Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that voice of reason

There is 0 reason for any kid/ family to be doing things at home to accelerate.

If the kid is extremely smart they should just skip a grade. The obsession of thinking so many kids are bored and need more challenging content is ridiculous

In the real world no one cares when you took algebra.

There's plenty of reasons. Some kids have an interest in math, some kids love to read at home and go after more advanced material without their parents pushing them. For others, they may attend foreign schools part of the year, or they plan to return to their home country.

For other kids, they want to take advanced subjects for admission to a competitive college (thus they care about when you took algebra), or to graduate early from college which has huge financial benefits given the cost of education.

My tax dollars shouldn't be paying for that. If you want unique instruction pony up for private school. You can't demand public schools deal with this acceleration.

Your viewpoint is idiotic. It doesn't and shouldn't cost taxpayers a dime more to teach advanced materials to advanced kids. It requires the same number of teachers and costs the same amount of money to offer 5 regular classes and 1 advanced class than it does to offer 6 regular classes. It's obviously a better use of money to actually teach the advanced kids rather than have them sit around learning nothing all day.

Plus, we need more scientists, engineers, doctors, and so on. The best way to achieve that is to have kids do more rather than doing less. Nothing is gained by learning less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that voice of reason

There is 0 reason for any kid/ family to be doing things at home to accelerate.

If the kid is extremely smart they should just skip a grade. The obsession of thinking so many kids are bored and need more challenging content is ridiculous

In the real world no one cares when you took algebra.

There's plenty of reasons. Some kids have an interest in math, some kids love to read at home and go after more advanced material without their parents pushing them. For others, they may attend foreign schools part of the year, or they plan to return to their home country.

For other kids, they want to take advanced subjects for admission to a competitive college (thus they care about when you took algebra), or to graduate early from college which has huge financial benefits given the cost of education.

My tax dollars shouldn't be paying for that. If you want unique instruction pony up for private school. You can't demand public schools deal with this acceleration.

P.S. this is different than gifted raw talent students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that voice of reason

There is 0 reason for any kid/ family to be doing things at home to accelerate.

If the kid is extremely smart they should just skip a grade. The obsession of thinking so many kids are bored and need more challenging content is ridiculous

In the real world no one cares when you took algebra.

There's plenty of reasons. Some kids have an interest in math, some kids love to read at home and go after more advanced material without their parents pushing them. For others, they may attend foreign schools part of the year, or they plan to return to their home country.

For other kids, they want to take advanced subjects for admission to a competitive college (thus they care about when you took algebra), or to graduate early from college which has huge financial benefits given the cost of education.

My tax dollars shouldn't be paying for that. If you want unique instruction pony up for private school. You can't demand public schools deal with this acceleration.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that voice of reason

There is 0 reason for any kid/ family to be doing things at home to accelerate.

If the kid is extremely smart they should just skip a grade. The obsession of thinking so many kids are bored and need more challenging content is ridiculous

In the real world no one cares when you took algebra.

There's plenty of reasons. Some kids have an interest in math, some kids love to read at home and go after more advanced material without their parents pushing them. For others, they may attend foreign schools part of the year, or they plan to return to their home country.

For other kids, they want to take advanced subjects for admission to a competitive college (thus they care about when you took algebra), or to graduate early from college which has huge financial benefits given the cost of education.

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

Too bad.

I'm more worried about my own kids education and the amount of time they get to spend with the teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.

Yes, but when most of the kids in the advanced track are only there because their parents bought a gifted diagnosis after 3 appeals it isn't all that meaningful.

AAP is more of a workaround to for segregation than a gifted program given its policies that favor UMC families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.

Yes, but when most of the kids in the advanced track are only there because their parents bought a gifted diagnosis after 3 appeals it isn't all that meaningful.

You can sing this verse as loud and long as you want to, but if it's happening, it's a very small number and there's no way it'll ever be proven to be true. It certainly won't be the reason the AAP process ever changes. To be honest, the jealous attacks ring hollow and don't help the cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.

Yes, but when most of the kids in the advanced track are only there because their parents bought a gifted diagnosis after 3 appeals it isn't all that meaningful.

Right, except that's not what's happening lol

Except in the many cases where it is...

I doubt it is many cases. There are not that many interested in AAP that they are paying for 3 different evaluations. The WiSC is around $500. A nuero-psyche evaluation runs between $3,000-$5,000. You really believe that many people are paying either $1,500, probably more if they are paying someone to lie about the results, for a bogus WiSC or they are paying for a bogus WiSC and nuero-pyche evaluation to be labeled 2E and to have serious enough issues that the child gets an IEP.

Maybe a few people are that strangely desperate but I doubt it is that large of a number.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.

Yes, but when most of the kids in the advanced track are only there because their parents bought a gifted diagnosis after 3 appeals it isn't all that meaningful.

Right, except that's not what's happening lol

Except in the many cases where it is...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.

Yes, but when most of the kids in the advanced track are only there because their parents bought a gifted diagnosis after 3 appeals it isn't all that meaningful.

Right, except that's not what's happening lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.

Yes, but when most of the kids in the advanced track are only there because their parents bought a gifted diagnosis after 3 appeals it isn't all that meaningful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a problematic assumption that will necessarily lead to the results found:

an optimal teaching environment would be one in which a student is taught at a level that matches his or her skill level;

Actual article is behind a paywall so it’s hard to know if they included any of the other issues known (by educators) to facilitate learning. I’m not weighing in on the conclusions, but it is pretty annoying to crow about how unbiased you are cause you used math and then list a series of assumptions that are obviously not objective.

how can you argue that someone should *not* be taught to their skill level? does that make sense?

Agreed. Like do you want your kids to feel stupid? Or bored?

Or do you want your kids to actually like school?

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

Here’s the problem with that statement: not everyone who has the means to work the system gets into aap and there are also a lot kids who get into aap without the means.

Kids are tracked by their ability, not by how much the parents make. And sure- those parents could honestly be sending their kids to kumon every week but the reality is that a lot of it is that you can see the difference when kids aren’t taught at their level.

And if you read the article instead of just the title of this thread you would understand that.

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a problematic assumption that will necessarily lead to the results found:

an optimal teaching environment would be one in which a student is taught at a level that matches his or her skill level;

Actual article is behind a paywall so it’s hard to know if they included any of the other issues known (by educators) to facilitate learning. I’m not weighing in on the conclusions, but it is pretty annoying to crow about how unbiased you are cause you used math and then list a series of assumptions that are obviously not objective.

how can you argue that someone should *not* be taught to their skill level? does that make sense?

Anonymous wrote:I love how some person concludes that this study equates to not getting rid of AAP in spite of the fact it mostly just caters to higher SES families and ignores many who are equally deserving but without the means to work the system.

I’m not sure where you get that. The study finds that for math, you should group like with like skill levels.