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.

This might apply if 2nd grade was the only entry point for AAP. But it’s not - there are more services that start in kindergarten, there is screening for any year thru grade 7, and it’s open enrollment in MS and HS —- so sorry - your analogy fails.

In reality, where is the service that starts in Kindergarten? My kindergartener whose teachers were impressed with was dumbed down by first grade without parent intervention. He was given third grade material at the beginning of kindergarten is not getting any enrichment afterwards.

Majority of AAP LIV are selected in 2nd grade. In 3,4,5,6,7, the number of students getting in are not as many at all.

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.

This might apply if 2nd grade was the only entry point for AAP. But it’s not - there are more services that start in kindergarten, there is screening for any year thru grade 7, and it’s open enrollment in MS and HS —- so sorry - your analogy fails.

My analogy is spot on. “Screening” isn’t a fair opportunity to enter the program. It’s a cross your fingers and hope someone in authority gives the kid a shot.

You’re being disingenuous. I suspect it’s because you’re one of those mommies who spent all her free time putting together a portfolio of your “gifted” child’s work (that you definitely didn’t do 🙄) and so the thought of your kid having to compete for his spot every year concerns you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AAP is not a gifted program. It is mainly a way for parents with means to get their kids segregated from the poor kids, disguised as a gifted program. (Let’s not pretend these parents aren’t prepping their kids for the two tests which are meant to be taken totally unprepped, or that they’re not “contributing” to their children’s work samples, and when all else fails they’ll pay for and prep their kid for an IQ test…)

The problem is then everyone pretends that all of the kids left behind are getting an adequate and appropriate education. Wrong! The average, above average, and poor gifted kids are being left to flounder jn gen ed which is essentially remedial at this point. But the rich “gifted” kids are at centers so I guess all is well.

All the kids are taking the same standardized tests. They all have equal access to the same programs. If you are able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in subjects, it makes perfect sense to be able to receive a higher level of acceleration and material taught. Just the same if a child tests low, remedial measures are put in place.

So you prepped your kids for the tests. That is essentially cheating - it is not indicative of your child’s giftedness. Which, again, is a HUGE part of the problem.

(Also, does no one else think it’s insane to basically permanently track kids at ages 6-7? Johnny didn’t score as well on a test he didn’t prepare for in second grade [because you’re not supposed to prepare for it] as Timmy whose Mommy was giving him practice tests for three months, so Johnny is essentially screwed for the the rest of his time in FCPS?)

To get rid of APP, everyone needs to vote for the Democrat-backed candidates running for school board positions.

The republicans will only keep AAP in place.

Vote D and put an end to AAP.

Although I agree the GOP is usually okay with segregation, this is accurate. I've looked at the candidate's platform and haven't seen anything about eliminating AAP.

Segregation is a result of individual learning preferences. Students who prefer a standard pace opt for a regular class, while those seeking a more in-depth understanding choose to enroll in Honors class for the same subject. And, students who aim to take their learning to an advanced level decide to join corresponding AP class. This segregation of students into these various classes happens because of student's choice and their learning preference.

But politicians want their sheep followers to take note of race of students in these three different classes, and what skin color is majority and what other skin color is out numbered especially in the advanced class, to drive a wedge between racial groups.

Or maybe they just want a fair system that elevates all students and helps them develop their ptoential

The truth is that that system exists but it is not accessed by many families in ES because the parents are not engaged. Teachers are allowed to refer kids for LIV because there is a concern about deserving kids who did not hit the in-pool score not being referred by parents. The recent change to localized in-pool scores is an effort to get more kids in front of the committee who were not in the past because their test scores were not high enough. Young Scholars is more active at Title 1 schools then it is at UMC schools for a reason. Class sizes are intentionally small at Title 1 schools for a reason.

But you need the parents to buy in and encourage their kids. Get their kids to school. Care about their grades and activities at school. And that is missing at most Title 1 schools.

It is not because the parents don’t love their kids, because they do. But the parents are trying to take care of their families and don’t have time for meetings and info sessions and parent teacher conferences. The parents don’t have the money to enroll their kids in after school activities at the school and probably don’t have the time to research scholarships for their kid. They sure don’t have the time to run math club or STEM Scouts or some other enrichment activity. Most importantly, the parents don’t have an education themselves and do not value a high school degree.

A kid at a Title 1 school who shows any interest in school is going to receive so much help and encouragement and you can only help that will take them into HS and beyond because the likelihood that they get that support at home is small.

The problem with the current system is a lot of families with means are able to access this programming through appeals, prep or providing outside diagnosis to bolster their claims of giftedness.

Exactly it provides a way around desegregation laws. Families with money have their kids put into AAP whereas those without are in gened. It's that simple.

This is an incredibly obtuse take. I personally know lower income children who not only got in but thrived in AAP. Stop making stuff up.

Sure there are a few rare exceptions, but AAP has a much lower FARMS rate than Gen-ed. It is a way to segregate the rich from the poor. That isn't even up for debate.

Agree that may be an effect, but that doesn't mean it's the intent/motivation. The motivation/intent is to meet kids where they are. If you think the entire program is driven by a desire for socioeconomic segregation, then we live in different worlds. Housing policy and choices and school boundaries have FAR more to do with socioeconomic segregation than the AAP/GenEd split does within a given school.

Of course it's not the intent but it is the result.AAP ends up being socioeconomic segregation.

It's unfortunate that this is true.

I wonder where you are in the county. Because that's not what I see at all.

It's exactly what I see and is aligned with the statistic that AAP has a lower free lunch percentage than gen ed.

You could get rid of AAP and you'd still have the same basic level of socioeconomic segregation between schools. You could keep AAP but lose "centers" and there'd still be segregation. It's housing, not the program. Sure, within a given school you might see a bit of a different distribution socioeconomically between AAP and GenEd, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to housing-based socioeconomic segregation.

Anonymous wrote:You all do realize that brains are muscles and can get smarter? So by working with your kids, you do make them smarter. Anyone can work with their kids. That is extremely equitable in my mind.

What I don't like is using IQ tests to determine kid placement. It should be based on how hard you work + the scores you get. Some mediocre kids work extremely hard and still make top grades and top scores on AP tests.

Anonymous wrote:While I agree that AAP is not equitable, I do not agree with the "holistic" approach. Holistic approach has no clear guidelines and is highly subjective.

Anonymous wrote:Moving to socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. I think that’s what this message might convey. Look up the first sentence above.

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not math per se but academics in general that need to be eliminated or several reduced to achieve greater equity.

Yes! You get it! When they stop teaching and just let everyone be equally dumb equity will have been achieved!

Anonymous wrote:I found this article so moving:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/gifted-talented-programs-not-path-equity/

And the arguments made are so compelling.

Don’t you agree this also applies to the AAP program? Should we find ways to phase it out, and offer the same opportunities to every learner in FCPS ?

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.

This might apply if 2nd grade was the only entry point for AAP. But it’s not - there are more services that start in kindergarten, there is screening for any year thru grade 7, and it’s open enrollment in MS and HS —- so sorry - your analogy fails.

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.

This might apply if 2nd grade was the only entry point for AAP. But it’s not - there are more services that start in kindergarten, there is screening for any year thru grade 7, and it’s open enrollment in MS and HS —- so sorry - your analogy fails.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not math per se but academics in general that need to be eliminated or several reduced to achieve greater equity.

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: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.