Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kids in the middle always get screwed - that's what there is so much of a push to get them into level IV (and why the county pretends so many kids are gifted). On the low end, there is pressure to general track kids who (often through no fault of their own) act as anchors in gen ed classes because of either behavior or just an inability to move at the requisite pace. On the other end, there is pressure to pull away gifted kids an let them go at an advanced pace. If you have an above average (or even average kid), your choices are to pressure the school to get them into AAP, let them fall behind where they are capable of being because the teacher spends too much time dealing with kids who don't belong in the class, or going private. The end result is bloated AAP, disgruntled gen ed parents, and privates picking up those who can afford it

was getting long agree with this 100%

again with tracking you handle all of this in the classroom, it's fluid so kids can move in and out, problem solved.

Never have I heard sympathy from a teacher saying how advanced my child was and that they were truly sorry but they didn't have time to teach at that level. All we've ever gotten are guilt trips about how lucky we are and promises to hand out some worksheets to do on your own. If I wasn't able to provide the supplemental knowledge and tutelage at home, who knows what might have happened. Tracking doesn't work because teachers don't care about smart kids - in fact, I've found that the dumbest teachers feel threatened by their lack of acumen on subject matter and put down perceived uppity kids in front of the class for asking acting relevant questions requiring intellectual depth of knowledge. Smart teachers are the ones who say thay they don't know and will get back to them when they find out thte answer.

As a teacher I agree with this sentiment 100% The best teachers are generally empathetic and encourage independent thought and questions, while at the same time challenging everyone in the class to do their best and behave appropriately. The worst (hopefully not too many) will make kids feel that learning for learning sake is a waste of time.

At the same time it is very difficult to teach effectively in today's schools. Teacher autonomy (in terms of curriculum and teaching/testing ratio) is at an all time low, and many parents have extreme expectations while at the same time not doing enough to support teaching and speaking up on their behalf to administators. It does feel that every year the act of teaching is incrementally reduced from what it once was years back.

So I agree with you that teacher quality is an issue, but it's only part of the bigger problem. For that to change, schools and administration need to change priorities to provide solid education to all groups. That means raising the bar and demanding excellence in every classroom, and not just in name only (e.g the watered down AAP environment that schools constantly tout as advanced on paper, but which often in practice is really no different than the rest of the classrooms). And the only way that can really change if our community is vigilant about excellence in education and really thinks hard whenever there is an opportunity to vote in the people who make the decisions.

Anonymous wrote:kids in the middle always get screwed - that's what there is so much of a push to get them into level IV (and why the county pretends so many kids are gifted). On the low end, there is pressure to general track kids who (often through no fault of their own) act as anchors in gen ed classes because of either behavior or just an inability to move at the requisite pace. On the other end, there is pressure to pull away gifted kids an let them go at an advanced pace. If you have an above average (or even average kid), your choices are to pressure the school to get them into AAP, let them fall behind where they are capable of being because the teacher spends too much time dealing with kids who don't belong in the class, or going private. The end result is bloated AAP, disgruntled gen ed parents, and privates picking up those who can afford it

was getting long agree with this 100%

again with tracking you handle all of this in the classroom, it's fluid so kids can move in and out, problem solved.

Never have I heard sympathy from a teacher saying how advanced my child was and that they were truly sorry but they didn't have time to teach at that level. All we've ever gotten are guilt trips about how lucky we are and promises to hand out some worksheets to do on your own. If I wasn't able to provide the supplemental knowledge and tutelage at home, who knows what might have happened. Tracking doesn't work because teachers don't care about smart kids - in fact, I've found that the dumbest teachers feel threatened by their lack of acumen on subject matter and put down perceived uppity kids in front of the class for asking acting relevant questions requiring intellectual depth of knowledge. Smart teachers are the ones who say thay they don't know and will get back to them when they find out thte answer.

kids in the middle always get screwed - that's what there is so much of a push to get them into level IV (and why the county pretends so many kids are gifted). On the low end, there is pressure to general track kids who (often through no fault of their own) act as anchors in gen ed classes because of either behavior or just an inability to move at the requisite pace. On the other end, there is pressure to pull away gifted kids an let them go at an advanced pace. If you have an above average (or even average kid), your choices are to pressure the school to get them into AAP, let them fall behind where they are capable of being because the teacher spends too much time dealing with kids who don't belong in the class, or going private. The end result is bloated AAP, disgruntled gen ed parents, and privates picking up those who can afford it

was getting long agree with this 100%

again with tracking you handle all of this in the classroom, it's fluid so kids can move in and out, problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

How many tracks would you need then? I can think of at least 5: intellectualy challenged SPED, below average, average, above average, gifted
Are you willing to argue in front of those 5 groups that their kids belong where they are placed?

And as for tracking, I went through that as well and it wasn't enough then, with many intelligent kids falling by the wayside due to being ignored (maybe the Good Will Hunting effect). I went to a top tier public school in the northeast which annually sent 15 to 20 kids to the Ivies, and about 100 (25%) to most competitive schools. The fact is that the average gifted kid today is way more intelligent than the kids I went to school with because of the easy access of information. Back then, you basically stopped when your teacher told you to and there was no Khan Academy or YouTube videos to further knowledge. It's scary with kids today in terms of how how much they know and how capable they are to learn more. It's like comparing athletes in the 80s (pick any sport) to athletes today in terms of both physical prowess and mental acuity. There seems to be some form of Moore's law when it comes to all aspects of child growth and development for the upper centile of whichever attribute you look at.

Not really, 2 tracks (regular and advanced) would be enough in elementary. Most kids in a school would be in the regular track, and teachers would work with kids in small groups by ability level (as is normally currently done in elementary school). Support staff would work with SPED students who are falling behind (again, as exists in the current model in our schools). The difference would be in the advanced track: Teachers there would still periodically split students in small groups and work with them in class. However, kids/groups who are well beyond the advanced material would regularly meet in a small group with a separate resource to deliver more "gifted" content (Note that this doesn't have to occur on a daily basis, as more advanced kids can learn a lot on their own, but this means someone definitely needs to give them challenging material). The question then becomes whether each school can afford a resource to work periodically with these advanced groups; sometimes the class teacher could do it time permitting, but they should have a resource helper who is trained to work with them a few times a week.

So as you can see, it's just a matter of funding; are schools willing to budget a resource trained to work with the most advanced students? Usually the answer is no, as most of the priority and funding goes in the other direction (i.e SPED or ESOL learners).

While it sounds great, this doesn't work. SPED kids take up a disproportionate amount of classroom time even with assistants. It's the average kids that suffer because there's no incentive by the teacher to improve because they're unable to advance further than the teacher allows because teachers are evaluated on the worst performing students because they significantly drag down class performance more than the top performing students can bring it up. It's hard to go past 100%. And it's really tiring and hurtful to hear the argument that smart kids can work by themselves as if that's a preference. Since when do we teach prepubescent children that intellectual ability means that you are going to be left alone in a corner? Giftedness does not equate to responsibility and self-sufficiency, and I hate that many educators insist that both be present before they agree to acknowledge that these kids exist in the classroom. All children need guidance, and I'll argue that kids at either end of the academic spectrum need it more than those in the middle.

kids in the middle always get screwed - that's what there is so much of a push to get them into level IV (and why the county pretends so many kids are gifted). On the low end, there is pressure to general track kids who (often through no fault of their own) act as anchors in gen ed classes because of either behavior or just an inability to move at the requisite pace. On the other end, there is pressure to pull away gifted kids an let them go at an advanced pace. If you have an above average (or even average kid), your choices are to pressure the school to get them into AAP, let them fall behind where they are capable of being because the teacher spends too much time dealing with kids who don't belong in the class, or going private. The end result is bloated AAP, disgruntled gen ed parents, and privates picking up those who can afford it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone Middle School doesn't even have an AAP center or local level 4 in any of its feeder ES's. Is that normal?

No, that can't be right.

Stone's base boundaries draw from Bull Run, Cub Run, Deer Park, London Towne and Virginia Run. Bull Run is an AAP center for most of those schools.

However, other parts of Bull Run feed into Liberty rather than Stone, and Bull Run and Liberty are in the Centreville pyramid, unlike Stone, which is in the Westfield pyramid. PP may be referring to this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

How many tracks would you need then? I can think of at least 5: intellectualy challenged SPED, below average, average, above average, gifted
Are you willing to argue in front of those 5 groups that their kids belong where they are placed?

And as for tracking, I went through that as well and it wasn't enough then, with many intelligent kids falling by the wayside due to being ignored (maybe the Good Will Hunting effect). I went to a top tier public school in the northeast which annually sent 15 to 20 kids to the Ivies, and about 100 (25%) to most competitive schools. The fact is that the average gifted kid today is way more intelligent than the kids I went to school with because of the easy access of information. Back then, you basically stopped when your teacher told you to and there was no Khan Academy or YouTube videos to further knowledge. It's scary with kids today in terms of how how much they know and how capable they are to learn more. It's like comparing athletes in the 80s (pick any sport) to athletes today in terms of both physical prowess and mental acuity. There seems to be some form of Moore's law when it comes to all aspects of child growth and development for the upper centile of whichever attribute you look at.

Not really, 2 tracks (regular and advanced) would be enough in elementary. Most kids in a school would be in the regular track, and teachers would work with kids in small groups by ability level (as is normally currently done in elementary school). Support staff would work with SPED students who are falling behind (again, as exists in the current model in our schools). The difference would be in the advanced track: Teachers there would still periodically split students in small groups and work with them in class. However, kids/groups who are well beyond the advanced material would regularly meet in a small group with a separate resource to deliver more "gifted" content (Note that this doesn't have to occur on a daily basis, as more advanced kids can learn a lot on their own, but this means someone definitely needs to give them challenging material). The question then becomes whether each school can afford a resource to work periodically with these advanced groups; sometimes the class teacher could do it time permitting, but they should have a resource helper who is trained to work with them a few times a week.

So as you can see, it's just a matter of funding; are schools willing to budget a resource trained to work with the most advanced students? Usually the answer is no, as most of the priority and funding goes in the other direction (i.e SPED or ESOL learners).

While it sounds great, this doesn't work. SPED kids take up a disproportionate amount of classroom time even with assistants. It's the average kids that suffer because there's no incentive by the teacher to improve because they're unable to advance further than the teacher allows because teachers are evaluated on the worst performing students because they significantly drag down class performance more than the top performing students can bring it up. It's hard to go past 100%. And it's really tiring and hurtful to hear the argument that smart kids can work by themselves as if that's a preference. Since when do we teach prepubescent children that intellectual ability means that you are going to be left alone in a corner? Giftedness does not equate to responsibility and self-sufficiency, and I hate that many educators insist that both be present before they agree to acknowledge that these kids exist in the classroom. All children need guidance, and I'll argue that kids at either end of the academic spectrum need it more than those in the middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

How many tracks would you need then? I can think of at least 5: intellectualy challenged SPED, below average, average, above average, gifted
Are you willing to argue in front of those 5 groups that their kids belong where they are placed?

And as for tracking, I went through that as well and it wasn't enough then, with many intelligent kids falling by the wayside due to being ignored (maybe the Good Will Hunting effect). I went to a top tier public school in the northeast which annually sent 15 to 20 kids to the Ivies, and about 100 (25%) to most competitive schools. The fact is that the average gifted kid today is way more intelligent than the kids I went to school with because of the easy access of information. Back then, you basically stopped when your teacher told you to and there was no Khan Academy or YouTube videos to further knowledge. It's scary with kids today in terms of how how much they know and how capable they are to learn more. It's like comparing athletes in the 80s (pick any sport) to athletes today in terms of both physical prowess and mental acuity. There seems to be some form of Moore's law when it comes to all aspects of child growth and development for the upper centile of whichever attribute you look at.

Not really, 2 tracks (regular and advanced) would be enough in elementary. Most kids in a school would be in the regular track, and teachers would work with kids in small groups by ability level (as is normally currently done in elementary school). Support staff would work with SPED students who are falling behind (again, as exists in the current model in our schools). The difference would be in the advanced track: Teachers there would still periodically split students in small groups and work with them in class. However, kids/groups who are well beyond the advanced material would regularly meet in a small group with a separate resource to deliver more "gifted" content (Note that this doesn't have to occur on a daily basis, as more advanced kids can learn a lot on their own, but this means someone definitely needs to give them challenging material). The question then becomes whether each school can afford a resource to work periodically with these advanced groups; sometimes the class teacher could do it time permitting, but they should have a resource helper who is trained to work with them a few times a week.

So as you can see, it's just a matter of funding; are schools willing to budget a resource trained to work with the most advanced students? Usually the answer is no, as most of the priority and funding goes in the other direction (i.e SPED or ESOL learners).

once you call it advanced, the tiger moms will pounce (especially if they get additional resources). Just keep ES similar to what it is and treat MS like HS- different tracks, take the classes you want and if you fail you fail

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

How many tracks would you need then? I can think of at least 5: intellectualy challenged SPED, below average, average, above average, gifted
Are you willing to argue in front of those 5 groups that their kids belong where they are placed?

And as for tracking, I went through that as well and it wasn't enough then, with many intelligent kids falling by the wayside due to being ignored (maybe the Good Will Hunting effect). I went to a top tier public school in the northeast which annually sent 15 to 20 kids to the Ivies, and about 100 (25%) to most competitive schools. The fact is that the average gifted kid today is way more intelligent than the kids I went to school with because of the easy access of information. Back then, you basically stopped when your teacher told you to and there was no Khan Academy or YouTube videos to further knowledge. It's scary with kids today in terms of how how much they know and how capable they are to learn more. It's like comparing athletes in the 80s (pick any sport) to athletes today in terms of both physical prowess and mental acuity. There seems to be some form of Moore's law when it comes to all aspects of child growth and development for the upper centile of whichever attribute you look at.

Not really, 2 tracks (regular and advanced) would be enough in elementary. Most kids in a school would be in the regular track, and teachers would work with kids in small groups by ability level (as is normally currently done in elementary school). Support staff would work with SPED students who are falling behind (again, as exists in the current model in our schools). The difference would be in the advanced track: Teachers there would still periodically split students in small groups and work with them in class. However, kids/groups who are well beyond the advanced material would regularly meet in a small group with a separate resource to deliver more "gifted" content (Note that this doesn't have to occur on a daily basis, as more advanced kids can learn a lot on their own, but this means someone definitely needs to give them challenging material). The question then becomes whether each school can afford a resource to work periodically with these advanced groups; sometimes the class teacher could do it time permitting, but they should have a resource helper who is trained to work with them a few times a week.

So as you can see, it's just a matter of funding; are schools willing to budget a resource trained to work with the most advanced students? Usually the answer is no, as most of the priority and funding goes in the other direction (i.e SPED or ESOL learners).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

How many tracks would you need then? I can think of at least 5: intellectualy challenged SPED, below average, average, above average, gifted
Are you willing to argue in front of those 5 groups that their kids belong where they are placed?

And as for tracking, I went through that as well and it wasn't enough then, with many intelligent kids falling by the wayside due to being ignored (maybe the Good Will Hunting effect). I went to a top tier public school in the northeast which annually sent 15 to 20 kids to the Ivies, and about 100 (25%) to most competitive schools. The fact is that the average gifted kid today is way more intelligent than the kids I went to school with because of the easy access of information. Back then, you basically stopped when your teacher told you to and there was no Khan Academy or YouTube videos to further knowledge. It's scary with kids today in terms of how how much they know and how capable they are to learn more. It's like comparing athletes in the 80s (pick any sport) to athletes today in terms of both physical prowess and mental acuity. There seems to be some form of Moore's law when it comes to all aspects of child growth and development for the upper centile of whichever attribute you look at.

FCPS does this now- special ed through level 4, the only difference is that traditional tracks are more fluid so that you can test in (or out) depending on actual performance

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

How DARE you?!? That is SO inequitable!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone Middle School doesn't even have an AAP center or local level 4 in any of its feeder ES's. Is that normal?

No, that can't be right.

Cub Run, Deer Park, Virginia Run and London Towne feed to Stone. None have AAP. The kids in that area are sent to another pyramid for AAP, and that center (Bull Run) is tiny (only one or two classes per grade). So under this proposal, Stone would have an AAP center of maybe 15 kids per grade.

Which makes me wonder why FCPS isn't finding any kids from those elementary schools eligible for AAP. 15 kids per grade from 4 elementaries? Are they heavy FARMs/ELL?

Not by comparison to some other districts, but what incentive do these base schools have to send their highest performing students to a center in another region? Bet your ass they are not proactively referring any students, particularly URMs, with scores just below the cutoff. Ask me how I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

How many tracks would you need then? I can think of at least 5: intellectualy challenged SPED, below average, average, above average, gifted
Are you willing to argue in front of those 5 groups that their kids belong where they are placed?

And as for tracking, I went through that as well and it wasn't enough then, with many intelligent kids falling by the wayside due to being ignored (maybe the Good Will Hunting effect). I went to a top tier public school in the northeast which annually sent 15 to 20 kids to the Ivies, and about 100 (25%) to most competitive schools. The fact is that the average gifted kid today is way more intelligent than the kids I went to school with because of the easy access of information. Back then, you basically stopped when your teacher told you to and there was no Khan Academy or YouTube videos to further knowledge. It's scary with kids today in terms of how how much they know and how capable they are to learn more. It's like comparing athletes in the 80s (pick any sport) to athletes today in terms of both physical prowess and mental acuity. There seems to be some form of Moore's law when it comes to all aspects of child growth and development for the upper centile of whichever attribute you look at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Thankfully you're not in charge.

You should be in charge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

doesn't tracking solve that issue? There are plenty of weak readers in AAP, there are plenty of kids in advanced math who tested in and do as well or better than level IV kids in ES. Tracking gets everyone at the level they deserve to be on

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this

I also support scrapping the whole AAP insanity. No one has any clue who is gifted vs just smart when kids are 6-7 years old anyway

Just go back to tracking and multiple levels. I remember growing up you would separate the classrooms in each grade for math for high average and remedial. That would also cut down on the insanity of kids taking Algebra I in 6th grade. No one should be doing that. 7th grade is plenty early and you could have at least one section at each middle school. Those classes would form your TJ pipeline and go from there.

Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Gifted kids need to be with other gifted kids for a number of social and intellectual reasons. The idea that some form of blended classrooms are good for everyone equally is a fallacy and only serves to engender the problem of the smarter kids being overlooked/ignored in favor of helping less intelligent or struggling students. The worst thing a teacher can do to an immature, intellectually curious, gifted child is to tell her that her knowledge is good enough to pass already so all she has to do is sit in the corner and twiddle her fingers while less fortunate, more important kids are taught things they should already know. This is why the U.S. is losing in education vs. the rest of the world.

I said the kids are tracked. I went to school in the 80s and 90s and this was the case in elementary school

As far as truly gifted again we are talking 6-7 years old. Almost all of these kids are just smart not gifted because parents were reading to them and doing basic school stuff.

For the very small amount that are actually gifted current AAP doesn't work either. These are the types of kids that should be skipping a grade(s) and going to middle high/college early.