flexible grouping makes the most sense. All students are given a pre-test and then sorted into classes based on how they tested. This way, if a student is particularly good at fractions, for example, they will be in a more advanced grouping. But, this same child may not grasp geometry as well, and would be more appropriately placed than if the child had been labeled "aap" and accelerated across all topics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Putting all the so-called advanced kids and EVERYONE else together is what is inequitable. AAP is the OPPOSITE of equity. It's catering to rich white and asian families and is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood why they don't have advanced language arts for those students who are advanced in that area.

Because if you compare the curriculum between AAP and GenEd for anything besides math, you will see that it's really not all that different. In the long run, AAP will result in 1-2 years ahead in the HS math course sequence. Once 9th grade starts, AAP makes no difference, it's either Honors, AP, or IB which is open to everyone. Not the case for every school or teacher of course, but on the whole really not that advanced outside of math.

+1
Which is why AAP is ridiculously unnecessary if flexible groupings would be used. And before anyone jumps in to screech that "one teacher can't handle multiple different groups!!" - that's not what I'm talking about. Each teacher would take one group. Among grade level teams, which are usually made up of 5-6 teachers, that would be plenty.

It would require their schedules to match exactly. They would all have to have LA, math, science and social studies at the same time for it to work. This could be very difficult.

Fox Mill ES does this for 6th grade. The reason is to help the kids get ready for MS and switching classes in 7th grade. It also helps the Japanese Immersion kids and the Regular Class kids get to know each other better before MS because the groups are mixed together for the first time. Math is still in Japanese and Fox Time at the end of the day is used for conversational Japanese instruction a few times a week.

I don’t know how hard it is to schedule but there is one Teacher for each subject. Kids are grouped and change classes. My son only has 3 kids he is in all 4 classes with so the grouping changes. I wish they started it earlier or at least mixed the kids for LA and Social Studies because I think it allows for ability based groupings that are important for kids.

Is it harder to do when you have 6 classes at a school? Maybe but I suspect that there is a way to do it. Maybe there are 2 LA and Math Teachers and one Social Studies and Science Teachers. That would allow for smaller classes for Math and LA to be able to address the needs of the kids who are struggling.

What we are doing now isn’t working. The gap is growing, not shrinking, so maybe we need to re-think how we are approaching education. Inclusion has not helped the kids the farthest behind and is not helping the kids who would do better with additional challenges. In FCPS it has turned AAP into an arms race because parents don’t want their grade level kid ignored while the teacher focuses on the kids who are behind. The kids who are ahead are in AAP sot he answer becomes get the grade level kid into AAP so they get some attention. AAP becomes water downed. Now no one is happy. The kids whoa re behind are still behind, the kids on grade level are ignored, the advanced kids in AAP are bored because too many kids are in AAP because their parents don’t want them lost in the regular classroom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood why they don't have advanced language arts for those students who are advanced in that area.

Because if you compare the curriculum between AAP and GenEd for anything besides math, you will see that it's really not all that different. In the long run, AAP will result in 1-2 years ahead in the HS math course sequence. Once 9th grade starts, AAP makes no difference, it's either Honors, AP, or IB which is open to everyone. Not the case for every school or teacher of course, but on the whole really not that advanced outside of math.

+1
Which is why AAP is ridiculously unnecessary if flexible groupings would be used. And before anyone jumps in to screech that "one teacher can't handle multiple different groups!!" - that's not what I'm talking about. Each teacher would take one group. Among grade level teams, which are usually made up of 5-6 teachers, that would be plenty.

It would require their schedules to match exactly. They would all have to have LA, math, science and social studies at the same time for it to work. This could be very difficult.

My kid is in 5th grade advanced math and has been since 3rd. I’ll let you know next year if there is no advanced math class but I suspect that won’t be the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Just more segregation with a cool new name. Same privilege perpetuation. This is not equitable either.

I am fine with that. Holding kids back in the name of equity is ridiculous. We cannot change the home life of many of the kids who start school behind and nothing that is done at school is going to change their home life. I am tired of pretending that schools can fix the issues in kids homes that are the root cause of the education gap. Schools cannot go to the kids home as a toddler and read to the kid. Schools cannot teach toddlers their numbers, letters, sounds, shapes and other basic information that most kids in the middle, upper middle, and rich classes learn.

Meet all kids where they are. Provide the smaller classrooms and extra Teachers for the kids from lower SES classes to meet their needs. Set up LLIV classes at their school that meet the needs of the kids above grade level at the Title 1 schools. Send home free books and academic tools. Set up tutoring and programs after school that help reinforce what is learned at school and provides child care. Go for it. I am all in.

But stop holding back kids who can do more in school in the name of equity. It isn’t working.

You the voters have elected the school board to implement equity. Now you say you don't want equity?

Maybe if the Republican party ran moderates people would vote for them. Running Trump supporters in this area is a non-starter. Running people focused on who uses what bathroom and what books to ban is a non-starter. Run a moderate who will discuss needing to have classes grouped with fewer ability levels and I suspect they would get plenty of votes. Run someone who wants to discuss grading in an intelligent manner and you will see people voting for them. But it is the far right nut jobs running who don’t stand a chance in this area.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Just more segregation with a cool new name. Same privilege perpetuation. This is not equitable either.

I am fine with that. Holding kids back in the name of equity is ridiculous. We cannot change the home life of many of the kids who start school behind and nothing that is done at school is going to change their home life. I am tired of pretending that schools can fix the issues in kids homes that are the root cause of the education gap. Schools cannot go to the kids home as a toddler and read to the kid. Schools cannot teach toddlers their numbers, letters, sounds, shapes and other basic information that most kids in the middle, upper middle, and rich classes learn.

Meet all kids where they are. Provide the smaller classrooms and extra Teachers for the kids from lower SES classes to meet their needs. Set up LLIV classes at their school that meet the needs of the kids above grade level at the Title 1 schools. Send home free books and academic tools. Set up tutoring and programs after school that help reinforce what is learned at school and provides child care. Go for it. I am all in.

But stop holding back kids who can do more in school in the name of equity. It isn’t working.

You the voters have elected the school board to implement equity. Now you say you don't want equity?

Maybe if the Republican party ran moderates people would vote for them. Running Trump supporters in this area is a non-starter. Running people focused on who uses what bathroom and what books to ban is a non-starter. Run a moderate who will discuss needing to have classes grouped with fewer ability levels and I suspect they would get plenty of votes. Run someone who wants to discuss grading in an intelligent manner and you will see people voting for them. But it is the far right nut jobs running who don’t stand a chance in this area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Just more segregation with a cool new name. Same privilege perpetuation. This is not equitable either.

I am fine with that. Holding kids back in the name of equity is ridiculous. We cannot change the home life of many of the kids who start school behind and nothing that is done at school is going to change their home life. I am tired of pretending that schools can fix the issues in kids homes that are the root cause of the education gap. Schools cannot go to the kids home as a toddler and read to the kid. Schools cannot teach toddlers their numbers, letters, sounds, shapes and other basic information that most kids in the middle, upper middle, and rich classes learn.

Meet all kids where they are. Provide the smaller classrooms and extra Teachers for the kids from lower SES classes to meet their needs. Set up LLIV classes at their school that meet the needs of the kids above grade level at the Title 1 schools. Send home free books and academic tools. Set up tutoring and programs after school that help reinforce what is learned at school and provides child care. Go for it. I am all in.

But stop holding back kids who can do more in school in the name of equity. It isn’t working.

You the voters have elected the school board to implement equity. Now you say you don't want equity?

Sounds great. Who is going to fund all of that? Maybe if VA properly funded schools this could happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Just more segregation with a cool new name. Same privilege perpetuation. This is not equitable either.

I am fine with that. Holding kids back in the name of equity is ridiculous. We cannot change the home life of many of the kids who start school behind and nothing that is done at school is going to change their home life. I am tired of pretending that schools can fix the issues in kids homes that are the root cause of the education gap. Schools cannot go to the kids home as a toddler and read to the kid. Schools cannot teach toddlers their numbers, letters, sounds, shapes and other basic information that most kids in the middle, upper middle, and rich classes learn.

Meet all kids where they are. Provide the smaller classrooms and extra Teachers for the kids from lower SES classes to meet their needs. Set up LLIV classes at their school that meet the needs of the kids above grade level at the Title 1 schools. Send home free books and academic tools. Set up tutoring and programs after school that help reinforce what is learned at school and provides child care. Go for it. I am all in.

But stop holding back kids who can do more in school in the name of equity. It isn’t working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Just more segregation with a cool new name. Same privilege perpetuation. This is not equitable either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Actually, flexible grouping is FAR more equitable than AAP. With FG, students can be in exactly the right group per core class that suits their ability. Far more targeted to each student than AAP/GE is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Yes, allowing people to advance based on their ability so bad, isn’t it. Equity the pathway to mediocrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.

Flexible grouping (aka tracking) is Inequitable.

Anonymous wrote:This is really hard on teachers to implement. And it does not take into account the special ed kids who need the regular lessons at a slow and steady pace. Not everyone needs acceleration.

Which is why there should be a variety of levels (of all core classes), spread among all teachers. Much more straightforward than all the meaningless, wordy "E3" or AAP Level Whatever nonsense.