Reply to Northam’s “Anti-Asian, Anti-Immigrant” School Initiative

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Northam’s “Anti-Asian, Anti-Immigrant” School Initiative"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
So many problems would be solved if AAP reverted to a top 5%/gifted kids only program.  AAP would be able to be taught at a much higher level if they only had the top kids and not a lot of fairly average kids.  Gen ed would be stronge[b]r if schools retained enough of their smart kids to be forced to plan for some advanced groupings and advanced instruction.[/b]  It will never happen, though, since the parents of the somewhat above average, privileged kids will fight tooth and nail to keep them in a program in which they don't belong.[/quote]

[b]How exactly would this help poor/disadvantaged kids? Even if teachers planned advanced concepts for children who are ahead, but not gifted, if the students can't keep up it wont help them at all.[/b]

Thank goodness that poster actually posted something more than "defund AAP." Its still not a cohesive argument for how that helps disadvantaged kids though. All it really does it take a program away from some kids.  
[/quote]

It's kind of obvious how it would help.  1.  Poor/disadvantaged kids would benefit from having some smart, motivated peers in their classroom.  2.  Kids who are smart, but poor or disadvantaged often can't leverage their way into AAP the same way that equally or even less smart, privileged kids can.  2a. Those kids are more likely to get advanced course offerings in gen ed when there's a critical mass of advanced kids at the school.  2b. Many of those kids might be advanced in math/science but not yet in language arts, and having more of the advanced kids in their classroom should lead to more opportunities to work ahead in their area of strength.  2c.  AAP is a fairly rigid, IN-or OUT system decided mostly in 2nd grade, but many poor or disadvantaged kids will catch up to the advanced kids later than 4th.  Having more advanced courses would give these kids a better chance to be flexibly grouped into them when they're ready.

Most importantly, though is point 3.  It's horrible to tell the white and Asian above average affluent children that they're gifted and have potential, and at the same time tell the poor, black, or hispanic kids that they aren't smart.  Intelligence is fluid and developmental, so it's awful to define kids at an early age, especially when the majority of kids who are defined as "smart" or "gifted" are neither, but rather, they're above average privileged kids.  Sending most kids back to gen ed would eliminate the artificial ceiling placed over smart disadvantaged kids and remove the floor placed under the not-truly-all-that-smart, privileged kids who get in.  
[/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