AAP at Every Middle School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

THis was perfectly said.

again you track and differentiate problem solved. Again when I was in elementary school for each core subject you would switch classrooms one high 2 average and one remedial. Each subject would have a different set of kids. If that's not possible you can differentiate within each individual classroom. 3 different reading or math groups for high, grade level and remedial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

THis was perfectly said.

again you track and differentiate problem solved. Again when I was in elementary school for each core subject you would switch classrooms one high 2 average and one remedial. Each subject would have a different set of kids. If that's not possible you can differentiate within each individual classroom. 3 different reading or math groups for high, grade level and remedial.

This is not as easy as it may seem. Many ES teachers are not knowledgable beyond the curriculum that they are supposed to teach. Many think that any kid who knows more than they do are geniuses and are the last ones that need nurturing. I'm not saying that gifted teachers are more or less intelligent than their general ed peers but they have been trained to teach up to a certain level of content and they are more sensitive to the needs of this population - in effect, they rehumanize these kids. I don't know how many times I've heard ignorant comments from teachers and other parents about being lucky or saying that these kids have superpowers and don't need direct help. As long as teachers have more than one constituent population of students (blended classrooms or even split classrooms) they will always tell themselves that have more important kids to teach than gifted kids and will implicitly tell them that they're not as important while explicitly ignoring them. Gifted kids have no advocates in modern education except their own caregivers and, if they're lucky, their own teacher trained to teach gifted kids in a gifted classroom. No judgment here but it's been my experience that even 2E parents care more about the SPED/IEP aspect of their kids than the gifted part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

THis was perfectly said.

again you track and differentiate problem solved. Again when I was in elementary school for each core subject you would switch classrooms one high 2 average and one remedial. Each subject would have a different set of kids. If that's not possible you can differentiate within each individual classroom. 3 different reading or math groups for high, grade level and remedial.

This is not as easy as it may seem. Many ES teachers are not knowledgable beyond the curriculum that they are supposed to teach. Many think that any kid who knows more than they do are geniuses and are the last ones that need nurturing. I'm not saying that gifted teachers are more or less intelligent than their general ed peers but they have been trained to teach up to a certain level of content and they are more sensitive to the needs of this population - in effect, they rehumanize these kids. I don't know how many times I've heard ignorant comments from teachers and other parents about being lucky or saying that these kids have superpowers and don't need direct help. As long as teachers have more than one constituent population of students (blended classrooms or even split classrooms) they will always tell themselves that have more important kids to teach than gifted kids and will implicitly tell them that they're not as important while explicitly ignoring them. Gifted kids have no advocates in modern education except their own caregivers and, if they're lucky, their own teacher trained to teach gifted kids in a gifted classroom. No judgment here but it's been my experience that even 2E parents care more about the SPED/IEP aspect of their kids than the gifted part.

And as a follow-up to 2E parents. It's also been my experience that the 2E parent (and it's not their fault) who loudly argues about their kid's IEP to the principal is unwittingly causing some of the worst damage to gifted education at a blended classroom school. When threatened with Title IX lawsuits, the principal will inevitably bend toward helping out the SPED argument and many of these 2E parents will think they've won and go quietly away. Meanwhile, the principal has often thought they killed 2 birds with 1 stone and will ignore the gifted aspect because that parent literally has no energy or willpower left to argue with other parents for another thing that they know the principal (as dumb as most are) is unlikely to understand or care about. It happened. Many times. And it fractures the gifted student community and pits people against each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

THis was perfectly said.

again you track and differentiate problem solved. Again when I was in elementary school for each core subject you would switch classrooms one high 2 average and one remedial. Each subject would have a different set of kids. If that's not possible you can differentiate within each individual classroom. 3 different reading or math groups for high, grade level and remedial.

This is not as easy as it may seem. Many ES teachers are not knowledgable beyond the curriculum that they are supposed to teach. Many think that any kid who knows more than they do are geniuses and are the last ones that need nurturing. I'm not saying that gifted teachers are more or less intelligent than their general ed peers but they have been trained to teach up to a certain level of content and they are more sensitive to the needs of this population - in effect, they rehumanize these kids. I don't know how many times I've heard ignorant comments from teachers and other parents about being lucky or saying that these kids have superpowers and don't need direct help. As long as teachers have more than one constituent population of students (blended classrooms or even split classrooms) they will always tell themselves that have more important kids to teach than gifted kids and will implicitly tell them that they're not as important while explicitly ignoring them. Gifted kids have no advocates in modern education except their own caregivers and, if they're lucky, their own teacher trained to teach gifted kids in a gifted classroom. No judgment here but it's been my experience that even 2E parents care more about the SPED/IEP aspect of their kids than the gifted part.

I think you need to face the reality that the school system needs to care about the majority of students/parents. If you keep pushing for this <1% the whole thing is going to come crashing down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

I'm ok with AAP in elementary school. But middle school? Agreed. There is no reason we should be placing kids in middle school classes based on how they did in 2nd grade. It's craziness. Also, track by subject instead of making it AAP vs. non-AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

THis was perfectly said.

again you track and differentiate problem solved. Again when I was in elementary school for each core subject you would switch classrooms one high 2 average and one remedial. Each subject would have a different set of kids. If that's not possible you can differentiate within each individual classroom. 3 different reading or math groups for high, grade level and remedial.

This is not as easy as it may seem. Many ES teachers are not knowledgable beyond the curriculum that they are supposed to teach. Many think that any kid who knows more than they do are geniuses and are the last ones that need nurturing. I'm not saying that gifted teachers are more or less intelligent than their general ed peers but they have been trained to teach up to a certain level of content and they are more sensitive to the needs of this population - in effect, they rehumanize these kids. I don't know how many times I've heard ignorant comments from teachers and other parents about being lucky or saying that these kids have superpowers and don't need direct help. As long as teachers have more than one constituent population of students (blended classrooms or even split classrooms) they will always tell themselves that have more important kids to teach than gifted kids and will implicitly tell them that they're not as important while explicitly ignoring them. Gifted kids have no advocates in modern education except their own caregivers and, if they're lucky, their own teacher trained to teach gifted kids in a gifted classroom. No judgment here but it's been my experience that even 2E parents care more about the SPED/IEP aspect of their kids than the gifted part.

And as a follow-up to 2E parents. It's also been my experience that the 2E parent (and it's not their fault) who loudly argues about their kid's IEP to the principal is unwittingly causing some of the worst damage to gifted education at a blended classroom school. When threatened with Title IX lawsuits, the principal will inevitably bend toward helping out the SPED argument and many of these 2E parents will think they've won and go quietly away. Meanwhile, the principal has often thought they killed 2 birds with 1 stone and will ignore the gifted aspect because that parent literally has no energy or willpower left to argue with other parents for another thing that they know the principal (as dumb as most are) is unlikely to understand or care about. It happened. Many times. And it fractures the gifted student community and pits people against each other.

the principal knows, they just pick their battles. It's a much better position for them to have AAP parents mad that AAP is moving at a snails pace then to have 2E parents mad that AAP is too hard for their kids. It will sort itself out in high school when teachers move at the pace they have to- just look at all the posts about kids who did great in AAP and struggle in high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

THis was perfectly said.

again you track and differentiate problem solved. Again when I was in elementary school for each core subject you would switch classrooms one high 2 average and one remedial. Each subject would have a different set of kids. If that's not possible you can differentiate within each individual classroom. 3 different reading or math groups for high, grade level and remedial.

This is not as easy as it may seem. Many ES teachers are not knowledgable beyond the curriculum that they are supposed to teach. Many think that any kid who knows more than they do are geniuses and are the last ones that need nurturing. I'm not saying that gifted teachers are more or less intelligent than their general ed peers but they have been trained to teach up to a certain level of content and they are more sensitive to the needs of this population - in effect, they rehumanize these kids. I don't know how many times I've heard ignorant comments from teachers and other parents about being lucky or saying that these kids have superpowers and don't need direct help. As long as teachers have more than one constituent population of students (blended classrooms or even split classrooms) they will always tell themselves that have more important kids to teach than gifted kids and will implicitly tell them that they're not as important while explicitly ignoring them. Gifted kids have no advocates in modern education except their own caregivers and, if they're lucky, their own teacher trained to teach gifted kids in a gifted classroom. No judgment here but it's been my experience that even 2E parents care more about the SPED/IEP aspect of their kids than the gifted part.

And as a follow-up to 2E parents. It's also been my experience that the 2E parent (and it's not their fault) who loudly argues about their kid's IEP to the principal is unwittingly causing some of the worst damage to gifted education at a blended classroom school. When threatened with Title IX lawsuits, the principal will inevitably bend toward helping out the SPED argument and many of these 2E parents will think they've won and go quietly away. Meanwhile, the principal has often thought they killed 2 birds with 1 stone and will ignore the gifted aspect because that parent literally has no energy or willpower left to argue with other parents for another thing that they know the principal (as dumb as most are) is unlikely to understand or care about. It happened. Many times. And it fractures the gifted student community and pits people against each other.

the principal knows, they just pick their battles. It's a much better position for them to have AAP parents mad that AAP is moving at a snails pace then to have 2E parents mad that AAP is too hard for their kids. It will sort itself out in high school when teachers move at the pace they have to- just look at all the posts about kids who did great in AAP and struggle in high school

what posts? I don't think I've read that. But I agree that AAP honestly does not determine how well a kid ends up doing at the high school level. Ask the parents who had kids in both gen ed and AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just combine honors and AAP in middle school - its pointless to have three track, two of which are supposed to teach the same content

This x 1000

At Longfellow there is no difference except the kids are still "separated" in classes AAP Honors and just Honors for LA, Science and History/civics. ALL classes are taught as Honors. Same projects, same tests, same papers. Occasionally AAP has a due date that is before Honors but for the most part everything is taught the same.

It’s a difference just in name. It makes no sense to have AAP in middle school. Just pupil place in math according to test and have kids pick the other classes. It’s silly and pointless.

Differences in LA abilities can be just as pronounced as differences in math skills, and the placements should reflect that.

The point is that right now there is no difference between LA AAP and Honors in middle schools. Students who excel in LA should be placed at a higher level. Just call it honors. Students should not be placed in classes in middle school based on their academic status in second grade. It’s stupid. And I say this as parent whose DC are in AAP.

This isn't true.

Our middle school, at least during normal years (not distance-learning) has pronounced differences between honors and AAP English Language Arts. The AAP students read different stories, poems, and books than honors. The AAP students also have more cross-curricular projects because they all have the same ELA, social studies, and science teachers, so the teachers can plan cross-curricular projects that students can work on in each class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just combine honors and AAP in middle school - its pointless to have three track, two of which are supposed to teach the same content

This x 1000

At Longfellow there is no difference except the kids are still "separated" in classes AAP Honors and just Honors for LA, Science and History/civics. ALL classes are taught as Honors. Same projects, same tests, same papers. Occasionally AAP has a due date that is before Honors but for the most part everything is taught the same.

It’s a difference just in name. It makes no sense to have AAP in middle school. Just pupil place in math according to test and have kids pick the other classes. It’s silly and pointless.

Differences in LA abilities can be just as pronounced as differences in math skills, and the placements should reflect that.

The point is that right now there is no difference between LA AAP and Honors in middle schools. Students who excel in LA should be placed at a higher level. Just call it honors. Students should not be placed in classes in middle school based on their academic status in second grade. It’s stupid. And I say this as parent whose DC are in AAP.

This isn't true.

Our middle school, at least during normal years (not distance-learning) has pronounced differences between honors and AAP English Language Arts. The AAP students read different stories, poems, and books than honors. The AAP students also have more cross-curricular projects because they all have the same ELA, social studies, and science teachers, so the teachers can plan cross-curricular projects that students can work on in each class.

But her point that students should not end up in middle school based on where they are in second grade still stands.
--Also an AAP parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just combine honors and AAP in middle school - its pointless to have three track, two of which are supposed to teach the same content

This x 1000

At Longfellow there is no difference except the kids are still "separated" in classes AAP Honors and just Honors for LA, Science and History/civics. ALL classes are taught as Honors. Same projects, same tests, same papers. Occasionally AAP has a due date that is before Honors but for the most part everything is taught the same.

It’s a difference just in name. It makes no sense to have AAP in middle school. Just pupil place in math according to test and have kids pick the other classes. It’s silly and pointless.

Differences in LA abilities can be just as pronounced as differences in math skills, and the placements should reflect that.

The point is that right now there is no difference between LA AAP and Honors in middle schools. Students who excel in LA should be placed at a higher level. Just call it honors. Students should not be placed in classes in middle school based on their academic status in second grade. It’s stupid. And I say this as parent whose DC are in AAP.

This isn't true.

Our middle school, at least during normal years (not distance-learning) has pronounced differences between honors and AAP English Language Arts. The AAP students read different stories, poems, and books than honors. The AAP students also have more cross-curricular projects because they all have the same ELA, social studies, and science teachers, so the teachers can plan cross-curricular projects that students can work on in each class.

are you a teacher in said school or a parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just combine honors and AAP in middle school - its pointless to have three track, two of which are supposed to teach the same content

This x 1000

At Longfellow there is no difference except the kids are still "separated" in classes AAP Honors and just Honors for LA, Science and History/civics. ALL classes are taught as Honors. Same projects, same tests, same papers. Occasionally AAP has a due date that is before Honors but for the most part everything is taught the same.

It’s a difference just in name. It makes no sense to have AAP in middle school. Just pupil place in math according to test and have kids pick the other classes. It’s silly and pointless.

Differences in LA abilities can be just as pronounced as differences in math skills, and the placements should reflect that.

The point is that right now there is no difference between LA AAP and Honors in middle schools. Students who excel in LA should be placed at a higher level. Just call it honors. Students should not be placed in classes in middle school based on their academic status in second grade. It’s stupid. And I say this as parent whose DC are in AAP.

This isn't true.

Our middle school, at least during normal years (not distance-learning) has pronounced differences between honors and AAP English Language Arts. The AAP students read different stories, poems, and books than honors. The AAP students also have more cross-curricular projects because they all have the same ELA, social studies, and science teachers, so the teachers can plan cross-curricular projects that students can work on in each class.

are you a teacher in said school or a parent?

Two kids, one who was in AAP and one in honors. The information about cross-curricular projects was also discussed at the school's curriculum night.

[Anonymous]

Our Title 1 local level doesn't read novels anymore.