Reply to AAP should be eliminated as it’s not the path to equity

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "AAP should be eliminated as it’s not the path to equity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]AAP is not a gifted program.  It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program.  (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education.  Wrong!  The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point.  But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.[/quote]

All the kids are taking the same standardized tests.  They all have equal access to the same programs.  If you are able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in subjects, it makes perfect sense to be able to receive a higher level of acceleration and material taught.  Just the same if a child tests low, remedial measures are put in place.  [/quote]

So you prepped your kids for the tests.  That is essentially cheating - it is not indicative of your child’s giftedness.  Which, again, is a HUGE part of the problem.

(Also, does no one else think it’s insane to basically permanently track kids at ages 6-7?  Johnny didn’t score as well on a test he didn’t prepare for in second grade [because you’re not supposed to prepare for it] as Timmy whose Mommy was giving him practice tests for three months, so Johnny is essentially screwed for the the rest of his time in FCPS?)[/quote]

To get rid of APP, everyone needs to vote for the Democrat-backed candidates running for school board positions.

The republicans will only keep AAP in place.

Vote D and put an end to AAP.[/quote]

Although I agree the GOP is usually okay with segregation, this is accurate. I've looked at the candidate's platform and haven't seen anything about eliminating AAP.[/quote]
Segregation is a result of individual learning preferences. Students who prefer a standard pace opt for a regular class, while those seeking a more in-depth understanding choose to enroll in Honors class for the same subject. And, students who aim to take their learning to an advanced level decide to join corresponding AP class. This segregation of students into these various classes happens because of student's choice and their learning preference.

But politicians want their sheep followers to take note of race of students in these three different classes, and what skin color is majority and what other skin color is out numbered especially in the advanced class, to drive a wedge between racial groups.

[/quote]

Or maybe they just want a fair system that elevates all students and helps them develop their ptoential[/quote]

The truth is that that system exists but it is not accessed by many families in ES because the parents are not engaged. Teachers are allowed to refer kids for LIV because there is a concern about deserving kids who did not hit the in-pool score not being referred by parents. The recent change to localized in-pool scores is an effort to get more kids in front of the committee who were not in the past because their test scores were not high enough. Young Scholars is more active at Title 1 schools then it is at UMC schools for a reason. Class sizes are intentionally small at Title 1 schools for a reason.

But you need the parents to buy in and encourage their kids. Get their kids to school. Care about their grades and activities at school. And that is missing at most Title 1 schools.

It is not because the parents don’t love their kids, because they do. But the parents are trying to take care of their families and don’t have time for meetings and info sessions and parent teacher conferences. The parents don’t have the money to enroll their kids in after school activities at the school and probably don’t have the time to research scholarships for their kid. They sure don’t have the time to run math club or STEM Scouts or some other enrichment activity.  Most importantly, the parents don’t have an education themselves and do not value a high school degree.

A kid at a Title 1 school who shows any interest in school is going to receive so much help and encouragement and you can only help that will take them into HS and beyond because the likelihood that they get that support at home is small.[/quote]

The problem with the current system is a lot of families with means are able to access this programming through appeals, prep or providing outside diagnosis to bolster their claims of giftedness. [/quote]

Exactly it provides a way around desegregation laws. Families with money have their kids put into AAP whereas those without are in gened. It's that simple. [/quote]

This is an incredibly obtuse take. I personally know lower income children who not only got in but thrived in AAP. Stop making stuff up.[/quote]

Sure there are a few rare exceptions, but AAP has a much lower FARMS rate than Gen-ed. [b]It is a way to segregate the rich from the poor. [/b]That isn't even up for debate.[/quote]

Agree that may be an effect, but that doesn't mean it's the intent/motivation. The motivation/intent is to meet kids where they are. If you think the entire program is driven by a desire for socioeconomic segregation, then we live in different worlds. Housing policy and choices and school boundaries have FAR more to do with socioeconomic segregation than the AAP/GenEd split does within a given school.[/quote]

Of course it's not the intent but it is the result.AAP ends up being socioeconomic segregation.[/quote]

It's unfortunate that this is true.[/quote]

I wonder where you are in the county.  Because that's not what I see at all.  [/quote]

It's exactly what I see and is aligned with the statistic that AAP has a lower free lunch percentage than gen ed.[/quote]

You could get rid of AAP and you'd still have the same basic level of socioeconomic segregation between schools.  You could keep AAP but lose "centers" and there'd still be segregation. It's housing, not the program. Sure, within a given school you might see a bit of a different distribution socioeconomically between AAP and GenEd, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to housing-based socioeconomic segregation.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics