Program to "make" students gifted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/continuum/es.shtml

"In order to meet their needs and develop to their potential, these learners require a differentiated curriculum."

Don't be dense. Kids are not stupid. This is "stated" to them every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/continuum/es.shtml

"In order to meet their needs and develop to their potential, these learners require a differentiated curriculum."

Don't be dense. Kids are not stupid. This is "stated" to them every day.

So now you're against differentiation? Geez

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we're talking about "entitlement," we should be discussing why one group of kids in FCPS is given a choice of schools, while the other group is not.

Where do you want my child receiving special ed services to go? Our neighborhood school does not have the staff to support him. Should our neighborhood school hire specialists to meet his needs? Personally, I think it is less expensive to send him to a school to be with other children with similar needs, and the appropriate staff are in place for all of these children.

No one here is talking about special ed children. We're talking about AAP kids. Please don't equate the two as that only serves to insult kids who actually need special education; which AAP is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

grouping according to ability. Teachers, coaches do it all the time, nearly everywhere. Get real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

The public benefits when everyone's potential is maximized and, frankly, the US is in decline because of attitudes like yours. This is why our country is no longer the land of opportunity. We should -- as a country -- be doing what we can to get the most out of every capable person. But a lot of people are like you -- willing to waste talent to make a political point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/continuum/es.shtml

"In order to meet their needs and develop to their potential, these learners require a differentiated curriculum."

Don't be dense. Kids are not stupid. This is "stated" to them every day.

So now you're against differentiation? Geez

I'm not against differentiation at all - when it's done in flexible groups that kids can move into and out of as their needs change. No kid needs to be labled as this or that, when the reality is that most kids are a little of both. The segregated AAP classrooms serve no purpose other than to label kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

The public benefits when everyone's potential is maximized and, frankly, the US is in decline because of attitudes like yours. This is why our country is no longer the land of opportunity. We should -- as a country -- be doing what we can to get the most out of every capable person. But a lot of people are like you -- willing to waste talent to make a political point.

Yes, the lack of opportunities for white and Asian students to self segregate is the reason we have less social mobility these days. Do you even read the newspaper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

"THEIR OWN KIND"?? Wow. How do you know what "kind" of kids my child should be with? What a moronic statement.

Why do they have a varsity and an junior varsity.
Why do some kids play in the concert orchestra
grouping according to ability. This is the real world Pollyanna.

[Anonymous]

AAP is a waste of time and resources

Keep the kids in their base schools

When your precious snowflake goes out into the real world they have to associate with everyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

The public benefits when everyone's potential is maximized and, frankly, the US is in decline because of attitudes like yours. This is why our country is no longer the land of opportunity. We should -- as a country -- be doing what we can to get the most out of every capable person. But a lot of people are like you -- willing to waste talent to make a political point.

Yes, the lack of opportunities for white and Asian students to self segregate is the reason we have less social mobility these days. Do you even read the newspaper?

come again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/continuum/es.shtml

"In order to meet their needs and develop to their potential, these learners require a differentiated curriculum."

Don't be dense. Kids are not stupid. This is "stated" to them every day.

So now you're against differentiation? Geez

I'm not against differentiation at all - when it's done in flexible groups that kids can move into and out of as their needs change. No kid needs to be labled as this or that, when the reality is that most kids are a little of both. The segregated AAP classrooms serve no purpose other than to label kids.

but they had to pass tests and have good teacher recommendations to get into those groups. And they are flexible. If you don't get in one year, you can work hard and get in another year.

[Anonymous]

The program in the article is nothing like the system in FCPS. You guys are way off topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The program in the article is nothing like the system in FCPS. You guys are way off topic.

True. But the anti-AAP muppets came out in force when they saw the word "gifted."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

The public benefits when everyone's potential is maximized and, frankly, the US is in decline because of attitudes like yours. This is why our country is no longer the land of opportunity. We should -- as a country -- be doing what we can to get the most out of every capable person. But a lot of people are like you -- willing to waste talent to make a political point.

Yes, the lack of opportunities for white and Asian students to self segregate is the reason we have less social mobility these days. Do you even read the newspaper?

Huh? PP was complaining about schools providing extra support to kids whose parents don't provide additional resources at home.