense of AAP students. Until that is fixed you can expect parents to do everything to get their high performing students out of general ed and into AAP. It won't be fixed by destroying AAP because those parents will likely pull their kids from FCPS if that happens. |
Anonymous
+10^n |
Anonymous
| N=Infinity |
Anonymous
| They ought to have test prep classes in the schools for everyone. This way everyone has the opportunity to prepare for the admission test. The reality is that kids prep for it so why not make test prep universally available for everyone? This way kids are on equal footing if they wish to take the test seriously. If they decide not to prepare after having been given the opportunity to prepare then it is on the student. |
Anonymous
This would be a great idea. In order to do this, TJ Admissions would have to abandon the Quant-Q because they are not permitted to create any prep materials for that exam or release any information about it except that which they mention in the information sessions. |