Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European countries, heck most of the global community, does not have the same requirement to teach all kids so kids with severe disabilities are not required to be taught at the local Public School. Services are not required for kids with LDs or other issues. There are pros and cons to this but I know plenty of families that come to the US for a short period of time from another country who have kids with LDs and really don’t want to leave because they know their child will be tracked out of a college prep program.

I think that we have gone overboard with FAPE and IDEA but I also know that there are a good number of kids who can succeed in college with some help in school. There is a need for programs and Teachers to help kids with LDs access material because most of the kids are very capable when given support. Writing a smart kid off because they have dyslexia or dysgraphia is BS.

I like the idea of classrooms that are leveled because it should give kids who need more support the chance to get that support but I think in the past tracked classes meant that the kids in the lower track were simply written off. I would think that a tracking system that kept class sizes smaller for kids who are 2-3 grade levels behind, a bit larger for kids 1 grade level or just on grade level, and larger for kids on grade level or ahead makes sense. The kids who are on grade level and ahead need less support from the Teacher and should be able to access material with fewer supports. Kids who are farther behind need more individualized attention. The problem is going to be that the parents of kids who are ahead are going to balk at the idea that their kid is in a classroom with 25-30 kids while there are classes with 15 kids and a specialist is in there helping the Teacher.

I am not a fan of the European or Asian systems only because I think they write off capable kids who need some support but I think the US system has gone to far into the equity = similar outcomes in the classroom and is ignoring the fact that not every kid is capable of the same work for a variety of reasons. We should be addressing those reasons and not trying to force all kids into a college path.

The European system works better. The proof is on international test scores, where their students consistently outperform US students, year after year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you restrict AAP, or anything else, only to poor people, then rich people will have more of it because that's what "rich" means.

If you want to hurt rich people, just raise taxes. Don't dumb down all of society.

It already exists and it is called Young Scholars program. So called rich kids, advanced, studious kids are not allowed in that program. There is no budget limit for this program, has best teachers assigned to it, all necessary resources are allocated, but still YS kids fail to perform better than the bottom AAP kids. ??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European countries, heck most of the global community, does not have the same requirement to teach all kids so kids with severe disabilities are not required to be taught at the local Public School. Services are not required for kids with LDs or other issues. There are pros and cons to this but I know plenty of families that come to the US for a short period of time from another country who have kids with LDs and really don’t want to leave because they know their child will be tracked out of a college prep program.

I think that we have gone overboard with FAPE and IDEA but I also know that there are a good number of kids who can succeed in college with some help in school. There is a need for programs and Teachers to help kids with LDs access material because most of the kids are very capable when given support. Writing a smart kid off because they have dyslexia or dysgraphia is BS.

I like the idea of classrooms that are leveled because it should give kids who need more support the chance to get that support but I think in the past tracked classes meant that the kids in the lower track were simply written off. I would think that a tracking system that kept class sizes smaller for kids who are 2-3 grade levels behind, a bit larger for kids 1 grade level or just on grade level, and larger for kids on grade level or ahead makes sense. The kids who are on grade level and ahead need less support from the Teacher and should be able to access material with fewer supports. Kids who are farther behind need more individualized attention. The problem is going to be that the parents of kids who are ahead are going to balk at the idea that their kid is in a classroom with 25-30 kids while there are classes with 15 kids and a specialist is in there helping the Teacher.

I am not a fan of the European or Asian systems only because I think they write off capable kids who need some support but I think the US system has gone to far into the equity = similar outcomes in the classroom and is ignoring the fact that not every kid is capable of the same work for a variety of reasons. We should be addressing those reasons and not trying to force all kids into a college path.

The European system works better. The proof is on international test scores, where their students consistently outperform US students, year after year.

Anonymous wrote:European countries, heck most of the global community, does not have the same requirement to teach all kids so kids with severe disabilities are not required to be taught at the local Public School. Services are not required for kids with LDs or other issues. There are pros and cons to this but I know plenty of families that come to the US for a short period of time from another country who have kids with LDs and really don’t want to leave because they know their child will be tracked out of a college prep program.

I think that we have gone overboard with FAPE and IDEA but I also know that there are a good number of kids who can succeed in college with some help in school. There is a need for programs and Teachers to help kids with LDs access material because most of the kids are very capable when given support. Writing a smart kid off because they have dyslexia or dysgraphia is BS.

I like the idea of classrooms that are leveled because it should give kids who need more support the chance to get that support but I think in the past tracked classes meant that the kids in the lower track were simply written off. I would think that a tracking system that kept class sizes smaller for kids who are 2-3 grade levels behind, a bit larger for kids 1 grade level or just on grade level, and larger for kids on grade level or ahead makes sense. The kids who are on grade level and ahead need less support from the Teacher and should be able to access material with fewer supports. Kids who are farther behind need more individualized attention. The problem is going to be that the parents of kids who are ahead are going to balk at the idea that their kid is in a classroom with 25-30 kids while there are classes with 15 kids and a specialist is in there helping the Teacher.

I am not a fan of the European or Asian systems only because I think they write off capable kids who need some support but I think the US system has gone to far into the equity = similar outcomes in the classroom and is ignoring the fact that not every kid is capable of the same work for a variety of reasons. We should be addressing those reasons and not trying to force all kids into a college path.

Anonymous wrote:On path to equity, math should be eliminated or made optional after elementary school. Algebra is culprit that widens the achievement gap. Whoever came up with the idea of mixing up numbers with alphabet letters, is the one to be blamed for this inequality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize that this is what many European school systems do, correct? There are different schools that track kids for trade or college professions starting in 4th or 5th grade.

This is the correct answer and I haven’t a clue why we don’t do it. Trying to educate kids that are 1+ grade levels behind and/ or with disabilities/severe behavior problems, average kids, and kids that are 2+ grade levels ahead all in the same schools and classrooms is insane and ineffective.

As is trying to send everyone to college. All that does is make many students incur a bunch of dept and not see much income increase. We absolutely should track kids. I guess Europe does it since the govt is footing the bill for college. They actually care who is going and aren’t going to pay for someone that doesn’t need to go. As where here, colleges and loan programs just want your money and don’t care what your potential is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize that this is what many European school systems do, correct? There are different schools that track kids for trade or college professions starting in 4th or 5th grade.

This is the correct answer and I haven’t a clue why we don’t do it. Trying to educate kids that are 1+ grade levels behind and/ or with disabilities/severe behavior problems, average kids, and kids that are 2+ grade levels ahead all in the same schools and classrooms is insane and ineffective.

As is trying to send everyone to college. All that does is make many students incur a bunch of dept and not see much income increase. We absolutely should track kids. I guess Europe does it since the govt is footing the bill for college. They actually care who is going and aren’t going to pay for someone that doesn’t need to go. As where here, colleges and loan programs just want your money and don’t care what your potential is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize that this is what many European school systems do, correct? There are different schools that track kids for trade or college professions starting in 4th or 5th grade.

This is the correct answer and I haven’t a clue why we don’t do it. Trying to educate kids that are 1+ grade levels behind and/ or with disabilities/severe behavior problems, average kids, and kids that are 2+ grade levels ahead all in the same schools and classrooms is insane and ineffective.

As is trying to send everyone to college. All that does is make many students incur a bunch of dept and not see much income increase. We absolutely should track kids. I guess Europe does it since the govt is footing the bill for college. They actually care who is going and aren’t going to pay for someone that doesn’t need to go. As where here, colleges and loan programs just want your money and don’t care what your potential is

Anonymous wrote:You realize that this is what many European school systems do, correct? There are different schools that track kids for trade or college professions starting in 4th or 5th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

And… this would be a terrible way to select a team for any competitive sport.

You DO realize that in athletics the kids (and even professional level adults!) have to make the team every single year, don’t you? You don’t get selected after one good tryout and then have a guaranteed spot forever. Some kids who aren’t necessarily natural athletes end up being scrappy overachievers and incredible assets to their teams, and some naturally gifted athletes just can’t or won’t perform in a competitive setting.

And academic achievement isn’t really different. Make the “gifted” kids earn their spot every year, and allow other kids a fair chance to see if they can “overachieve” despite less than gifted IQ scores…

Natural talent and desire are two different things, sometimes they align and sometimes they don't. Just as some kids are naturally athletic, some kids are naturally academically gifted. Gifted programs are not about creating teams or even about achievement but about keeping gifted in the game, instead of bored and disruptive or disengaged. If they also have academic achievement, that's great! If they don't, that doesn't mean they get kicked off the team or out of the gifted program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

And… this would be a terrible way to select a team for any competitive sport.

You DO realize that in athletics the kids (and even professional level adults!) have to make the team every single year, don’t you? You don’t get selected after one good tryout and then have a guaranteed spot forever. Some kids who aren’t necessarily natural athletes end up being scrappy overachievers and incredible assets to their teams, and some naturally gifted athletes just can’t or won’t perform in a competitive setting.

And academic achievement isn’t really different. Make the “gifted” kids earn their spot every year, and allow other kids a fair chance to see if they can “overachieve” despite less than gifted IQ scores…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to eliminate travel and try-out sports as well. All teams should be open to every child. Tracking by athletic ability is inequitable.

A better analogy is that the rosters of all sports teams should be finalized by the end of second grade. If your son sucks at basketball (which he’s never tried before) when he’s 7, he gets put in the “not an athlete” pool and only by the grace of god will he ever receive the opportunity to try again. The fact that in middle school he’s over 6’ and has incredible hand-eye coordination is irrelevant.

I mean, at 7, the top 2% or top 15-20% of naturally gifted athletic kids are able to be sorted.

And… this would be a terrible way to select a team for any competitive sport.

You DO realize that in athletics the kids (and even professional level adults!) have to make the team every single year, don’t you? You don’t get selected after one good tryout and then have a guaranteed spot forever. Some kids who aren’t necessarily natural athletes end up being scrappy overachievers and incredible assets to their teams, and some naturally gifted athletes just can’t or won’t perform in a competitive setting.

And academic achievement isn’t really different. Make the “gifted” kids earn their spot every year, and allow other kids a fair chance to see if they can “overachieve” despite less than gifted IQ scores…

New kids are found eligible past 2nd grade every year.

The “once you’re in you’re in” has its issues but it would be a logistical nightmare for kids to be moving out and then possibly back in, especially with math, so I get it.

Also? It’s not a gifted program anymore. Hasn’t been for a long time. Traditionally, gifted is top 2 1/2 percent by IQ. Nobody (or almost nobody) is claiming that’s what AAP is now. It has gifted learners IN it, and it’s how FCPS satisfies the state law for meeting the needs of gifted learners.

There are some holdovers in language— center teachers are officially defined as “Gifted Education Teachers”— but I think that’s because it would require regulation changes to fix it and centers are probably on their way out anyway.