Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)
The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.
This is valid.
And gross.
But also given that it’s the system we walked into (as in it was already operating this way when our kid entered kindergarten), I can tell you that it takes way more courage than I have to be the one to refuse the opportunity to have my kid placed into the “smart” class where 90% of kids in that LIV class have two married college-educated parents at home who expect high grades and good behavior versus taking a stand against the messed up system and declining the opportunity so that my kid can stay in Gen Ed where the ability level of one classroom of third graders can range from barely able to sound out 3-letter words to reading at 6th-grade level, with no fewer than three daily behavior problems ranging from chair-throwing to hitting and cursing. Those poor teachers are completely overwhelmed, and who wouldn’t be???
If it’s going to stop, it’s going yo have to come from the school board. Because parents (myself included) aren’t going to opt their kids out of the chaos if they have the choice to put them into a class that is focused on higher-level instruction that also provides a calmer learning environment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)
The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.
This is valid.
And gross.
But also given that it’s the system we walked into (as in it was already operating this way when our kid entered kindergarten), I can tell you that it takes way more courage than I have to be the one to refuse the opportunity to have my kid placed into the “smart” class where 90% of kids in that LIV class have two married college-educated parents at home who expect high grades and good behavior versus taking a stand against the messed up system and declining the opportunity so that my kid can stay in Gen Ed where the ability level of one classroom of third graders can range from barely able to sound out 3-letter words to reading at 6th-grade level, with no fewer than three daily behavior problems ranging from chair-throwing to hitting and cursing. Those poor teachers are completely overwhelmed, and who wouldn’t be???
If it’s going to stop, it’s going yo have to come from the school board. Because parents (myself included) aren’t going to opt their kids out of the chaos if they have the choice to put them into a class that is focused on higher-level instruction that also provides a calmer learning environment.
Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)
The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.
This is valid.
And gross.
But also given that it’s the system we walked into (as in it was already operating this way when our kid entered kindergarten), I can tell you that it takes way more courage than I have to be the one to refuse the opportunity to have my kid placed into the “smart” class where 90% of kids in that LIV class have two married college-educated parents at home who expect high grades and good behavior versus taking a stand against the messed up system and declining the opportunity so that my kid can stay in Gen Ed where the ability level of one classroom of third graders can range from barely able to sound out 3-letter words to reading at 6th-grade level, with no fewer than three daily behavior problems ranging from chair-throwing to hitting and cursing. Those poor teachers are completely overwhelmed, and who wouldn’t be???
If it’s going to stop, it’s going yo have to come from the school board. Because parents (myself included) aren’t going to opt their kids out of the chaos if they have the choice to put them into a class that is focused on higher-level instruction that also provides a calmer learning environment.
Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)
The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.
Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.
How many kids end up taking and doing well in AP/IB classes in high school? I am pretty sure that there are a lot more kids in those classes then just the LIV kids. LIV does not lead to kids who are uber advanced and out pacing their peers. LLIV works well for a lot of kids. The notion that Centers are needed for kids to excel is BS.
The parents I know who are obsessed with Centers are the parents who valued a bigger house in a Title 1 school boundary and want their kid at a better school without having to buy a smaller house. They are the same parents who apply for the magnet schools and dual language immersion programs, anything to move their kid out of the school that they bought into.
There is the subset that want the Center so they can show how smart their kid is or because they are obsessed with TJ and see AAP as a step on the path to TJ.
Since we don't live in a Title I school boundary or a TJ mania area, we don't see any of that.
Centers are better for everyone because the AAP kids leave the base schools rather than stay in a single "smart" class making the other students constantly aware of it and the AAP kids themselves get several classes to mingle with rather than being stuck in one class for 4 years.
LOL. Yes, better for the other kids to be constantly aware that the AAP kids are so much better than them that they can’t even be in the same building!! Oh nevermind, the gen ed kids are just a bunch of goldfish - out of sight out of mind, right?
Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/
And the arguments made are so compelling.
Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.
Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.
How many kids end up taking and doing well in AP/IB classes in high school? I am pretty sure that there are a lot more kids in those classes then just the LIV kids. LIV does not lead to kids who are uber advanced and out pacing their peers. LLIV works well for a lot of kids. The notion that Centers are needed for kids to excel is BS.
The parents I know who are obsessed with Centers are the parents who valued a bigger house in a Title 1 school boundary and want their kid at a better school without having to buy a smaller house. They are the same parents who apply for the magnet schools and dual language immersion programs, anything to move their kid out of the school that they bought into.
There is the subset that want the Center so they can show how smart their kid is or because they are obsessed with TJ and see AAP as a step on the path to TJ.
Since we don't live in a Title I school boundary or a TJ mania area, we don't see any of that.
Centers are better for everyone because the AAP kids leave the base schools rather than stay in a single "smart" class making the other students constantly aware of it and the AAP kids themselves get several classes to mingle with rather than being stuck in one class for 4 years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.
Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.
How many kids end up taking and doing well in AP/IB classes in high school? I am pretty sure that there are a lot more kids in those classes then just the LIV kids. LIV does not lead to kids who are uber advanced and out pacing their peers. LLIV works well for a lot of kids. The notion that Centers are needed for kids to excel is BS.
The parents I know who are obsessed with Centers are the parents who valued a bigger house in a Title 1 school boundary and want their kid at a better school without having to buy a smaller house. They are the same parents who apply for the magnet schools and dual language immersion programs, anything to move their kid out of the school that they bought into.
There is the subset that want the Center so they can show how smart their kid is or because they are obsessed with TJ and see AAP as a step on the path to TJ.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.
Centers are a much better implementation than Local Level IV, which is what you're advocating for.
Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/
And the arguments made are so compelling.
Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?
Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.
Anonymous wrote:Keep AAP but limit it to the top 15% of each schools population. Close the Centers. That way the LIV classroom reflects the top 15% of the kids at that school. The kids who are ahead receive additional challenge. Heck, set it at 20% for each school so it reflects the number of kids in AAP now.