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: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.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Holistic is where we came from before AAP was launched. Remember AAP was created to get the advanced learners from interfering and diluting the instructional needs of gen ed kids.

[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.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

Realizing that 20% need differentiation in AAP is also accepting that the other 80% can’t be taught the same way and that there are levels to this.

So either everyone needs differentiation or no one does. Equity efforts seem to indicate that no one does, so why is FCPS claiming to focus on equity but not even discussing this complete dumpster fire of inequity.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

What was the makeup of the class?

[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.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

Except that has not happened. AAP has become watered down because parents are desperate to get their kids into the program. The Gen Ed classes are too mixed to allow anyone to have their needs met. So the kids who really need AAP, the top 5-10%, don’t get what they need because the kids who are only slightly ahead are placed in AAP. None of the kids in Gen Ed are getting their needs met. The kids at the below grade level don’t get the dedicated time they need. The kids on grade level get barely any attention. The kids who are slightly above grade level get minimal attention.

The inclusive classroom is not doing anyone any favors.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

What race was majority?

[Anonymous]

AAP is needed and it is not coming in the way of gen ed getting focused and quality education. There is not a single gen ed teacher who has ever said - I cant teach my class because of AAP program curriculum and students there. And there is not a single gen ed student who has complained - I cant understand this concept or do my homework because of kids in AAP. Problem here is the gen ed parents becoming too fixated on AAP students and their parents.

[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 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.

Disagree. More differentiation is needed, not less. Less only benefits the middle. The kids at either end of the curve aren’t getting instruction pertinent to their knowledge and capabilities. If teachers were able to teach smaller class sizes with a much narrower range of ability, they would be able to teach so much more effectively and efficiently. Even without a smaller class, having the narrow range of abilities is the answer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Disagree. More differentiation is needed, not less. Less only benefits the middle. The kids at either end of the curve aren’t getting instruction pertinent to their knowledge and capabilities. If teachers were able to teach smaller class sizes with a much narrower range of ability, they would be able to teach so much more effectively and efficiently. Even without a smaller class, having the narrow range of abilities is the answer

Differentiation is a burden on teachers but doesn't benefit students enough to be worth the cost. The workshop model, reducing whole class direct instruction, is a hallmark of Lucy Calkins. May it be left behind with the rest of her legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

Except that has not happened. AAP has become watered down because parents are desperate to get their kids into the program. The Gen Ed classes are too mixed to allow anyone to have their needs met. So the kids who really need AAP, the top 5-10%, don’t get what they need because the kids who are only slightly ahead are placed in AAP. None of the kids in Gen Ed are getting their needs met. The kids at the below grade level don’t get the dedicated time they need. The kids on grade level get barely any attention. The kids who are slightly above grade level get minimal attention.

The inclusive classroom is not doing anyone any favors.

AAP students need to be evaluated every year, and the bottom 10% need to move back to lower level or gen ed.

[Anonymous]

I substitute in FCPS. Both of my kids were AAP. The ESOL kids get tons of support. They are pulled out of class and worked with individually at the elementary level. In high school, they are in small classes with 2 teachers. The general classrooms have kids in them that need a lot of support, and those kids are pulled out to be worked with in small groups by special ed or ESOL teachers or both. There are also teachers that will go into a general classroom "push-in" and provide one-on-one support to individual students.

My issue with the general classroom is the kids I call 3s. They didn't get into AAP but many could handle AAP. Some of them are actually 4s, and they would have made it into AAP if someone had appealed on their behalf and/or parent paid for a WISC. Right now these kids will get pulled for advanced math class if they are lucky. One solution would be to put all the 3s in their own class and get rid of the mixed ability classroom. I don't think it serves anyone. I think an education system should serve the highest performing students if we want to remain competitive with the rest of the world. Kids shouldn't have to be bored at school, and some of the behavior problems I see are due to the fact that a smart kid is in a general class. As a teacher if I had a classroom of just truly general students, then I could give them the attention they deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Disagree. More differentiation is needed, not less. Less only benefits the middle. The kids at either end of the curve aren’t getting instruction pertinent to their knowledge and capabilities. If teachers were able to teach smaller class sizes with a much narrower range of ability, they would be able to teach so much more effectively and efficiently. Even without a smaller class, having the narrow range of abilities is the answer

Exactly. That's what I mean. Less in-class differentiation. In other words - stop making teachers differentiate across four to five different levels every day with 30 kids. It's impossible. At least AAP gives general ed teachers a break because those kids aren't in their classrooms and aren't on their differentiation roster. When I hear "get rid of AAP" I'm sad for gen ed teachers because I know what that means for them. More teachers means smaller classes with kids on the similar levels and everyone gets what they need.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

Same

[Anonymous]

There are parents who read to their kids before going to bed. There are also kids who read to their parents before going to bed. And, there are parents and their kids who don't read at all at home.

On the path to equity, what should be done?

1) Restrict parents from reading to kids at home

2) Restrict kids from reading too many books at home

3) Restrict reading to school hours only so that every kid reads same amount