Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Did the parts that you heard sound positive?

It depends on how you look at it. I’m still processing and trying to visualize what it will actually look like, pitfalls, etc. If the plan moves forward it would make gifted identification all but irrelevant in middle school since intensified classes would be open enrollment. As a parent with a gifted id’d middle schooler, I like the tentative plan for the transition year (next year), which is to increase the number of gifted kids in a cluster from 5-8 to 10-15 (not sure of the exact numbers, but in that ballpark). After next year they would institute the intensified classes.

I think it would result in a better learning experience for the kids in the new intensified classes. There's no way you don't end up with a classes that are stratified by socioeconomic class, though. Administrators can do outreach to try to move the needle, but the classes are going to be whiter and richer than the school as a whole. Should we refuse to offer more challenging classes to kid who would benefit because it doesn't look good when you break out the demographic data? I would say offer the classes and help who you can, but I'm not sure where APS will end up.

They basically said that if this happens they'd consider dropping the intensified classes which is really frustrating. Absolutely they need to do more outreach and encouragement and examine their identification process for bias. But it is also not surprising that kids from affluent families will be more prepared for a higher level of rigor than kids who've grown up with the toxic stress of poverty. The schools can't fix that. At least someone in the meeting did acknowledge that the on-level class can better meet the needs of the kids who stay at that level if there is not such a wide range the teacher needs to address.

I think it’s likely that highly educated parents of Arlington will enroll their kids in the intensified classes even if their child isn’t ready for it so it will create much of the same issue of teachers having to slow down material.

The underlying issue is that many of the kids with highly educated parents ARE ready for it and many of the kids who are English learners with immigrant parents are not. There's no magic wand you can wave to have a 6th grader catch up and reach their full potential if they are behind for whatever reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Did the parts that you heard sound positive?

It depends on how you look at it. I’m still processing and trying to visualize what it will actually look like, pitfalls, etc. If the plan moves forward it would make gifted identification all but irrelevant in middle school since intensified classes would be open enrollment. As a parent with a gifted id’d middle schooler, I like the tentative plan for the transition year (next year), which is to increase the number of gifted kids in a cluster from 5-8 to 10-15 (not sure of the exact numbers, but in that ballpark). After next year they would institute the intensified classes.

I think it would result in a better learning experience for the kids in the new intensified classes. There's no way you don't end up with a classes that are stratified by socioeconomic class, though. Administrators can do outreach to try to move the needle, but the classes are going to be whiter and richer than the school as a whole. Should we refuse to offer more challenging classes to kid who would benefit because it doesn't look good when you break out the demographic data? I would say offer the classes and help who you can, but I'm not sure where APS will end up.

They basically said that if this happens they'd consider dropping the intensified classes which is really frustrating. Absolutely they need to do more outreach and encouragement and examine their identification process for bias. But it is also not surprising that kids from affluent families will be more prepared for a higher level of rigor than kids who've grown up with the toxic stress of poverty. The schools can't fix that. At least someone in the meeting did acknowledge that the on-level class can better meet the needs of the kids who stay at that level if there is not such a wide range the teacher needs to address.

I think it’s likely that highly educated parents of Arlington will enroll their kids in the intensified classes even if their child isn’t ready for it so it will create much of the same issue of teachers having to slow down material.

Anonymous wrote:
It depends on how you look at it. I’m still processing and trying to visualize what it will actually look like, pitfalls, etc. If the plan moves forward it would make gifted identification all but irrelevant in middle school since intensified classes would be open enrollment. As a parent with a gifted id’d middle schooler, I like the tentative plan for the transition year (next year), which is to increase the number of gifted kids in a cluster from 5-8 to 10-15 (not sure of the exact numbers, but in that ballpark). After next year they would institute the intensified classes.

Many parents would say it already is irrelevant with the exception of math. There is so little actual indication that meaningful push-in is being provided for the GT kids. Offering intensified classes makes more challenging work available to any student. Kids who aren't identified and want the challenge. Kids who are identified and need the challenge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Did the parts that you heard sound positive?

It depends on how you look at it. I’m still processing and trying to visualize what it will actually look like, pitfalls, etc. If the plan moves forward it would make gifted identification all but irrelevant in middle school since intensified classes would be open enrollment. As a parent with a gifted id’d middle schooler, I like the tentative plan for the transition year (next year), which is to increase the number of gifted kids in a cluster from 5-8 to 10-15 (not sure of the exact numbers, but in that ballpark). After next year they would institute the intensified classes.

I think it would result in a better learning experience for the kids in the new intensified classes. There's no way you don't end up with a classes that are stratified by socioeconomic class, though. Administrators can do outreach to try to move the needle, but the classes are going to be whiter and richer than the school as a whole. Should we refuse to offer more challenging classes to kid who would benefit because it doesn't look good when you break out the demographic data? I would say offer the classes and help who you can, but I'm not sure where APS will end up.

They basically said that if this happens they'd consider dropping the intensified classes which is really frustrating. Absolutely they need to do more outreach and encouragement and examine their identification process for bias. But it is also not surprising that kids from affluent families will be more prepared for a higher level of rigor than kids who've grown up with the toxic stress of poverty. The schools can't fix that. At least someone in the meeting did acknowledge that the on-level class can better meet the needs of the kids who stay at that level if there is not such a wide range the teacher needs to address.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Did the parts that you heard sound positive?

It depends on how you look at it. I’m still processing and trying to visualize what it will actually look like, pitfalls, etc. If the plan moves forward it would make gifted identification all but irrelevant in middle school since intensified classes would be open enrollment. As a parent with a gifted id’d middle schooler, I like the tentative plan for the transition year (next year), which is to increase the number of gifted kids in a cluster from 5-8 to 10-15 (not sure of the exact numbers, but in that ballpark). After next year they would institute the intensified classes.

I think it would result in a better learning experience for the kids in the new intensified classes. There's no way you don't end up with a classes that are stratified by socioeconomic class, though. Administrators can do outreach to try to move the needle, but the classes are going to be whiter and richer than the school as a whole. Should we refuse to offer more challenging classes to kid who would benefit because it doesn't look good when you break out the demographic data? I would say offer the classes and help who you can, but I'm not sure where APS will end up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Did the parts that you heard sound positive?

It depends on how you look at it. I’m still processing and trying to visualize what it will actually look like, pitfalls, etc. If the plan moves forward it would make gifted identification all but irrelevant in middle school since intensified classes would be open enrollment. As a parent with a gifted id’d middle schooler, I like the tentative plan for the transition year (next year), which is to increase the number of gifted kids in a cluster from 5-8 to 10-15 (not sure of the exact numbers, but in that ballpark). After next year they would institute the intensified classes.

Anonymous wrote:
So essentially more tracking, but we're calling it clustering now. Ok then! Works for me!

GT kids have always been clustered supposedly in groups of 5-8, similar to SN or ESL children. That way they are supposed to have peers in their classes. The challenge that many parents of identified GT kids have seen, and even more so since the pandemic, is that if you've only got 5 kids at an advanced level the teacher really has to focus his or her attention on those below grade level. The attitude that "they'll be fine" means the needs of GT kids in a classroom aren't met.

Duran is more open to the idea that all kids deserve a year's worth of growth during a school year. Middle school has a single option for intensification, and that's math. The plan he's rolling out would include ways to do outreach to groups that might not automatically enroll their child in intensified classes. Intensified classes are voluntary, any family could select for their child regardless if they are identified as GT.

There's also a push to make those clusters bigger in gen ed classrooms. Teachers are right now expected to teach and appropriately differentiate in classrooms that might have kids with knowledge and ability spread across three grade levels. That's impossible - teachers are stressed and kids lose out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Did the parts that you heard sound positive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

So essentially more tracking, but we're calling it clustering now. Ok then! Works for me!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

There was a lot said about this at tonight’s gifted services work session. I missed the part where they talked about elementary but big changes are probably coming to middle school. I think you can find a recording of the meeting if you didn’t watch live and are interested.

Anonymous wrote:One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

That’s what APS wants, though. They have a standard to meet and are not required to do more. People who want more for their kids will need to leave (which is what we will eventually do).

One teacher cannot provide tailored lessons to 20+ kids at widely varying skill levels. Schools either need to do tracking or parents will make an effort to get their kid in a school that has more kids at their grade level.

Anonymous wrote:The answer is no. Neither the school board nor North Arlington is willing to balance FRL across the county.

South Arlington doesn't want to either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Aps does track kids, especially in higher poverty schools. Go look at schools like campbell and barcroft. Interesting how most of the wealthier kids are in the gifted cluster, and most of those kids are in one class. Token few are in other clases, but move to the cluster class for subjects like math. I was shocked to see this at both schools, but especially campbell. Gifted kids got a very different education.

2. Busing doesn’t work. I grew up in a city that bused kids to and from high poverty areas. All it did was create schools within schools and the poor kids didn’t do any better in the wealthier school. School busing failed. Lots of scholarship on that topic as it was big in the 70s.

That’s how the gifted cluster model works (identifying historically underepresented groups is an issue) many grade levels have a gifted math cluster class and a gifted in multiple areas cluster classroom. If the cohort is too small or too large some kids may move for a subject.

I know that is the model. And it results in a school where most white kids were in the gifted cluster. By most, I meant there was literally one or at most two white kids in then non gifted cluster. It was stark-extremely segregated. Other parents noticed too and some were not thrilled by it. School was supposedly celebrated as “diverse” but that did not exist in the classroom.

But that is the point. Gifted services are trying to work harder to make sure students in historically underrepresented groups are being considered for services. It's funny that parents at schools like Campbell and Randolph are upset that there are more white kids in the gifted clusters because the reason probably goes back to the parents themselves pushing for early identification. White kids are way over identified for gifted services. Gifted is supposed to be for kids that truly are advanced and not just performing above grade level or smarter than their classmates but also possess higher order and critical thinking skills that go beyond their age.

The answer is no. Neither the school board nor North Arlington is willing to balance FRL across the county.