Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what equity does for schools. Race to the bottom

This precedes the equity movement so no need to bash your low hanging fruit. Based upon personal observation and experience, this descent began way before covid with umc white parents who me-too'ed their kids into gifted classes.

There's been a big change just as of this fall. APS totally changed what they're calling the program and who it serves. The AACs explained to PTAs that they now provide enrichment to all students and do not focus on those who are tagged as gifted. That's a huge change and it was described as being more equitable.

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding, which may be based on how the information was delivered at your specific school. Really, there hasn't been a "big change" this school year. The only change this fall is the actual name of the department shifted from Gifted Services to Advanced Academics and Talent Development and name of the Resources Teacher for the Gifted (RTG) shifted to Advanced Academics Coach (AAC). The changes in the names were made to represent the model used in APS-- a model that has been in place for many years, but may not have been implemented with fidelity across all schools. With the change in department name and job title, parents seem to have a better understanding of what the service delivery model is in APS. APS has been clear for years they they do not have a pull-out program. In fact, it has not been marketed as a "program" that kids are "getting into", but rather a way to identify specific talents and cluster kids appropriately to better support needs within the classroom so kids aren't outliers in the group.

When enrichment is for all, all the kids suffer because no one is getting what he/she needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what equity does for schools. Race to the bottom

This precedes the equity movement so no need to bash your low hanging fruit. Based upon personal observation and experience, this descent began way before covid with umc white parents who me-too'ed their kids into gifted classes.

There's been a big change just as of this fall. APS totally changed what they're calling the program and who it serves. The AACs explained to PTAs that they now provide enrichment to all students and do not focus on those who are tagged as gifted. That's a huge change and it was described as being more equitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what equity does for schools. Race to the bottom

This precedes the equity movement so no need to bash your low hanging fruit. Based upon personal observation and experience, this descent began way before covid with umc white parents who me-too'ed their kids into gifted classes.

NP. There are no gifted classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also in general, the curriculum is too easy, especially in math and reading. Even my 1st grader comes home astonished by how easy math is. He says it’s stuff he did in pre-k. Having such an easy curriculum hurts not only the gifted/above average kids but even the bottom half who aren’t really being challenged. It’s sad.

It won't get better. My third grader is still bringing home worksheets that focus on reading a thermometer and rounding to the nearest 10 and 100. As far as I can tell they've outsourced all multiplication and division instruction to the iPad. And she's supposed to be in the gifted cluster.

She’s probably doing reflex math.
Did you do timed multiplication tests in 3rd grade? I did. That what reflex math on the iPad is - except the teacher doesn’t have to grade them and the app keeps detailed stats to determine when your child can move to the next fact group. It’s actually pretty cool. Maybe you should ask your kid’s teacher how it interacts with the paper curriculum before you bash it.

I did those tests every week or two. But in between we memorized times tables and used flash card to commit them to memory. That's the rigorous part that's missing with the turn towards iPad instruction. My kid can skip-count by 2s and 5s, but the idea of counting by 7s or 8s is totally alien to her. It seems problematic that the kids are learning "fact families" in the abstract but aren't able to conceive of the times tables as a 12 x 12 array.

I have a lot of complaints about APS, but Reflex really is an awesome program for learning and getting fluent in multiplication facts. It's really similar to flash cards, expect it's adaptive to make sure your kid remains fluent on facts they already know and learning facts they don't know yet. I'd focus your attention to worry about other things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also in general, the curriculum is too easy, especially in math and reading. Even my 1st grader comes home astonished by how easy math is. He says it’s stuff he did in pre-k. Having such an easy curriculum hurts not only the gifted/above average kids but even the bottom half who aren’t really being challenged. It’s sad.

It won't get better. My third grader is still bringing home worksheets that focus on reading a thermometer and rounding to the nearest 10 and 100. As far as I can tell they've outsourced all multiplication and division instruction to the iPad. And she's supposed to be in the gifted cluster.

She’s probably doing reflex math.
Did you do timed multiplication tests in 3rd grade? I did. That what reflex math on the iPad is - except the teacher doesn’t have to grade them and the app keeps detailed stats to determine when your child can move to the next fact group. It’s actually pretty cool. Maybe you should ask your kid’s teacher how it interacts with the paper curriculum before you bash it.

I did those tests every week or two. But in between we memorized times tables and used flash card to commit them to memory. That's the rigorous part that's missing with the turn towards iPad instruction. My kid can skip-count by 2s and 5s, but the idea of counting by 7s or 8s is totally alien to her. It seems problematic that the kids are learning "fact families" in the abstract but aren't able to conceive of the times tables as a 12 x 12 array.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what equity does for schools. Race to the bottom

This precedes the equity movement so no need to bash your low hanging fruit. Based upon personal observation and experience, this descent began way before covid with umc white parents who me-too'ed their kids into gifted classes.

But this isn't just about the gifted classes. Yes, gifted kids are not challenged, but I think it's a general curriculum problem. The math is just too easy...this isn't just about too many kids being considered "gifted".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also in general, the curriculum is too easy, especially in math and reading. Even my 1st grader comes home astonished by how easy math is. He says it’s stuff he did in pre-k. Having such an easy curriculum hurts not only the gifted/above average kids but even the bottom half who aren’t really being challenged. It’s sad.

It won't get better. My third grader is still bringing home worksheets that focus on reading a thermometer and rounding to the nearest 10 and 100. As far as I can tell they've outsourced all multiplication and division instruction to the iPad. And she's supposed to be in the gifted cluster.

She’s probably doing reflex math.
Did you do timed multiplication tests in 3rd grade? I did. That what reflex math on the iPad is - except the teacher doesn’t have to grade them and the app keeps detailed stats to determine when your child can move to the next fact group. It’s actually pretty cool. Maybe you should ask your kid’s teacher how it interacts with the paper curriculum before you bash it.

Anonymous wrote:This is what equity does for schools. Race to the bottom

This precedes the equity movement so no need to bash your low hanging fruit. Based upon personal observation and experience, this descent began way before covid with umc white parents who me-too'ed their kids into gifted classes.

Anonymous wrote:Also in general, the curriculum is too easy, especially in math and reading. Even my 1st grader comes home astonished by how easy math is. He says it’s stuff he did in pre-k. Having such an easy curriculum hurts not only the gifted/above average kids but even the bottom half who aren’t really being challenged. It’s sad.

It won't get better. My third grader is still bringing home worksheets that focus on reading a thermometer and rounding to the nearest 10 and 100. As far as I can tell they've outsourced all multiplication and division instruction to the iPad. And she's supposed to be in the gifted cluster.

This is what equity does for schools. Race to the bottom

Also in general, the curriculum is too easy, especially in math and reading. Even my 1st grader comes home astonished by how easy math is. He says it’s stuff he did in pre-k. Having such an easy curriculum hurts not only the gifted/above average kids but even the bottom half who aren’t really being challenged. It’s sad.

IME gifted in ES and MS meant absolutely diddly squat.

Our kid - now in MS - was tagged GT quick in ES and we agree the APS version is a facade. But we got into Montessori and that really did provide individualized learning at advance level. The combo of multi ages meant our kid could always be working above grade. I didn't know anything bout Montessori but I'd do it again knowing what we do now about no real GT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_membership.html

Look at the numbers. They are nowhere near half the students

Our elementary works out to 37% of students identified as gifted and since almost no students are identified until the end of 1st or 2nd, that percentage is concentrated in the upper grades, bringing the total in the upper grades close to 50%.

Statistically, 37% or 50% of kids cannot be outliers. Even in an area where there are lots of educated and smart people. Lots of kids can be advanced because they have access to good early childhood education, but that should not = "gifted," which is supposed to mean "has abilities so far beyond other kids they cannot be met in a regular classroom and require modifications or special intervention/teaching." By definition, a third or half of kids cannot be in that category. What everyone is concerned about is just enrichment.

It helps if you just understand that APS uses "gifted" to mean "students who are not adequately challenged by the standard curriculum." This is easily 30-50% of students. Parents are upset because APS used to try to find at least some ways to challenge these students. Post-pandemic, APS seems to have decided that providing enrichment for these students is inequitable, so all students have to get the same materials and opportunities. The AAC (formerly gifted resource teacher) only provides materials appropriate for *all* students and there will be no pull outs or separate opportunities.

Ie the standard curriculum is bollucks.