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.

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.

+100
Flexible groupings would see kids mixed in ways they are not currently. The "advanced" LA group might not all be in the "advanced" math group (or science, social studies). This monolithic "AAP" group is full of kids who aren't advanced across the board. Just as GE is full of bright kids who ARE advanced in certain subjects, but not all. The current system is ridiculous.

I agree. I went to school in FCPS about a zillion years ago; advanced classes didn't start until the 5th- 6th grade, and then we were grouped for math and language arts according to where you performed on the yearly, not monthly, aptitude test. I was reading at an 11th-grade level in the 4th grade, but I failed at math when it meant having to sit down every day and do the work. It's not my jam at all, but I still scored above the 95th percentile for state-wide students in math, so I was in advanced math and language arts for the rest of 5-6th. If someone had tested me in the second grade and assigned me at that point, it would have been over because I could barely read in the 2nd grade.

I got lots of C's in math and A's in language arts; I was perfectly pleased with my C and ecstatic for a B. Some things I picked up quickly, and other things I didn't, no one had to slow down a class so that I could catch up. I got a C, and other kids got an A. And it meant that after elementary I continued on the college prep track. This meant I was getting exposure to the more complex subject matter, even if I didn't master it, which meant that I could pass the minimum math requirement when I did go off to college; I wasn't being tracked to community college or beauty school right out of the gate starting in 2nd grade.

What they are doing now makes no sense. I have a DS who couldn't sit still in 2nd but scores advanced pass for every single Language Arts SOL he's had put in front of him since then; he's a better math student than I ever was, not gifted, but he loves science, language arts, history, social studies, anything that involves reading. He has the closest thing to a photographic memory I've seen in a kid, which isn't just a party trick. It means he has a lot of facts flying around in his head, is chomping at the bit to learn more, is capable of higher-order thinking, and is desperate for opportunities where he can relate what he knows to what he's learning. But there is no place for that in GenEd, which is fine. A school can't be everything for everyone, but it seems to be a waste when a kid like that sits on ice for 8 hours a day.

I have a teacher friend who teaches AAP math in FCPS, and as she put it, they move so fast that almost no one in the class can keep up, and those who do are learning the concepts at a surface level only. There isn't enough time to teach the required materials in the time they have because the majority of the students aren't capable of achieving the level they would need to in order to keep up with the pace. So, most of her kids are doing outside tutoring, Mathnasium, Kumon etc., to keep up, while others, who are more capable, are doing outside enrichment to fill in the gaps so they can learn what they need to know to stay ahead. Oh, and she mentioned they are all very into Dogman and other graphic novels, but even the most basic young reader literature available. Meanwhile, many kids are in GenEd and can keep up but are bored to tears because it all moves too slowly and isn't challenging enough.

So, what exactly are they accomplishing? I figured out maybe a little too late that my DS wouldn't get the education I received because it isn't being offered to anyone. So now I spend money to have DS work twice weekly with a retired school teacher. My request was that she challenge him, teach him to write in cursive, and give him opportunities to think, allow discussion, write, identify, and also help to fill in the gaps. It's not enough because 2 hours a week doesn't make up for a full-time but fundamentally weak elementary education, but it's something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Flexible grouping can only work if it is a year commitment. You can’t have kids go in/out of the advanced group in 5th and 6th because they literally take s different SOL. I am all for grouping kids where they are. They should use the end of year data to do this. Between IReady and the SOLS there is definitely enough data to form groups. Maybe kids might start taking it more seriously if they knew it was for class placement.

Here you make a flawed assumption. There would be no “advanced” and all kids would take the grade-level SOL. For example, if you have 100 kids and 4 home rooms, they would be split into 4 math classes. This changes based on unit of study. I’m talking about flexible grouping instead of advanced placement for math only.

Well then you mean advanced math should go away. I am all for grouping kids by ability level but doing it by unit is not as easy as it sounds logistically. Also, kids should not be held back if they need advanced math.

DP. Where are you getting that? Obviously, there would be an advanced group for math (and for LA, science, and social studies). Of course no one should be held back if they need advanced instruction - in ANY class.

DP The PP was responding to the post from 1/21 14:10 which advocated for flexible grouping but where all students would take the same grade level SOL (so no acceleration). Advanced math currently involves acceleration so PP is saying that the 14:10 scenario assumes the end of advanced/accelerated math.

Yes, that is what is happening it FCPS’s own twisted way. All in on equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Flexible grouping can only work if it is a year commitment. You can’t have kids go in/out of the advanced group in 5th and 6th because they literally take s different SOL. I am all for grouping kids where they are. They should use the end of year data to do this. Between IReady and the SOLS there is definitely enough data to form groups. Maybe kids might start taking it more seriously if they knew it was for class placement.

Here you make a flawed assumption. There would be no “advanced” and all kids would take the grade-level SOL. For example, if you have 100 kids and 4 home rooms, they would be split into 4 math classes. This changes based on unit of study. I’m talking about flexible grouping instead of advanced placement for math only.

Well then you mean advanced math should go away. I am all for grouping kids by ability level but doing it by unit is not as easy as it sounds logistically. Also, kids should not be held back if they need advanced math.

DP. Where are you getting that? Obviously, there would be an advanced group for math (and for LA, science, and social studies). Of course no one should be held back if they need advanced instruction - in ANY class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Flexible grouping can only work if it is a year commitment. You can’t have kids go in/out of the advanced group in 5th and 6th because they literally take s different SOL. I am all for grouping kids where they are. They should use the end of year data to do this. Between IReady and the SOLS there is definitely enough data to form groups. Maybe kids might start taking it more seriously if they knew it was for class placement.

Here you make a flawed assumption. There would be no “advanced” and all kids would take the grade-level SOL. For example, if you have 100 kids and 4 home rooms, they would be split into 4 math classes. This changes based on unit of study. I’m talking about flexible grouping instead of advanced placement for math only.

Well then you mean advanced math should go away. I am all for grouping kids by ability level but doing it by unit is not as easy as it sounds logistically. Also, kids should not be held back if they need advanced math.

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.

How does equity help when the children's are taking more advanced maths outside of the school?

Many childrens are taking algebra outside of school in 6th grade at Navy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So currently E3 reduces acceleration in 3/4. Do they just cram more material in 5th grade to prepare for the 6th grade SOL? Also how do they determine who goes to advanced math in 5th since 4th is heterogenous classes?

"cramming in" the material is what is happening for my E3 student. I replied earlier on this thread that he received some differentiation during 4th grade E3 math that the teachers call "extension activities" that happen during full-class math time. He also had once a week pull out with the AART that focused on math (at the expense of his level 3 curriculum). He, and many of the kids' whose parents I know well enough to talk about it, barely passed the 4th grade math SOL. Because so many of the 4th grade "advanced math" kids did average on the 4th grade SOL, they just left them all in advanced math for 5th grade and the 5th grade teacher is trying to catch them up to where they need to be for the 6th grade SOL. It's frustrating.

In our case, if our child isn't caught up by the school, we will put him in Math 7 Honors and then Algebra 1 honors in 8th grade and get him tutoring to catch up if he's having trouble. This is supposedly the track that E3 math is accomplishing for more kids, but it doesn't look like it has worked for our school.

One of the really frustrating things is that because E3 is a pilot program I believe we are the only elementary school in our middle school/high school pyramid doing it. So the middle school teachers will likely have little sympathy for the one group of kids who got behind because of E3 math. I'd feel better about it if the whole pyramid was doing it.

E3's pilot is now in its third year. Do they just keep a small subset of schools in E3 indefinitely or do they make a decision at some point to either implement it at all elementary schools or end the pilot?

Anonymous wrote:So currently E3 reduces acceleration in 3/4. Do they just cram more material in 5th grade to prepare for the 6th grade SOL? Also how do they determine who goes to advanced math in 5th since 4th is heterogenous classes?

"cramming in" the material is what is happening for my E3 student. I replied earlier on this thread that he received some differentiation during 4th grade E3 math that the teachers call "extension activities" that happen during full-class math time. He also had once a week pull out with the AART that focused on math (at the expense of his level 3 curriculum). He, and many of the kids' whose parents I know well enough to talk about it, barely passed the 4th grade math SOL. Because so many of the 4th grade "advanced math" kids did average on the 4th grade SOL, they just left them all in advanced math for 5th grade and the 5th grade teacher is trying to catch them up to where they need to be for the 6th grade SOL. It's frustrating.

In our case, if our child isn't caught up by the school, we will put him in Math 7 Honors and then Algebra 1 honors in 8th grade and get him tutoring to catch up if he's having trouble. This is supposedly the track that E3 math is accomplishing for more kids, but it doesn't look like it has worked for our school.

One of the really frustrating things is that because E3 is a pilot program I believe we are the only elementary school in our middle school/high school pyramid doing it. So the middle school teachers will likely have little sympathy for the one group of kids who got behind because of E3 math. I'd feel better about it if the whole pyramid was doing it.

So currently E3 reduces acceleration in 3/4. Do they just cram more material in 5th grade to prepare for the 6th grade SOL? Also how do they determine who goes to advanced math in 5th since 4th is heterogenous classes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Gatekeeping isn’t fair and it perpetuates inequity.

I say this in with sincerity, can you please explain how this is gatekeeping? I see all students being challenged beyond their ability. I have kids with varying levels of math aptitude and have seen different approaches to teaching. Even in AAP, not all students have the same propensity for numbers, and teachers end up having to differentiate within the classroom.

+1
Pretty sure the PP is trolling. Flexible grouping is the very opposite of gatekeeping.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Precisely. Pre-tests before each unit would ensure all kids easily and smoothly move into the appropriate group - which might very well be different for the next unit.

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.

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.

+100
Flexible groupings would see kids mixed in ways they are not currently. The "advanced" LA group might not all be in the "advanced" math group (or science, social studies). This monolithic "AAP" group is full of kids who aren't advanced across the board. Just as GE is full of bright kids who ARE advanced in certain subjects, but not all. The current system is ridiculous.

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.

:roll:
Yes, just keep throwing absurd roadblocks up - "this could be very difficult!" It's simply a matter of wanting to do the right thing for all kids. Scheduling is not brain surgery.

Anonymous wrote:Flexible grouping makes a lot of sense and isn’t “gate keeping” because the groupings are …flexible.

Exactly. In fact, it's the way elementary school was for many of us. I was in the advanced language arts group, but one of the lowest math groups. Gradually, I moved up. Others were the opposite. It's common sense to group kids *flexibly,* so as to allow movement in either direction.

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.

DP. Instead, we see the far left nut jobs winning - which says everything about exactly who the voters are.