Anonymous wrote:Anyone seen the SOL trend for TJHSST for Geometery, Algebra 2, and Biology for the Pass Advanced category? Oh I forgot, only the unproctored and unverified TJHSST essay/SIS can identify in-nate talents

More likely than giving a protored exam where some students had access to the questions in advance...

Anyone seen the SOL trend for TJHSST for Geometery, Algebra 2, and Biology for the Pass Advanced category? Oh I forgot, only the unproctored and unverified TJHSST essay/SIS can identify in-nate talents

Anonymous wrote:There is a gray area between requiring 8th grade Geometry and giving no preference whatsoever for 8th grade Geometry. They should give points based on math level. Highly talented kids who for whatever reason are in 8th grade Algebra should be able to overcome the math level points through their essays and through teacher recommendation, if they decide to include those again.

They could even give bonus points for taking outside classes like RSM or AoPS since anyone serious is doing just that!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a gray area between requiring 8th grade Geometry and giving no preference whatsoever for 8th grade Geometry. They should give points based on math level. Highly talented kids who for whatever reason are in 8th grade Algebra should be able to overcome the math level points through their essays and through teacher recommendation, if they decide to include those again.

I like the idea of giving the kids a really hard standardized algebra and problem-solving test instead . . .

+1,000

Also again, logic follows that the most highly talented kids are taking the most advanced math coursework. No one can seriously state that folks taking 8th grade algebra are more highly talented than ones who are further along.

Does AAP need to be reformed? yes. Too many above average higher SES kids are in the program who have no business being there.

However, kids are not falling through the cracks, lower SES schools place more emphasis on trying to find diamonds in the rough coupled with programs like young scholars.

High-stakes testing just plays into the whole prep industry nonsense. I'd rather look at their grades in Algebra or offer further math enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Not enough minorities are taking geometry by 8th grade. Taking that would require doing well on a 5th grade test, and you can't be deciding high school admissions in 5th grade.

The IAAT is in 6th, not 5th. And there are fewer Hispanic and Black students in AAP and Advanced Math, which decreases the number of Hispanic and Black students that might be able to take Geometry in 8th.

If folks have the aptitude they are there.

There are extra supports in place to identify kids from those populations and there are lower standards to get into the program

What more do you want exactly?

The pipe dream of everything matching population levels is idiotic on multiple levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a gray area between requiring 8th grade Geometry and giving no preference whatsoever for 8th grade Geometry. They should give points based on math level. Highly talented kids who for whatever reason are in 8th grade Algebra should be able to overcome the math level points through their essays and through teacher recommendation, if they decide to include those again.

I like the idea of giving the kids a really hard standardized algebra and problem-solving test instead . . .

+1,000

Also again, logic follows that the most highly talented kids are taking the most advanced math coursework. No one can seriously state that folks taking 8th grade algebra are more highly talented than ones who are further along.

Does AAP need to be reformed? yes. Too many above average higher SES kids are in the program who have no business being there.

However, kids are not falling through the cracks, lower SES schools place more emphasis on trying to find diamonds in the rough coupled with programs like young scholars.

Anonymous wrote:There is a gray area between requiring 8th grade Geometry and giving no preference whatsoever for 8th grade Geometry. They should give points based on math level. Highly talented kids who for whatever reason are in 8th grade Algebra should be able to overcome the math level points through their essays and through teacher recommendation, if they decide to include those again.

I like the idea of giving the kids a really hard standardized algebra and problem-solving test instead . . .

There is a gray area between requiring 8th grade Geometry and giving no preference whatsoever for 8th grade Geometry. They should give points based on math level. Highly talented kids who for whatever reason are in 8th grade Algebra should be able to overcome the math level points through their essays and through teacher recommendation, if they decide to include those again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of us on here largely agree, just ignore the sock puppeter complaining about people paying to get into TJ constantly

I know! I just signed my kids up for Curie, too because they have such a great record of getting their students into these programs.

Agree, that without these courses, odds of admission are slim except at high-poverty schools. Basically, there's a prep arms race at any of the UMC schools and if you aren't competing on equal footing your odds are slim to none.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Not enough minorities are taking geometry by 8th grade. Taking that would require doing well on a 5th grade test, and you can't be deciding high school admissions in 5th grade.

The IAAT is in 6th, not 5th. And there are fewer Hispanic and Black students in AAP and Advanced Math, which decreases the number of Hispanic and Black students that might be able to take Geometry in 8th.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Not enough minorities are taking geometry by 8th grade. Taking that would require doing well on a 5th grade test, and you can't be deciding high school admissions in 5th grade.

Where do you get this info that not enough minorities take Geometry? Is this just your assumption or do you have an actual source.

I know this it's anecdotal, but most students in DC's 8th-grade geometry class last year were minorities. Not sure what they're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Not enough minorities are taking geometry by 8th grade. Taking that would require doing well on a 5th grade test, and you can't be deciding high school admissions in 5th grade.

Where do you get this info that not enough minorities take Geometry? Is this just your assumption or do you have an actual source.

Anonymous wrote:
Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Not enough minorities are taking geometry by 8th grade. Taking that would require doing well on a 5th grade test, and you can't be deciding high school admissions in 5th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not judge them based on their assigned home school? Anyway, I'd take the top 1.5% from any school over AAP kids who are supposedly just the top 15% but often get in by buying a private diagnosis (so lower than top 15%). In the end top 1.5% > than ~15%

If you want to be judged based on your home school, stay at your base school. This isn't hard. Take the Honors classes at your base school.

For the millionth time, what about the kids who are zoned to the AAP center? They can't avoid competing with an overabundance of AAP kids, since there are no other schools that they can choose to attend.

If the kids being bussed from outside that base school's boundary were judged based on their base school, there wouldn't be a problem. Also, AAP confers an more advantage than disadvantages so I wouldn't worry about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not judge them based on their assigned home school? Anyway, I'd take the top 1.5% from any school over AAP kids who are supposedly just the top 15% but often get in by buying a private diagnosis (so lower than top 15%). In the end top 1.5% > than ~15%

If you want to be judged based on your home school, stay at your base school. This isn't hard. Take the Honors classes at your base school.

For the millionth time, what about the kids who are zoned to the AAP center? They can't avoid competing with an overabundance of AAP kids, since there are no other schools that they can choose to attend.

Like my kid? Yeah, it will be harder for him. I also know that he will do fine at whatever high school that he lands at because he will have access to a wide variety of opportunities that we can provide him. And maybe, if they keep this policy in place, fewer kids will choose the Centers and it will be less of an issue for us. If the die hard TJ or bust families stay at their base school, the number of kids attending the Center declines, his odds go up.

I would be fine if they got rid of Centers all together, at the ES and the MS level. The ES are implementing LLIV at all the schools so there is no point for the Centers at that level. I am not sure what the point of the Centers are at the MS level. Have an AAP section for classes at all the MS if people want to go that route instead of taking honors.