Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I do not know every center or pyramid or ES, but where I am I have not seen “all of the resources go to rich “gifted” kids”. They don’t really get more resources where we are. Just more challenge.

I won’t say the current system is perfect but I also can’t say eliminating AAP solves the problems that exist in gen ed. If anything it makes them worse. Schools needs more money, lower ratios, and probably less in-class differentiation (not more) to improve gen ed.

Here here. Every kid will get what they need when we have more teachers, more money to pay teachers, and more space to put everyone. Right now, FCPS is doing the best they can do.

Disagree. More differentiation is needed, not less. Less only benefits the middle. The kids at either end of the curve aren’t getting instruction pertinent to their knowledge and capabilities. If teachers were able to teach smaller class sizes with a much narrower range of ability, they would be able to teach so much more effectively and efficiently. Even without a smaller class, having the narrow range of abilities is the answer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

Except that has not happened. AAP has become watered down because parents are desperate to get their kids into the program. The Gen Ed classes are too mixed to allow anyone to have their needs met. So the kids who really need AAP, the top 5-10%, don’t get what they need because the kids who are only slightly ahead are placed in AAP. None of the kids in Gen Ed are getting their needs met. The kids at the below grade level don’t get the dedicated time they need. The kids on grade level get barely any attention. The kids who are slightly above grade level get minimal attention.

The inclusive classroom is not doing anyone any favors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I do not know every center or pyramid or ES, but where I am I have not seen “all of the resources go to rich “gifted” kids”. They don’t really get more resources where we are. Just more challenge.

I won’t say the current system is perfect but I also can’t say eliminating AAP solves the problems that exist in gen ed. If anything it makes them worse. Schools needs more money, lower ratios, and probably less in-class differentiation (not more) to improve gen ed.

Here here. Every kid will get what they need when we have more teachers, more money to pay teachers, and more space to put everyone. Right now, FCPS is doing the best they can do.

Disagree. More differentiation is needed, not less. Less only benefits the middle. The kids at either end of the curve aren’t getting instruction pertinent to their knowledge and capabilities. If teachers were able to teach smaller class sizes with a much narrower range of ability, they would be able to teach so much more effectively and efficiently. Even without a smaller class, having the narrow range of abilities is the answer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I do not know every center or pyramid or ES, but where I am I have not seen “all of the resources go to rich “gifted” kids”. They don’t really get more resources where we are. Just more challenge.

I won’t say the current system is perfect but I also can’t say eliminating AAP solves the problems that exist in gen ed. If anything it makes them worse. Schools needs more money, lower ratios, and probably less in-class differentiation (not more) to improve gen ed.

Here here. Every kid will get what they need when we have more teachers, more money to pay teachers, and more space to put everyone. Right now, FCPS is doing the best they can do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

My white kid was in an AAP class at his local elementary, and he was a minority. There were just a few white kids in the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.

All this has been tried before, it did not work. High achievers in gen ed had to be separated, so the teachers can offer dedicated and undivided attention to gen ed students. As a solution, AAP was created, so that gen ed classes could be tailored to the needs to gen ed students.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Yes, especially since the current incarnation of AAP is just segregation for those with means.

Try again. Without AAP, our school would be very white and homogenous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

I don’t know about “moving” but it’s certainly depressing.
But, certainly those who buy into equity as a societal goal would have to agree that curriculum tailored to individual learning needs (especially when targeting accelerated learners) has got to go eventually.
Next up will be music programs. (Is it fair that the ones who play in the top school bands and orchestras are the students who can afford to pay for private instruction? Well then we better not make placement in a top band or orchestra dependent upon an audition, because some kids have access to instruction that others don’t have and it is t fair.
The last domino to fall will be sports. But I suspect that’s where people will finally draw the line with this nonsense of equity.
I’m all about creating opportunities. But controlling for outcome is insane, as there are so many factors that can go into why/how someone is “successful” in a given area…
Opportunity is just one of those…but natural ability, Drive, dedication and commitment of time to practice your sport/craft/study are all valid factors as well.

Very well put.

In almost all areas of life, having money would give one an advantage. A motivated highly educated parent with high family income can help a child a lot more than economically disadvantaged parent. Tutors, private instruction, coaches all make it tough for lower income families to compete on an equal basis. Life is unfair.

The question is how to make it less unfair. The equity diehards think just eliminating tests, advanced academics, etc is the way to go because it is easy and it just masks the disadvantages.

No home work, no testing, less rigorous grading makes everyone look pretty equal.

They dont want to do the hard work. How about extra support? Additional period for children falling behind? How about private tutoring after school hours?

That takes too long. Instead they just spout DEI nonsense.

We have all that. Visit a lower income middle or high school and look at the staff parking lot. They are there 4 days a week with kids after school, in small group targeted remediation sessions, feeding kids “supper” to keep bellies full since late buses don’t come until 5 and kids got to school at 7. Elective blocks are taken with second math or reading classes, kids eat lunch in teachers’ rooms to be read to while eating since that has been shown to improve literacy. Staffing ratios are lower to keep classes more reasonable (25 kids vs 32). There are mentoring programs where staff volunteer to spend time and money showing these at risk kids things they haven’t gotten a chance to experience—sit down restaurants, a theater performance, visiting the monuments downtown.

It’s not enough. It will never be enough.

Life isn’t fair and it sucks but we cannot be everything to everyone.

Getting rid of testing isn’t the answer either, but the idea that decades of generational trauma and poverty can be overcome with an hour a day of one on one academic support for a few years isn’t an answer either.

We need to pay for high quality child care from birth.

I think everyone is missing the point. AAP is unfair to the kids in the middle. They don’t need remedial education or programs to overcome generational trauma, they just need a decent education in a safe environment and not to be stuck in classrooms full of behavior problems. All of the resources go to the rich “gifted” kids and the remedial and/or delinquent kids. What about the average kids? These are the kids who are actually being left behind.

I agree with this. The issue isn’t that AAP is not equitable, it is that we have developed a system that rewards people who can prepare their kids and then leave everyone else in one group.

AAP works because Teachers have only a few levels of kids to differentiate for and most of those kids are on grade level. The Gen Ed classroom is not working because Teachers have kids who are slightly advanced, on grade level, just below grade level, and kids who are 1-3 grade levels below grade level. All of those kids get screwed.

The answer is that we need to return to a system that allows for differentiation in the classroom in a reasonable manner. Why not take a school with 4 Gen Ed classrooms and have the kids shift rooms for each subject. The Teachers are dealing with kids with a smaller subset of kids to differentiate for and all the kids are having their needs met. Bring in the reading specialist and math specialist to help with the lower scoring kids groups so there are more adults in the room to work with the kids.

The problem is that we know that you are going to end up with the lower group being ESOL and poor kids in the lower groups. And White and Asian kids in the middle to higher groups. The optics are awful and people will scream about equity.

I would also say that ES ESOL needs to work like MS/HS ESOL. The kids need to be in an ESOL specific room. Tossing ES age kids who don’t speak English into a classroom with kids raised speaking English is not helping these kids. We don’t do it in MS/HS because we get that for those ages, I don’t get why we do it in ES. Place the kids into ESOL classes that focus on English with similar aged peers, help the kids learn English and get to grade level with their academics. You cannot take kids who have not been to a formal school at the age of 10 and put them in a 4th or 5th grade glass and expect them to do well. You just can’t.