AAP Equity report
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Most probably do but if they’re evenly distributed across 4 or 5 classes and only come together infrequently for pull-outs it may be a problem. |
Anonymous
This is why the equity review panel recommended clustering LIII students in fewer classrooms. There's no reason to evenly distribute them, and then decide that they need LIV because there isn't enough of a peer group. |
Anonymous
| Then normal practice in schools with a lot of struggling kids is to evenly distribute the “easy” kids (those ahead of grade level with no education issues) evenly in each classroom.... |
Anonymous
True, but this was my original point, which perhaps I didn’t convey effectively. “Good” Level III isn’t just about content or frequency of instruction, it’s also about ensuring that students have an adequately-sized peer group to challenge them throughout the course of the school day. |
Anonymous
I think this is exactly what’s happening. |
Anonymous
That hasn't been my experience. They've organized the classes so they don't have too many different reading groups for the teacher to handle. That means that if there are only 12 above grade level readers, they'll be split into two classrooms, so each can have a full reading group. |
Anonymous
Then why do they have to lower standards for some particular races in order to call them gifted or advanced? |
Anonymous
The report recommended strengthening programs like Young Scholars to provide earlier access to services for disadvantaged kids, in the hopes that they will then be able to qualify on their own for AAP. It did not recommend having lower standards for AA and hispanic kids. It is possible, though, that a privileged kid who scores 125 on CogAT has the same natural level of intelligence as an underprivileged kid who scores a 120. |
Anonymous
I’m going to guess this is very much at the principal’s discretion and there is wide variation across different schools. |
Anonymous
Because the tests are biased. Whatever Verbal is (I don’t prep my kids so I don’t actually know) I think inherently focuses on words common in white upbringing. |
Anonymous
| Less advantaged kids (and, in this area, under-represented minority kids tend to be less advantaged) are less likely to be prepped. |
Anonymous
And don’t have access to the same enriching activities that raise scores for wealthier kids. |
Anonymous
Schools are not allowed to group kids by levels, it is a violation of federal law. In the past, grouping by level would lead to all the kids with IEPs in one class making it harder for one Teacher to meet their needs. Distributing different level kids in each class is meant to even out the time that kids get from a Teacher. It is also thought that kids who are less motivated might be driven by a desire to catch up to peers who are more advanced. One of the reasons that there is a requirement for gifted programs in every school district is because it has been noted that there are kids who are able to produce above grade level and need more attention for that reason. It is the same reason that there are special classes for kids with more severe emotional/educational needs. |
Anonymous
Huh? Schools can cluster kids, as long as overall the classrooms are relatively balanced. Reading groups are one compelling reason to cluster kids, since it would not be efficient for the teacher to have reading groups containing only 1-2 kids. Sometimes, ESOL kids are clustered, so the ESOL teacher can more easily be present to help them. My gen ed kid is in a 27 person classroom, that has a cluster of the 6 highest readers in the grade as well as a cluster of about 8 ESOL kids who are multiple years below grade level. |
Anonymous
| When I taught in an FCPS Title 1 (for five years), we never had more than a handful of above-grade-level readers and they were always distributed between the classes so every class had a similar composition. |