Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I had a teacher this year say she had kids on 3-4 different levels for reading and math.

My kids always had that within AAP. My kid's AAP class had a reading group of kids below grade level, a group of kids on grade level, three or so groups of kids one year above grade level, and one group of 2 years above grade level. My kid's group almost never got to work with the teacher.
Likewise, math had kids who were seriously struggling with the work through kids who were bored out of their minds and could have completed the work 2 grade levels earlier. The teachers just taught to the level of the struggling kids and provided no extensions or differentiation for the kids who were well beyond the level being taught.

My kid's AAP class didn't really have reading groups or math groups of different levels. All students were taught at the same high level. And a number of kids were sort of left behind, especially in math.

Interesting. My AAP 4th grader reports at her center some kids get pull outs from the math resource teacher for extra challenge when a unit isn't hard enough. Meanwhile other kids from other AAP classes come into her class for some math group time and in other cases kids from her class go to other classes. So they have a pretty robust grouping system at our center. AFAIK the groups vary by unit.

Yep. My LLIV class does the same.

Pullouts are better. Getting left behind is really not.

PP here, in agree that getting left behind or feeling dumb at math isn't the best. That's why I'm not at all on board with the idea of expanding AAP to everyone. Some modified form of critical thinking lessons? Yes. The AAP curriculum? No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid's AAP class didn't really have reading groups or math groups of different levels. All students were taught at the same high level. And a number of kids were sort of left behind, especially in math.

Interesting. My AAP 4th grader reports at her center some kids get pull outs from the math resource teacher for extra challenge when a unit isn't hard enough. Meanwhile other kids from other AAP classes come into her class for some math group time and in other cases kids from her class go to other classes. So they have a pretty robust grouping system at our center. AFAIK the groups vary by unit.

Yep. My LLIV class does the same.

Pullouts are better. Getting left behind is really not.

There's a great solution for the kids who are getting left behind. It's called dropping back to gen ed. It's absurd to remediate or slow down for AAP kids who would be better served in gen ed. Likewise, it's absurd to even provide on or below grade level reading groups. All kids should be taught using above grade level standards and materials. If they can't hack it, let them drop back to gen ed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I had a teacher this year say she had kids on 3-4 different levels for reading and math.

My kids always had that within AAP. My kid's AAP class had a reading group of kids below grade level, a group of kids on grade level, three or so groups of kids one year above grade level, and one group of 2 years above grade level. My kid's group almost never got to work with the teacher.
Likewise, math had kids who were seriously struggling with the work through kids who were bored out of their minds and could have completed the work 2 grade levels earlier. The teachers just taught to the level of the struggling kids and provided no extensions or differentiation for the kids who were well beyond the level being taught.

My kid's AAP class didn't really have reading groups or math groups of different levels. All students were taught at the same high level. And a number of kids were sort of left behind, especially in math.

Interesting. My AAP 4th grader reports at her center some kids get pull outs from the math resource teacher for extra challenge when a unit isn't hard enough. Meanwhile other kids from other AAP classes come into her class for some math group time and in other cases kids from her class go to other classes. So they have a pretty robust grouping system at our center. AFAIK the groups vary by unit.

Yep. My LLIV class does the same.

Pullouts are better. Getting left behind is really not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Totally disagree. In other countries, there is no shame in pursuing trades rather than college degrees. Many kids here would be much better off if they became electricians, plumbers, HVAC specialists, etc. than they are with getting their English lit degree from a 3rd tier school, going into massive debt, and ending up working at Starbucks anyway.

I think you missed my point.

If you want to study something outside of what you are tracked for in Europe- say for instance you are tracked to be a mechanic but want to be a physicist- you need to leave Europe and go to school in America to do it.

It’s great that hvac jobs are valued there. They are valued here too at 80-90k a year. But here- no one has tests that keep you from even going to college. That’s the difference. We track but we don’t say you need to leave the country to follow your dreams because of a National tracking system.

I think you missed my point. If you're tracked for vocational school but want to be a physicist, then you most likely lack the aptitude to have a real chance to be a physicist. It's much kinder to direct you toward a field in which you can be successful than it is to encourage you to follow your dreams and then watch you fail miserably, often racking up quite a bit of debt in the process.

Also, Europe is quite large, and the countries all handle tracking very differently. Few of them are as rigid as you're suggesting. In Germany, for example, there are still ways to move your kid up to the higher track or place your kid in it. They just aren't going to slow down or remediate for your child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s make AAP the standard curriculum. Win-Win.

I work with a after school program at our ES. I am always shocked by how much farther behind the gen ed kids seem than the AAP kids. Their reading ability is worse, their comprehension is worse, etc. No way some of those kids could handle the AAP workload my DS has (I say that not to brag, but it's an observation repeated again and again). I'm not sure making AAP the standard curriculum wouldn't just leave more kids behind.

What about blending? If a blended approach were used, the lowest performing kids could be brought up while the G&T kids would still get some education.

Blended topics is the way to go.

You’re obviously not a teacher who has gifted kids. We had a teacher do this because the parents wanted it and she left fcps. It’s not worth losing teachers for.

That is a lot for any teacher to deal with.

Heck- why would you want your gen Ed kid to even experience this? Their level of self confidence would be destroyed. It’s elementary school- not graduate school for crying out loud. I get that you want your 9 year old to have a great education- but supplement at home. It will destroy them to feel stupid at school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I had a teacher this year say she had kids on 3-4 different levels for reading and math.

My kids always had that within AAP. My kid's AAP class had a reading group of kids below grade level, a group of kids on grade level, three or so groups of kids one year above grade level, and one group of 2 years above grade level. My kid's group almost never got to work with the teacher.
Likewise, math had kids who were seriously struggling with the work through kids who were bored out of their minds and could have completed the work 2 grade levels earlier. The teachers just taught to the level of the struggling kids and provided no extensions or differentiation for the kids who were well beyond the level being taught.

My kid's AAP class didn't really have reading groups or math groups of different levels. All students were taught at the same high level. And a number of kids were sort of left behind, especially in math.

Interesting. My AAP 4th grader reports at her center some kids get pull outs from the math resource teacher for extra challenge when a unit isn't hard enough. Meanwhile other kids from other AAP classes come into her class for some math group time and in other cases kids from her class go to other classes. So they have a pretty robust grouping system at our center. AFAIK the groups vary by unit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have volunteered for classes for my kids for over a decade and substitute teach. And I am going to tell you- you can tell the aap kids from the gen Ed kids before third grade- in fcps and other districts. Aap is worth it. It is significantly different. I know you think that if they had AAP in school they would be able to handle it, but it’s simply not true. Most kids can’t handle it.

Many of the kids who stand out in K-2nd are pretty average kids from upper middle class families with involved, educated parents who are artificially far ahead due to their privilege. Kids who are brighter but from disadvantaged backgrounds start out pretty far behind and are less likely to stand out by 2nd grade, even though they're making great progress. Then, they get stuck in gen ed, where things move at a snail's pace.

Really, though, any kid who is at least average and is a reasonably hard worker would be fine in AAP. It's not that impressive of a program, and in many centers, it's not significantly different from gen ed.

DP. And you're speaking from over a decade's worth of experience with both average kids from upper middle class families and kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, at many centers?

How many kids have you interacted with?

Does it matter when it is so noticeable?

Like it’s not just a maybe- its a huge difference. You should try it- substitute and volunteer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you think tracking is bad here- every other country does it. But instead of putting them in gen Ed, your kid is basically told they can’t go to college because they aren’t smart enough in 8th grade.

Americans have no idea how great it is here. Especially first gens- you guys all think the schools suck here but your kids would be put in technical schools never to do anything else in any other country. Here- money goes a long way.

Totally disagree. In other countries, there is no shame in pursuing trades rather than college degrees. Many kids here would be much better off if they became electricians, plumbers, HVAC specialists, etc. than they are with getting their English lit degree from a 3rd tier school, going into massive debt, and ending up working at Starbucks anyway.

I think you missed my point.

If you want to study something outside of what you are tracked for in Europe- say for instance you are tracked to be a mechanic but want to be a physicist- you need to leave Europe and go to school in America to do it.

It’s great that hvac jobs are valued there. They are valued here too at 80-90k a year. But here- no one has tests that keep you from even going to college. That’s the difference. We track but we don’t say you need to leave the country to follow your dreams because of a National tracking system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I had a teacher this year say she had kids on 3-4 different levels for reading and math.

My kids always had that within AAP. My kid's AAP class had a reading group of kids below grade level, a group of kids on grade level, three or so groups of kids one year above grade level, and one group of 2 years above grade level. My kid's group almost never got to work with the teacher.
Likewise, math had kids who were seriously struggling with the work through kids who were bored out of their minds and could have completed the work 2 grade levels earlier. The teachers just taught to the level of the struggling kids and provided no extensions or differentiation for the kids who were well beyond the level being taught.

My kid's AAP class didn't really have reading groups or math groups of different levels. All students were taught at the same high level. And a number of kids were sort of left behind, especially in math.

Anonymous wrote:
I had a teacher this year say she had kids on 3-4 different levels for reading and math.

My kids always had that within AAP. My kid's AAP class had a reading group of kids below grade level, a group of kids on grade level, three or so groups of kids one year above grade level, and one group of 2 years above grade level. My kid's group almost never got to work with the teacher.
Likewise, math had kids who were seriously struggling with the work through kids who were bored out of their minds and could have completed the work 2 grade levels earlier. The teachers just taught to the level of the struggling kids and provided no extensions or differentiation for the kids who were well beyond the level being taught.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have volunteered for classes for my kids for over a decade and substitute teach. And I am going to tell you- you can tell the aap kids from the gen Ed kids before third grade- in fcps and other districts. Aap is worth it. It is significantly different. I know you think that if they had AAP in school they would be able to handle it, but it’s simply not true. Most kids can’t handle it.

Many of the kids who stand out in K-2nd are pretty average kids from upper middle class families with involved, educated parents who are artificially far ahead due to their privilege. Kids who are brighter but from disadvantaged backgrounds start out pretty far behind and are less likely to stand out by 2nd grade, even though they're making great progress. Then, they get stuck in gen ed, where things move at a snail's pace.

Really, though, any kid who is at least average and is a reasonably hard worker would be fine in AAP. It's not that impressive of a program, and in many centers, it's not significantly different from gen ed.

DP. And you're speaking from over a decade's worth of experience with both average kids from upper middle class families and kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, at many centers?

How many kids have you interacted with?

Equity is making sure needs are met fairly -- not keeping everyone the same. You shouldn't make some kids slow down in the name of equity. Just as you shouldn't expect all kids to race ahead in AAP in the name of equity. Some kids need more time and that's ok.

There have been issues with tracking historically, but they continue to try and address and improve the process.

I had a teacher this year say she had kids on 3-4 different levels for reading and math. She is trying to make sure everyone has their needs met, but that is a lot for one teacher in one class period. Nearly everyone loses in this case -- the educator and the students. Grouping children to their ability with the goal of making appropriate progress from where they start should be the approach.

When my kid started elementary school, the Principal said - everyone makes at least one year's progress here. So if your kid is behind, the goal is to make at least one year's progress in standards this year and hopefully more. If your kid is ahead, we don't hold them back. They are also expected to make one year's progress or more and were taught to that level. For those kids on grade level, the same is expected. Everyone moves up, gains, learns and grows. The teachers on each grade level mixed the kids based on needs for reading and math so that kids continue to make appropriate gains and no one teacher was expected to be a magician.

Anonymous wrote:
I have volunteered for classes for my kids for over a decade and substitute teach. And I am going to tell you- you can tell the aap kids from the gen Ed kids before third grade- in fcps and other districts. Aap is worth it. It is significantly different. I know you think that if they had AAP in school they would be able to handle it, but it’s simply not true. Most kids can’t handle it.

Many of the kids who stand out in K-2nd are pretty average kids from upper middle class families with involved, educated parents who are artificially far ahead due to their privilege. Kids who are brighter but from disadvantaged backgrounds start out pretty far behind and are less likely to stand out by 2nd grade, even though they're making great progress. Then, they get stuck in gen ed, where things move at a snail's pace.

Really, though, any kid who is at least average and is a reasonably hard worker would be fine in AAP. It's not that impressive of a program, and in many centers, it's not significantly different from gen ed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if you think tracking is bad here- every other country does it. But instead of putting them in gen Ed, your kid is basically told they can’t go to college because they aren’t smart enough in 8th grade.

Americans have no idea how great it is here. Especially first gens- you guys all think the schools suck here but your kids would be put in technical schools never to do anything else in any other country. Here- money goes a long way.

Totally disagree. In other countries, there is no shame in pursuing trades rather than college degrees. Many kids here would be much better off if they became electricians, plumbers, HVAC specialists, etc. than they are with getting their English lit degree from a 3rd tier school, going into massive debt, and ending up working at Starbucks anyway.

Well, the problem is that we don't hold the trades up as appropriately valuable. Also we don't tell kids how much money they can make in them.

Anonymous wrote:
And if you think tracking is bad here- every other country does it. But instead of putting them in gen Ed, your kid is basically told they can’t go to college because they aren’t smart enough in 8th grade.

Americans have no idea how great it is here. Especially first gens- you guys all think the schools suck here but your kids would be put in technical schools never to do anything else in any other country. Here- money goes a long way.

Totally disagree. In other countries, there is no shame in pursuing trades rather than college degrees. Many kids here would be much better off if they became electricians, plumbers, HVAC specialists, etc. than they are with getting their English lit degree from a 3rd tier school, going into massive debt, and ending up working at Starbucks anyway.