Reply to Science says: never get rid of AAP

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Science says: never get rid of AAP"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Smart people tend to earn more money and intelligence is hereditary. Obviously anti-AAP folks are too dumb to understand correlated omitted variables. lol [/quote]
My kid is in AAP.  My husband and I have graduate degrees.  We are not dumb.  So I’m not AAP hater.  But the system is flawed.   Kids with high scores get rejected.  Kids whose parents have resources and know the system get in on appeal.   And it’s an accelerated program Vs a gifted program.  I think any reasonably intelligent person can see it’s flawed.  The people who get very defensive about any criticism of it to the point that they have to call people dumb shouldn’t be boasting about their intelligence. [/quote]

I just wanted to address a few of your points.  The system is flawed.  I agree.  The kids with high scores who are rejected are Asian and White kids at the more affluent schools.  The AAP equity report showed that URM kids and presumably FARMS kids with relatively low test scores are getting admitted, and in fact when controlling for the same test scores and GBRS, an AA child is over 5 times more likely to be admitted than an Asian child.  There's no secret formula for convincing the appeals committee to admit your child, and many parents on dcum fully tried to leverage their knowledge and privilege to no avail.  The main way parents gamed the system was prepping their children for the test, but the tests are no longer relied upon nearly as much as GBRS.  If affluent parents are leveraging their privilege to get their non gifted kids into AAP, they're doing so by enriching their children to the point that they actually are advanced for their grade level.  It makes sense to place advanced kids in an advanced academic program, regardless of how or why the kids are advanced.

I agree that it's an accelerated program and not a gifted program.  For what it is, it would make sense to admit kids for math/science or for language arts/social studies individually rather than having an all-or-nothing approach.  [b]It would also make sense to adjust the membership of the program every year based on some sort of placement test. [/b] It's silly to have kids who are a grade level ahead stuck in gen ed and then have some on-grade level kids in AAP.  There is a lot of overlap between the ability level of the bottom half of AAP and the top kids in gen ed, especially when you look at things on a subject by subject basis.  [/quote]+3[/quote]

The prospect of having to change schools every year would be incredibly disruptive for kids who attend the center.  Maybe if they did away with centers and every school had LLIV.  But what a huge stressor to put kids through every year--test to prove that you're still smart and get to stay with your friends?  Might fly under the radar for younger kids, but definitely not the older set. [/quote]

Gen ed kids already switch reading groups after every administration of the DRA.  Kids move into and out of advanced math based on various performance metrics.  Kids receiving LIII services may be moved into and out of the program as the school sees fit.  How is this any different?  The goal should be to match each student with the most appropriate instructional level for that student at that given point in time.  If a kid is struggling in advanced math and is more appropriately placed in regular math, you're not doing that kid any favors by keeping them in a class that is too fast.  You're not even protecting the kid's self esteem, since the kid will feel bad for being the slowest kid in the classroom.  [/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