Anonymous wrote:PP is right. Parents try to escape general ed. No one wants to say why. Its just easier to pull down AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be changed so it's not pay to play anymore where the elitist moms of not so special kids can buy their way in bringing the teacher cupcakes, test prep courses, appeals, principal placement, etc. It's all very unfair to other kids who deserve those spots but don't have mammies working the system.

I think the solution is leveled classes based on ability year to year. If you can't keep up, you drop down a level. If it's too easy, you move up. Without having to obtain admission to an elitist program.

Or segregated program. Because that's what it is. It segregates those kids from the rest of their cohort.

And it furthers income inequality.

Anonymous wrote:I have really mixed feelings about this. I was in the G&T program as a child and it was a really important and valuable experience for me. My family was working class and I received no real support for academics at home. But I was very academically inclined (loved school, early reader, super engaged in class, and yes, tested well). The G&T program offered me access to all kinds of things my parents would never have been able to afford or even thought to introduce me to. I'm really grateful for those experiences and in my case, G&T worked in favor of equity because it introduced me to other opportunities and interests that otherwise I wouldn't have known about.

I should also note I'm white and from a very white area with little diversity. There was plenty of economic diversity in our G&T program (my two best friends in grade school were in it with me, were both on government assistance, and one had a single mom and absentee father -- they really did base admission to the G&T program on interest and merit and people didn't just buy their way in). So the idea of a G&T program being anti-equity was really foreign to me.

But now living in this area, I see how absolutely obsessive and privileged so many people are, and the way they will stop at nothing to give their kids every possible academic advantage. I don't know what the answer is, but I know AAP programs here do not function like the G&T program I grew up with. I do think there are real equity problems now and I don't know the answer. My kid is still young (PK age) but is a lot like I was at that age -- early reader, very interested in school, love learning. I could see her thriving in an AAP program, and I could also see her getting frustrated and bored without one. But I also don't want to work to get her into AAP just so she can spend all her time around smart but very intense kids with wealthy and even more intense parents who are all just obsessively focused on getting into TJ and going to Ivies and making a lot of money. Even if she also got access to great learning opportunities, I don't know if that's worth it. We are not wealthy and I value diversity.

I think something has to be done and it would make me sad if the only option is "no more AAP". But what are the other options? I am skeptical about the idea that most teachers can adequately teach to different levels. I'm sure some talented folks can, but we're talking about the average teacher.

Anyway, this feels like something rich, hyper-competitive white people ruined for everyone else and I'm frustrated.

Anonymous wrote:I have really mixed feelings about this. I was in the G&T program as a child and it was a really important and valuable experience for me. My family was working class and I received no real support for academics at home. But I was very academically inclined (loved school, early reader, super engaged in class, and yes, tested well). The G&T program offered me access to all kinds of things my parents would never have been able to afford or even thought to introduce me to. I'm really grateful for those experiences and in my case, G&T worked in favor of equity because it introduced me to other opportunities and interests that otherwise I wouldn't have known about.

I should also note I'm white and from a very white area with little diversity. There was plenty of economic diversity in our G&T program (my two best friends in grade school were in it with me, were both on government assistance, and one had a single mom and absentee father -- they really did base admission to the G&T program on interest and merit and people didn't just buy their way in). So the idea of a G&T program being anti-equity was really foreign to me.

But now living in this area, I see how absolutely obsessive and privileged so many people are, and the way they will stop at nothing to give their kids every possible academic advantage. I don't know what the answer is, but I know AAP programs here do not function like the G&T program I grew up with. I do think there are real equity problems now and I don't know the answer. My kid is still young (PK age) but is a lot like I was at that age -- early reader, very interested in school, love learning. I could see her thriving in an AAP program, and I could also see her getting frustrated and bored without one. But I also don't want to work to get her into AAP just so she can spend all her time around smart but very intense kids with wealthy and even more intense parents who are all just obsessively focused on getting into TJ and going to Ivies and making a lot of money. Even if she also got access to great learning opportunities, I don't know if that's worth it. We are not wealthy and I value diversity.

I think something has to be done and it would make me sad if the only option is "no more AAP". But what are the other options? I am skeptical about the idea that most teachers can adequately teach to different levels. I'm sure some talented folks can, but we're talking about the average teacher.

Anyway, this feels like something rich, hyper-competitive white people ruined for everyone else and I'm frustrated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:1. The 99.9% kids who would truly need a more specialized and segregated education are not served by AAP. They are just as bored in AAP as they would be in general Ed.

2. The top 20% AAP generally serves well would do just as well in general Ed if AAP did not exist, in which case enrichment and groupings within general Ed could possibly serve even more students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that claim you can do differentiation in a heterogeneous class have no clue. My son needs differentiation, there’s absolutely nothing he learns in his third grade math. The “ differentiation” looks like this: the class does 16:4, while the teaches gives my son the exercise 2516:4, which he does in his head in 5 seconds.

True differentiation wound require different content, lesson plan, homework, concepts. Most school districts and teachers are not capable to provide true in depth alternatives so it easier and cheaper to group students together by some ability metric and move them together through the regular curriculum faster.

Not ideal, but better than wasting the student potential with worksheets that provide no learning or to simply ignore bright students during class.

Except everywhere in the country does it this way and the kids deal. You feel entitled to something that is actually incredibly indulgent of advanced kids and is at the cost of everyone else.