Anonymous wrote:I wanted to get input on what is better for underperforming students?

Remediation reteaches content from previous units or grade level that student failed to learn.

Whereas acceleration, would allow underperforming student to start learning new concepts before it is taught in the class, readying the student for new learning alongside their classmates who get it the first time.

Sure acceleration involves parent investing their time at home or making a small investment in outside enrichment like kumon or such. But if FCPS is investing in remediation, shouldn't they be investing in or expected to pay for acceleration if that is a better way for underperforming students to be at the same level as their classmates.

Remediation for skills based subjects (e.g. math, grammar, spelling, phonics) and acceleration for content-based subjects (e.g. science, history, English, etc)

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to get input on what is better for underperforming students?

Remediation reteaches content from previous units or grade level that student failed to learn.

Whereas acceleration, would allow underperforming student to start learning new concepts before it is taught in the class, readying the student for new learning alongside their classmates who get it the first time.

Sure acceleration involves parent investing their time at home or making a small investment in outside enrichment like kumon or such. But if FCPS is investing in remediation, shouldn't they be investing in or expected to pay for acceleration if that is a better way for underperforming students to be at the same level as their classmates.

I cannot understand the confused "this one goes to 11" thinking that led to this post.

If you try to pre teach the material before class, in some other class, how will the student access the material in the pre-class? Another pre-class?

Maybe what you are trying to think is that instead of starting at 100% / 4.0 and then punishing kids with low GPA for not knowing the whole class before it starts, the class should have expectations for mastery that are only 70% (made up number) of the material being presented? Yes, that's absolutely true. And that's what all the outside enrichment programs do!

Anonymous wrote:My wild guess. Without learning-in-advance at outside enrichment center and/or at home, about half of AAP students would be sitting in remedial.

So, explain why those kids aren't failing AAP. Are they getting double enrichment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math teacher:

It's kind of both. I preteach remedial skills necessary to access grade level skills.
Suppose next week's lesson is solving multistep equations in algebra 1. Then with my double block kids, I'm spending this week reviewing 1 and 2 step equations, the distributive property, and combining like terms (remediation) so that they are ready to hit the ground running with multistep. In class, they will spend 20 minutes reviewing that, but we will spend 2-3 blocks.

When we are going to hit factoring, I spend 2-3 blocks reviewing multiplying binomials, multiplication facts, and exponent laws so that when factoring is introduced they can keep up with the class.

This is not AAP though. If this level of support is needed in AAP, the student is severely misplaced.

It makes zero sense to dive into material that they don't have the foundational knowledge to access.

In your class, before you introduced the new lesson in solving multistep equations, would a remedial bound student benefit from getting a prelesson in that topic, so that your class is not the first time they encounter that new topic? Many "successful students" in your class who attend outside enrichment centers appear to be benefiting from that sort of pre-learning.

Outside enrichment helps because kids spend more total time studying so they go faster (in calender terms).

Giving your kids the "enrichment" before they understand the basics, instead of the basics, will not help them.

How do your thinking your child is going to learn the advanced content if they haven't even grasped the prerequisite content?
Yes it's good to spiral, doing a little of everything, and then a little more of everything, and the repetition helps it sink in, but going ahead to harder stuff before you are ready is disastrous.

My wild guess. Without learning-in-advance at outside enrichment center and/or at home, about half of AAP students would be sitting in remedial.

Anonymous wrote:Math teacher:

It's kind of both. I preteach remedial skills necessary to access grade level skills.
Suppose next week's lesson is solving multistep equations in algebra 1. Then with my double block kids, I'm spending this week reviewing 1 and 2 step equations, the distributive property, and combining like terms (remediation) so that they are ready to hit the ground running with multistep. In class, they will spend 20 minutes reviewing that, but we will spend 2-3 blocks.

When we are going to hit factoring, I spend 2-3 blocks reviewing multiplying binomials, multiplication facts, and exponent laws so that when factoring is introduced they can keep up with the class.

This is not AAP though. If this level of support is needed in AAP, the student is severely misplaced.

It makes zero sense to dive into material that they don't have the foundational knowledge to access.

In your class, before you introduced the new lesson in solving multistep equations, would a remedial bound student benefit from getting a prelesson in that topic, so that your class is not the first time they encounter that new topic? Many "successful students" in your class who attend outside enrichment centers appear to be benefiting from that sort of pre-learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would FCPS invest in teaching accelerated content to a student who hasn’t mastered previously taught concepts and needs remediation. This makes absolutely no sense.

You are missing the point here. The question being asked is should FCPS invest in pre-teaching from the get go so that the student wouldnt need remedial? Similar to what involved parents do at home or through enrichment (although for different reason, which is giving their child a leg up).

Math teacher again. I don't think you understand how lacking kid's basic skills are in the upper grades. I can't preteach algebra 2 concepts to a kid who can't solve a 1 step equation. There is no point. It ends up just teaching a kid to memorize a procedure vs. understand what is going on, which creates more holes down the road.

Math teacher:

It's kind of both. I preteach remedial skills necessary to access grade level skills.
Suppose next week's lesson is solving multistep equations in algebra 1. Then with my double block kids, I'm spending this week reviewing 1 and 2 step equations, the distributive property, and combining like terms (remediation) so that they are ready to hit the ground running with multistep. In class, they will spend 20 minutes reviewing that, but we will spend 2-3 blocks.

When we are going to hit factoring, I spend 2-3 blocks reviewing multiplying binomials, multiplication facts, and exponent laws so that when factoring is introduced they can keep up with the class.

This is not AAP though. If this level of support is needed in AAP, the student is severely misplaced.

It makes zero sense to dive into material that they don't have the foundational knowledge to access.

Anonymous wrote:Why would FCPS invest in teaching accelerated content to a student who hasn’t mastered previously taught concepts and needs remediation. This makes absolutely no sense.

You are missing the point here. The question being asked is should FCPS invest in pre-teaching from the get go so that the student wouldnt need remedial? Similar to what involved parents do at home or through enrichment (although for different reason, which is giving their child a leg up).

I’ve got a kid behind in math because of various factors that resulted in him not doing any math work in class or at home for months. Once I determined that he didn’t have any disability related to math (based on neuropsych testing, standardized tests, and talking to his teachers/tutors) I decided that acceleration was the better path for him. Not really “accelerated” in terms of way in front if everyone, but keeping up with a challenging curriculum. I realized that if we slowed down to repeat the lessons he missed he would get nowhere; better to just forge ahead with the curriculum and better support.

Part of this has to do with the horrible curriculum and teachers style at the school. I actually posted on DCUM a few weeks ago trying to understand exactly what pre-algebra is, and I realized that for the most part it’s new skills that don’t depend on anything my kid doesn’t already know or can catch up with on the spot. There was no purpose to delaying starting on equations etc.

Anonymous wrote:This kid should not be in AAP

What about kids who have family resources to prelearn math? should they be in AAP?

Why would FCPS invest in teaching accelerated content to a student who hasn’t mastered previously taught concepts and needs remediation. This makes absolutely no sense.

This kid should not be in AAP

I wanted to get input on what is better for underperforming students?

Remediation reteaches content from previous units or grade level that student failed to learn.

Whereas acceleration, would allow underperforming student to start learning new concepts before it is taught in the class, readying the student for new learning alongside their classmates who get it the first time.

Sure acceleration involves parent investing their time at home or making a small investment in outside enrichment like kumon or such. But if FCPS is investing in remediation, shouldn't they be investing in or expected to pay for acceleration if that is a better way for underperforming students to be at the same level as their classmates.