Is FCPS ending advance math for students who are not in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood why they don't have advanced language arts for those students who are advanced in that area.

Because if you compare the curriculum between AAP and GenEd for anything besides math, you will see that it's really not all that different. In the long run, AAP will result in 1-2 years ahead in the HS math course sequence. Once 9th grade starts, AAP makes no difference, it's either Honors, AP, or IB which is open to everyone. Not the case for every school or teacher of course, but on the whole really not that advanced outside of math.

+1
Which is why AAP is ridiculously unnecessary if flexible groupings would be used. And before anyone jumps in to screech that "one teacher can't handle multiple different groups!!" - that's not what I'm talking about. Each teacher would take one group. Among grade level teams, which are usually made up of 5-6 teachers, that would be plenty.

It would require their schedules to match exactly. They would all have to have LA, math, science and social studies at the same time for it to work. This could be very difficult.

Our ES does this for ELA and math. Everything else is mixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

Grouping kids based on ability is not gatekeeping. Putting a kid who is not able to add in a group/class that is working on multiplication does not help the kid who cannot add. That kid needs to be in a group that is learning to add. The kids who are comfortable with addition need to be in a group that helps them build on what they know. Putting the groups together either hurts the kid who cannot add, because they are not going to be able to multiply, or hurts the kids ready to learn multiplication because the Teacher is teaching addition.

I am sorry that there are families who do not have the time or knowledge or interest to work on reading and math and the like at home. I am sorry that there are families who don’t read to kids when they are toddlers. Or play math games. Or teach colors and shapes. I know some of it is because parents don’t know it is important or cannot read or do basic math. I know some of it is lack of time because parents are working a ton. But asking the kids who start school without knowing their letters, numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like to complete academics at the same level as kids who start with that background knowledge is not helping the kids who are behind. We have been trying the inclusive classroom for how long and the education gap is getting worse, not better. It is not helping the kids it is supposed to help and it is harming the kids who could be doing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

Wait what? What unearned privilege is there in a pretest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Flexible grouping can only work if it is a year commitment. You can’t have kids go in/out of the advanced group in 5th and 6th because they literally take s different SOL. I am all for grouping kids where they are. They should use the end of year data to do this. Between IReady and the SOLS there is definitely enough data to form groups. Maybe kids might start taking it more seriously if they knew it was for class placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

The current way forward needs to change because it isn’t working. I would be ok with keeping it if the education gap was decreasing but it isn’t. Inclusion has lead to the education gap growing. This was happening before COVID but has gotten even worse since COVID. If the model is not fixing the problem and is causing issues for other folks then it needs to go away.

I am not sacrificing my child’s education for a failed experiment. It is why we choose language immersion in ES and will opt into LIV AAP in MS. It is why we supplement outside of school in STEM subjects that my kid cares about. Yes, we can afford it. No, we are not going to stop in the name of equity.

If you want to be all in on equity, feel free to keep your child in the regular classes or opt into those classes when you have choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

Wait what? What unearned privilege is there in a pretest?

Just ignore. PP is full of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Flexible grouping can only work if it is a year commitment. You can’t have kids go in/out of the advanced group in 5th and 6th because they literally take s different SOL. I am all for grouping kids where they are. They should use the end of year data to do this. Between IReady and the SOLS there is definitely enough data to form groups. Maybe kids might start taking it more seriously if they knew it was for class placement.

Here you make a flawed assumption. There would be no “advanced” and all kids would take the grade-level SOL. For example, if you have 100 kids and 4 home rooms, they would be split into 4 math classes. This changes based on unit of study. I’m talking about flexible grouping instead of advanced placement for math only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

The current way forward needs to change because it isn’t working. I would be ok with keeping it if the education gap was decreasing but it isn’t. Inclusion has lead to the education gap growing. This was happening before COVID but has gotten even worse since COVID. If the model is not fixing the problem and is causing issues for other folks then it needs to go away.

I am not sacrificing my child’s education for a failed experiment. It is why we choose language immersion in ES and will opt into LIV AAP in MS. It is why we supplement outside of school in STEM subjects that my kid cares about. Yes, we can afford it. No, we are not going to stop in the name of equity.

If you want to be all in on equity, feel free to keep your child in the regular classes or opt into those classes when you have choices.

+1 everyone needs to put their kids first and not leave it to the school where they'll be short-changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

Won't those kids get wrecked by kids whose parents don't value equity?

It's a kind of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

[Anonymous]

Talking about pretests, ability levels, separate groups… all these things reward kids with unearned privilege. I’m not sure you understand how equity works. Or maybe you don’t support it? But that is the current path forward.

Equity works to bring everyone to the lowest common denominator. With equity no one wins, everyone loses. Especially in an education environment.

The sooner the “equity” fad ends the better for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Just more segregation with a cool new name. Same privilege perpetuation. This is not equitable either.

How so? Kids being able to move up or down as needed is the epitome of equity. They wouldn't be locked into either AAP or GE. Most kids aren't advance across the board, and this allows for all students to reach their potential in every core subject.