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: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.

I was being snarky, but I'll bite. Technically the studies say that if you are really poor, you'll never reach your genetic aptitude, but that's obvious. If you have the basics met you'll do what genetics has bestowed upon you. At that point, then yes, you meet your potential which may not be that high.

[Anonymous]

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.

+100

[Anonymous]

Here's a great story about an equitable society: https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

[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.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

[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.

I do not know every center or pyramid or ES, but where I am I have not seen “all of the resources go to rich “gifted” kids”. They don’t really get more resources where we are. Just more challenge.

I won’t say the current system is perfect but I also can’t say eliminating AAP solves the problems that exist in gen ed. If anything it makes them worse. Schools needs more money, lower ratios, and probably less in-class differentiation (not more) to improve gen ed.

[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.

It already exists and it is called Young Scholars program. So called rich kids, advanced, studious kids are not allowed in that program. There is no budget limit for this program, has best teachers assigned to it, all necessary resources are allocated, but still YS kids fail to perform better than the bottom AAP kids. ??

[Anonymous]

It’s interesting much of Ibram Kendi’s theories have influenced the course of public education in the last few years. The idea of getting rid of Gifted and Talented classes, tracking and dismantling AAP out of “fairness.”

Basically lower the bar to allow more people to pass the grade. Even if it makes the entire country less productive and forces classes to teach to the lowest common denominator or to disruptive students.

It’s akin to the same sort of progressive criminal justice, softened, approach we’ve seen to crime in the last few years, where the penalties for violent crime or shoplifting are simply less punitive (restorative justice as an alternative to incarceration etc) or have been eliminated altogether out of “fairness.”

Basically an all around watering down to achieve a perfect society, except that, as shown by test scores, and a 38% increase in violent crime in DC year over year from 2022 to 2023, this type of idealism based approach isn’t practical.

Maybe let the advanced kids succeed in advanced classes and maybe arrest and prosecute the violent criminals might work.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

It’s hard to tell if the OP isn’t trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

To eliminate AAP as it exists now, we all need to vote for the Democrats running for School Board positions, because only the Democrats will eliminate AAP in Fairfax county schools.

The republicans will just keep AAP in place as it exists now. Republicans are a gigantic road-block on the path to equity, especially equity of outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

This was how my elementary school worked. There were three homeroom classes. For math and reading, each class was its own ability group: below grade level, at grade level, and above grade level. Kids would move to whatever class matched their ability for those subjects. This was how 1-6 operated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting much of Ibram Kendi’s theories have influenced the course of public education in the last few years. The idea of getting rid of Gifted and Talented classes, tracking and dismantling AAP out of “fairness.”

Basically lower the bar to allow more people to pass the grade. Even if it makes the entire country less productive and forces classes to teach to the lowest common denominator or to disruptive students.

It’s akin to the same sort of progressive criminal justice, softened, approach we’ve seen to crime in the last few years, where the penalties for violent crime or shoplifting are simply less punitive (restorative justice as an alternative to incarceration etc) or have been eliminated altogether out of “fairness.”

Basically an all around watering down to achieve a perfect society, except that, as shown by test scores, and a 38% increase in violent crime in DC year over year from 2022 to 2023, this type of idealism based approach isn’t practical.

Maybe let the advanced kids succeed in advanced classes and maybe arrest and prosecute the violent criminals might work.

I wouldn't say that all of the recent changes are attributable to Kendi - I would say it's the culmination of a couple decades of work to push equity and DEI after the successes-but-not-enough from affirmative action of the 90s.

The tide is already turning against restorative justice and against leniency against criminals. Similarly, the tide is turning against eliminating entrance exams at some schools. The pendulum is beginning to move back into the other direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

To eliminate AAP as it exists now, we all need to vote for the Democrats running for School Board positions, because only the Democrats will eliminate AAP in Fairfax county schools.

The republicans will just keep AAP in place as it exists now. Republicans are a gigantic road-block on the path to equity, especially equity of outcomes.

Equity of outcome. Is there an example of a society, at any point in history, that you can point to that has achieved that? I’m serious. Is it Sweden? Or Germany? I know they actually force kids into lanes based on aptitude, so I’m pretty sure it’s not them. I mean basically they’ll push you toward plumbing school or a similar trade that’s the sort of aptitude a student displays at a young age.

Seriously though, does anyone actually know what the fk they’re doing, and how to help our kids actually learn and succeed, or are the current progressive folks apparently in charge just throwing gum at the wall, hiring a bunch of sociologists from Oberlin to study the issues and come up with policy solutions and hope it all works out in 30 years when most kids can’t read good but feel good?

[Anonymous]

While I agree that AAP is not equitable, I do not agree with the "holistic" approach. Holistic approach has no clear guidelines and is highly subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do not know every center or pyramid or ES, but where I am I have not seen “all of the resources go to rich “gifted” kids”. They don’t really get more resources where we are. Just more challenge.

I won’t say the current system is perfect but I also can’t say eliminating AAP solves the problems that exist in gen ed. If anything it makes them worse. Schools needs more money, lower ratios, and probably less in-class differentiation (not more) to improve gen ed.

Here here. Every kid will get what they need when we have more teachers, more money to pay teachers, and more space to put everyone. Right now, FCPS is doing the best they can do.