Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

So, just like I said in the post above yours

Yes, supports exactly what you said. Thanks for your post; particularly useful since you have firsthand experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

So, just like I said in the post above yours

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

So, just like I said in the post above yours

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

BU's Bempechat has an interesting article, with a section titled "Homework and Social Class". (Pages 40-41 below.) She highlights ways low-income parents do help their students despite limited education or funds.
https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ednext_xix_1_bempechat.pdf

Bempechat argues that:
"research shows that low-income parents who are unable to assist with homework are far from passive in their children’s learning, and they do help foster scholastic performance." ... "In another recent study, researchers examined mathematics achievement in low-income 8th-grade Asian and Latino students. Help with homework was an advantage their mothers could not provide. They could, however, furnish structure (for example, by setting aside quiet time for homework completion), and it was this structure that most predicted high achievement. As the authors note, 'It is . . . important to help [low-income] parents realize that they can still help their children get good grades in mathematics and succeed in school even if they do not know how to provide direct assistance with their child’s mathematics homework.' ”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Why is the assumption always that those parents don't prioritize academics? Have you ever considered that parents can care about academics but at the same time be entirely incapable of providing any help due to their own very limited education or inability to afford enrichment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Truth. The achievement gap is really a parenting gap. Not to say that kids who aren’t high achievers have bad parents, but their parents do not place a high priority on academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

What people cant seem to understand about the equity issue is that some parents will continue to advocate for their child education no matter how many road blocks are put up. And some parents will continue to not care about their childs education no matter how many steps up you give those kids.

Only parents interested in raising their child's performance can effectively close the gap. Unfortunately, those kids and parents have been told its not their fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is more hysteria than reality at this point, but I am concerned that there is far too much politics (on both sides of the aisle) creating untoward influence in education these days. It is all a distraction from truly teaching children. Remember the space race? America united around the need to better prepare students in science and math. What happened to that? We want to set the bar high and let in ALL kids that can meet it. That is good for America, and if you think America still represents something good, you should want all kids who can excel given that opportunity to excel.

Sure in theory. The issue is in practice it's not about letting all kids that can do a class take the class; it's about letting all kids that WANT to take a class take it & then expecting the teacher to work miracles if they aren't prepared for it or then allowing the teacher/school to water down the class so that those struggling can do it.

It's frustrating for those that need more than the basics. I'm 45 & tracking was used when I was a kid. I'm a firm believer in it - yes to allowing additional options for kids to test in to the higher classes but I view the current approach of trying to dump kids of all the same ability levels into the same class as entirely the wrong direction.

Who wants this per OP's question? The schools do since it artificially makes the achievement gaps look better.

I guess if they really did this but at least our AAP center classes aren't being watered down so no idea where this is coming from.

It's easy as to benefits from this, private entities will be the only ones offering advanced classes and those families that can afford them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is more hysteria than reality at this point, but I am concerned that there is far too much politics (on both sides of the aisle) creating untoward influence in education these days. It is all a distraction from truly teaching children. Remember the space race? America united around the need to better prepare students in science and math. What happened to that? We want to set the bar high and let in ALL kids that can meet it. That is good for America, and if you think America still represents something good, you should want all kids who can excel given that opportunity to excel.

Sure in theory. The issue is in practice it's not about letting all kids that can do a class take the class; it's about letting all kids that WANT to take a class take it & then expecting the teacher to work miracles if they aren't prepared for it or then allowing the teacher/school to water down the class so that those struggling can do it.

It's frustrating for those that need more than the basics. I'm 45 & tracking was used when I was a kid. I'm a firm believer in it - yes to allowing additional options for kids to test in to the higher classes but I view the current approach of trying to dump kids of all the same ability levels into the same class as entirely the wrong direction.

Who wants this per OP's question? The schools do since it artificially makes the achievement gaps look better.

I guess if they really did this but at least our AAP center classes aren't being watered down so no idea where this is coming from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is more hysteria than reality at this point, but I am concerned that there is far too much politics (on both sides of the aisle) creating untoward influence in education these days. It is all a distraction from truly teaching children. Remember the space race? America united around the need to better prepare students in science and math. What happened to that? We want to set the bar high and let in ALL kids that can meet it. That is good for America, and if you think America still represents something good, you should want all kids who can excel given that opportunity to excel.

Sure in theory. The issue is in practice it's not about letting all kids that can do a class take the class; it's about letting all kids that WANT to take a class take it & then expecting the teacher to work miracles if they aren't prepared for it or then allowing the teacher/school to water down the class so that those struggling can do it.

It's frustrating for those that need more than the basics. I'm 45 & tracking was used when I was a kid. I'm a firm believer in it - yes to allowing additional options for kids to test in to the higher classes but I view the current approach of trying to dump kids of all the same ability levels into the same class as entirely the wrong direction.

Who wants this per OP's question? The schools do since it artificially makes the achievement gaps look better.

I guess if they really did this but at least our AAP center classes aren't being watered down so no idea where this is coming from.

Anonymous wrote:There are a few types of kids who benefit:

Those who perform at the newly lowered ceiling and not much higher or lower - although even this kids will suffer in college
Those whose parents can see past the Harrison Bergeron rhetoric and have the money and knowledge necessary to get their kids a proper education outside of school. The parents of the latter are mostly white, and at times the exact same as the ones pushing for these lowered ceilings. Many minorities are either too scared of the tiger mom stereotype, too poor to afford AoPS/RSM, or too ignorant of the possibilities to do anything.

To add: many minorities come from countries where the education system is heavily top-down, so they have 0 clue advocacy is even an option, much less skilled in things like getting their kids in classes with the teachers who do care, petitioning for enrichment, networking with admin to make advocacy easier, etc. etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is more hysteria than reality at this point, but I am concerned that there is far too much politics (on both sides of the aisle) creating untoward influence in education these days. It is all a distraction from truly teaching children. Remember the space race? America united around the need to better prepare students in science and math. What happened to that? We want to set the bar high and let in ALL kids that can meet it. That is good for America, and if you think America still represents something good, you should want all kids who can excel given that opportunity to excel.

Sure in theory. The issue is in practice it's not about letting all kids that can do a class take the class; it's about letting all kids that WANT to take a class take it & then expecting the teacher to work miracles if they aren't prepared for it or then allowing the teacher/school to water down the class so that those struggling can do it.

It's frustrating for those that need more than the basics. I'm 45 & tracking was used when I was a kid. I'm a firm believer in it - yes to allowing additional options for kids to test in to the higher classes but I view the current approach of trying to dump kids of all the same ability levels into the same class as entirely the wrong direction.

Who wants this per OP's question? The schools do since it artificially makes the achievement gaps look better.

It's starting to happen on a piloted basis a non-center schools and in MS.
DC's MS has an "honors for all" (as in no general track option even) for 1 subject now. I'm sure they're seeing how that goes before rolling out further.
Some ESs w/o centers are implementing AAP w/o dedicated classrooms for the LLIV kids. Different names/approaches for this but it's being tried up in a few schools already. The concern is seeing this expand more so that it waters down the LLIV model where lots of kids are now.

I guess if they really did this but at least our AAP center classes aren't being watered down so no idea where this is coming from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long term - other countries that want to replace the US as a world leader, including some very not nice authoritarian regimes. Dumbing down of America is a tried and true tactic. Several conservative American politicians are in the pockets of these regimes. Conservatives will take their victory lap with a plush assignment from dear leader.

Short term - we will have lower outcomes across the board, so there will be an appearance of achieving equity, but we will have just lowered the bar. Liberals can take a victory lap.

They aren't doing this at my kid's AAP LIV. Do you know where exactly this happening? It sounds more like hysteria than reality.