Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

All kids have potential but it is best nurtured in groups where they can be with their own kind. Does no good to be way behind the other kids in the class or be unable to keep up. That would be more damning.

Anonymous wrote:
If we're talking about "entitlement," we should be discussing why one group of kids in FCPS is given a choice of schools, while the other group is not.

Where do you want my child receiving special ed services to go? Our neighborhood school does not have the staff to support him. Should our neighborhood school hire specialists to meet his needs? Personally, I think it is less expensive to send him to a school to be with other children with similar needs, and the appropriate staff are in place for all of these children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

Please post a link to where this is stated to kids. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:So is intelligence nature or nurture?

Both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

I think 9 times out of 10 everywhere you talk about parents who DON'T provide support to raise their children's competencies, you might want to substitute CAN'T. You've got parents who are too busy earning money to feed their kids to spend time doing workbooks with them "to improve their competencies." A phrase, by the way, that should never be applied to 7 and 8 year old KIDS! You also have parents who believe gradual learning as opposed to cramming multiple facts into young children's heads is the best way to develop their love of learning.

You seem troubled by a level-playing field to an extent that is offensive. Why should your kid have the edge in a publicly-funded school system because you can buy them or provide them more help and opportunities? You talk about not being sure why less advantaged kids should be "entitled" to receive a boost, when you seem to be the entitled one. Are you afraid that giving them the same preparation you can afford, would put them ahead of your kids?

+1,000,000
If we're talking about "entitlement," we should be discussing why one group of kids in FCPS is given a choice of schools, while the other group is not. Interestingly, parents of AAP kids don't seem willing to admit that their kids are the ones receiving entitlements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

This just undermines the entire premise of AAP.

But not only do they make this distinction, FCPS makes it wholly public and obvious with the entire concept of "Centers."

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

Absolutely agree. Telling one group of kids that they don't have "potential" but the other group somehow does, is one of the most damning things educators can do to kids. ALL students have potential, for crying out loud.

So is intelligence nature or nurture?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

I think 9 times out of 10 everywhere you talk about parents who DON'T provide support to raise their children's competencies, you might want to substitute CAN'T. You've got parents who are too busy earning money to feed their kids to spend time doing workbooks with them "to improve their competencies." A phrase, by the way, that should never be applied to 7 and 8 year old KIDS! You also have parents who believe gradual learning as opposed to cramming multiple facts into young children's heads is the best way to develop their love of learning.

You seem troubled by a level-playing field to an extent that is offensive. Why should your kid have the edge in a publicly-funded school system because you can buy them or provide them more help and opportunities? You talk about not being sure why less advantaged kids should be "entitled" to receive a boost, when you seem to be the entitled one. Are you afraid that giving them the same preparation you can afford, would put them ahead of your kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I did not click on the link, but aren't Lousiana's schools abysmal? How can their IQ criteria be among the highest in the country when their public schools are so poor?

The referenced IQ critieria is two standard deviations above, or 130. If IQ is innate (or mostly innate), then quality of public schools is irrelevant -- if IQ depends partly on education, then this program is designed to improve the education at a public school for the identified students. The article also noted that the GT programs were typically very small and not at all diverse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course all students benefit from high expectations and high level instruction. Lots of research has shown that people are influenced by others' expectations of them. Here's just one article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106815408551985600

Segregating kids into two distinct tracks that will last through high school and beyond (since it's so much easier to get into TJ from a center) based on test scores when a child is in 2nd grade is really harmful.

And one solution is to get rid of TJ.

The demand for AAP Centers would drop precipitously.

An even better solution would be not to start the rigid groupings at age 7. Wait until quality school for all has leveled the playing field a bit and for kids who might just be late bloomers to declare themselves.

Fcps already does this.

You can apply for your kid anytime or every year between 2nd and 7th grades. Fcps will even pay for one retest.

The AAP program has ample opportunities for "late bloomers" to join AAP.

Of all the complaints one might have about AAP "rigid groupings" is one of the least valid.

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I did not click on the link, but aren't Lousiana's schools abysmal? How can their IQ criteria be among the highest in the country when their public schools are so poor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article, and it's not exactly showing that kids benefit from advanced programming, it's more about creating a 1.5 gifted program, between GT and gen ed.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of the lines did make me wince. This one, for example: Ford described Louisiana’s IQ cutoff score as “one of the highest” in the country. “I think those criteria are untenable if you really want to desegregate your gifted programs.”

I just read the whole article too, and it did say that the intent was for these kids to be able to test high enough to be labeled gifted.

And 130 is not one of the highest in the country to qualify for gifted programs. And it's even lower for certain demographics -- between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations, which would be as low as 121. I wish these "diversity advocates" would realize they're in essence saying those groups of kids need easier admissions requirements.

But it's true if you believe that IQ scores are influenced by cultural constraints. A child who has been read to since birth, has always had high quality child care, comes from highly verbal parents, is going to have a higher IQ than a child with none of those advantages -- even if both children are actually capable of doing high level academics.

So, is the public responsible for providing extra time and money dedicated to the children whose parents did not provide this support in order to raise these children's competencies? Are we responsible to pay for the fact that other parents don't put in the time and effort toward their children, regardless of their reasons or ability to? It's an interesting question, and I am not sure the answer is obvious. At what point is the public responsible for providing an adequate education, but not for leveling the playing field that results from benefits some children receive from their parents? Especially when, heaven for bid, the public is very hands off in dictating what parents responsibilities are to their children. Essentially, this seems to be providing pre-prep classes targeted toward particular children whose parents have not provided as much support as others have in order to boost their performance and make them eligible for programs. I'm just not sure why these kids, as opposed to anyone else, should be entitled to receive such a boost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, testing is "biased."
Teacher observations are "biased."

At what point do you not get to blame "bias"?

Bias is a real thing. Do you also believe that climate change is a myth and that dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time as modern humans?

+1

Teacher bias was studied in 2005, when a team of researchers gave 207 elementary school teachers vignettes about a student with gifted traits and asked them to decide whether the student should be considered for accelerated classes. A third of the teachers were told the student they were considering was white, a third were told the student was black, and a third weren’t told the student’s race. Teachers who believed the student was African-American were least likely to recommend accelerated

But yea, no bias there.

Did you read the comments to OP's article? It's hard to know how relevant that information is, but it does give me pause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, testing is "biased."
Teacher observations are "biased."

At what point do you not get to blame "bias"?

Bias is a real thing. Do you also believe that climate change is a myth and that dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time as modern humans?

+1

Teacher bias was studied in 2005, when a team of researchers gave 207 elementary school teachers vignettes about a student with gifted traits and asked them to decide whether the student should be considered for accelerated classes. A third of the teachers were told the student they were considering was white, a third were told the student was black, and a third weren’t told the student’s race. Teachers who believed the student was African-American were least likely to recommend accelerated

But yea, no bias there.

And what was the percentage of the difference? Of course there is some bias in all systems, based on race, gender, wait and all kinds of factors. Where the teachers twice as likely to identify whites as blacks for recommendation, wasn't more than that, or less? I don't think anyone is saying bias doesn't exist. But, so much emphasis is placed on the degree of bias that it seems out of proportion to its actual existence. So, what were the numbers like?