The entire AAP program should be eliminated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with AAP is that it's all or nothing across all subjects. This means that some portion of AAP kids will be on or below grade level in either math or reading, and will then slow down the AAP class for everyone else.

Kids who are on or below grade level should be in gen ed and not AAP for that subject.

Kids who are around 1 year above grade level could be well served in a LLIV type setup.

Quite possibly, kids who are 2 grade levels ahead could receive differentiation for that within the LLIV classroom.

LLIV for most would mean that some group of kids would be in AAP for math & science, but gen ed for language arts & history or vice versa. That would be ideal, since their needs would most appropriately be met that way. Currently, kids like that either get into AAP and slow down the class in their area of weakness, or they are excluded from AAP and do not receive the advanced instruction in their area of strength.

The very few kids who are more than 2 grade levels ahead should be eligible for a real GT program in a center.

That's a problem with the admissions and the push to be more inclusive by broadening admissions. Not a problem with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is right. Parents try to escape general ed. No one wants to say why. Its just easier to pull down AAP.

It's all in the labeling. "Gen Ed" equates average, nothing special. AAP is fancy.

PP who is a teacher. It is not the label. It is the fact that their kid gets no attention because the teacher is focused on the kids below grade level. I teach AAP. I have 22 kids who want to learn. When I taught Gen Ed, I had kids reading on a K level all the way up to an 8th grade level. Now in 6th AAP, I have kids reading on a 5th grade level to 8th grade level. I can meet with all kids equally and the parents know this. I would be all for ability grouping subject by subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

Why is it indulgent to want a good education for my child, an education that I fund through my taxes? Why am I being asked to raise my own takes for more school funding if the system can't educate my own? Why is it that if I want quality education I have to look outside the public school system?

If what I want is indulgent I propose to not only do away with the advanced tracking system, but do away with the public school system. A voucher for every child that parents can spend to any school the seem fit. I'll vote for this in a heart beat.

I certainly agree with this but it's the progressives who fight it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have really mixed feelings about this. I was in the G&T program as a child and it was a really important and valuable experience for me. My family was working class and I received no real support for academics at home. But I was very academically inclined (loved school, early reader, super engaged in class, and yes, tested well). The G&T program offered me access to all kinds of things my parents would never have been able to afford or even thought to introduce me to. I'm really grateful for those experiences and in my case, G&T worked in favor of equity because it introduced me to other opportunities and interests that otherwise I wouldn't have known about.

I should also note I'm white and from a very white area with little diversity. There was plenty of economic diversity in our G&T program (my two best friends in grade school were in it with me, were both on government assistance, and one had a single mom and absentee father -- they really did base admission to the G&T program on interest and merit and people didn't just buy their way in). So the idea of a G&T program being anti-equity was really foreign to me.

But now living in this area, I see how absolutely obsessive and privileged so many people are, and the way they will stop at nothing to give their kids every possible academic advantage. I don't know what the answer is, but I know AAP programs here do not function like the G&T program I grew up with. I do think there are real equity problems now and I don't know the answer. My kid is still young (PK age) but is a lot like I was at that age -- early reader, very interested in school, love learning. I could see her thriving in an AAP program, and I could also see her getting frustrated and bored without one. But I also don't want to work to get her into AAP just so she can spend all her time around smart but very intense kids with wealthy and even more intense parents who are all just obsessively focused on getting into TJ and going to Ivies and making a lot of money. Even if she also got access to great learning opportunities, I don't know if that's worth it. We are not wealthy and I value diversity.

I think something has to be done and it would make me sad if the only option is "no more AAP". But what are the other options? I am skeptical about the idea that most teachers can adequately teach to different levels. I'm sure some talented folks can, but we're talking about the average teacher.

Anyway, this feels like something rich, hyper-competitive white people ruined for everyone else and I'm frustrated.

Are you basing this post off of what you read on this forum? Or your actual neighborhood?

DCUM is not real. And you can move, if you need to. There's nothing wrong with AAP, despite what the Maryland poster thinks. It's not bad or useless or immoral.

Who are you to say it's not immoral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

What is your basis for believing the highest achievers are a public good that needs to be sprinkled uniformly through the student population at the expense of their own education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

If your argument is advanced/gifted students should be kept in gen ed to help the gen ed kids you have a terrible argument.
I do not think it is “incredibly indulgent” to offer advanced classes for advanced students. Shouldn’t every kid get to actually learn? And not just be help for other kids or left on their own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is right. Parents try to escape general ed. No one wants to say why. Its just easier to pull down AAP.

It's all in the labeling. "Gen Ed" equates average, nothing special. AAP is fancy.

PP who is a teacher. It is not the label. It is the fact that their kid gets no attention because the teacher is focused on the kids below grade level. I teach AAP. I have 22 kids who want to learn. When I taught Gen Ed, I had kids reading on a K level all the way up to an 8th grade level. Now in 6th AAP, I have kids reading on a 5th grade level to 8th grade level. I can meet with all kids equally and the parents know this. I would be all for ability grouping subject by subject.

But why are kids reading at a 5th or 6th grade level in AAP? My kid’s experience at an AAP center was that his above grade reading group still didn’t get much time with the teacher. She was focused on the on and below grade level readers. Why did those kids get to barge into AAP when they’re below standard. Why are the AAP teachers catering to those kids at the expense of kids who are advanced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

If your argument is advanced/gifted students should be kept in gen ed to help the gen ed kids you have a terrible argument.
I do not think it is “incredibly indulgent” to offer advanced classes for advanced students. Shouldn’t every kid get to actually learn? And not just be help for other kids or left on their own?

Yes. But Gen Ed kids don't get to take advanced tracking courses. Why shouldn't a disadvantaged kid who is great at math and science be denied exposure to higher level content? Why exclude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is right. Parents try to escape general ed. No one wants to say why. Its just easier to pull down AAP.

It's all in the labeling. "Gen Ed" equates average, nothing special. AAP is fancy.

PP who is a teacher. It is not the label. It is the fact that their kid gets no attention because the teacher is focused on the kids below grade level. I teach AAP. I have 22 kids who want to learn. When I taught Gen Ed, I had kids reading on a K level all the way up to an 8th grade level. Now in 6th AAP, I have kids reading on a 5th grade level to 8th grade level. I can meet with all kids equally and the parents know this. I would be all for ability grouping subject by subject.

But why are kids reading at a 5th or 6th grade level in AAP? My kid’s experience at an AAP center was that his above grade reading group still didn’t get much time with the teacher. She was focused on the on and below grade level readers. Why did those kids get to barge into AAP when they’re below standard. Why are the AAP teachers catering to those kids at the expense of kids who are advanced?

PP who is teacher. Honestly, I don’t truly believe a lot of the levels given. Reading is complex. I have had many kids listed as a 5th grade DRA that pass advance on the reading SOL and kids who were labeled as a 7th/8th grade level who didn’t pass advance. Once they hit a 50 DRA, there isn’t too much of a difference between a 50/60. A lot of it is content maturity and vocabulary development. Some kids are just not great test takers. I had a girl when I taught Gen Ed who was very bright, but tested horribly for reading. She ended up at UVA because she matured and worked hard. Now with that being said, I meet with all groups equally. I only have a few 50’s. Most are 60’s and 70’s in my AAP class. The other thing I notice when we assess is that most kids test higher in fiction and lower with nonfiction. When I do small groups, I use the same text often, but different supports based off need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

If your argument is advanced/gifted students should be kept in gen ed to help the gen ed kids you have a terrible argument.
I do not think it is “incredibly indulgent” to offer advanced classes for advanced students. Shouldn’t every kid get to actually learn? And not just be help for other kids or left on their own?

Yes. But Gen Ed kids don't get to take advanced tracking courses. Why shouldn't a disadvantaged kid who is great at math and science be denied exposure to higher level content? Why exclude?

This is why AAP should be subject based and not all 4. I still to this day do not understand how my school offers adv math but not adv LA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

DP. The program was here when we moved here. We didn’t create it. I do think there can be changes but I don’t think there’s any reason the existence of the AAP class harms the gen ed class. They can have good teachers in gen ed too.

What is your basis for believing drawing a line in the sand and removing the highest achievers on one side isn't harmful to the kids left behind?

If your argument is advanced/gifted students should be kept in gen ed to help the gen ed kids you have a terrible argument.
I do not think it is “incredibly indulgent” to offer advanced classes for advanced students. Shouldn’t every kid get to actually learn? And not just be help for other kids or left on their own?

Yes. But Gen Ed kids don't get to take advanced tracking courses. Why shouldn't a disadvantaged kid who is great at math and science be denied exposure to higher level content? Why exclude?

How does getting rid of AAP get your disadvantaged kid who is great and math and science exposure to higher content?
How does getting rid of AAP allow access to whatever advanced tracking courses to gen ed? There either won’t be any more adv track or it will fill with the kids who would have been in AAP.

I don’t think the existing system is perfect but better to keep it and improve it than ditch it completely. Make LIII more robust and consistent. Make it ao kids don’t retain LIV permanently, etc.

[Anonymous]

They should eliminate centers and surely transportation to centers if they keep them. But keep the program in local schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should eliminate centers and surely transportation to centers if they keep them. But keep the program in local schools

This! No need for centers unless there are not enough kids to make a class. Every school that goes into our center has a LL4. It is a waste of resources and space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s private school on the public’s dime. And then those parents have the gall to pretend they support public school.

Except that class size is on average larger in the AAP program which enables smaller classes in the base school and teachers have to differentiate less if they don't have as wide an ability spectrum in their classes. Advanced education is a right afforded by law for students identified as having advanced academic abilities just as special education is a right afforded by law for students identified with learning disabilities.