s/o Tracking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tracking and differentiation are two different strategies. differentiation happens within a classroom and all the students are learning a common curriculum, some may learn faster than others, some may be ahead, some may get some enrichment. it is more flexible so students get be grouped for different topics differently. tracking is separate classes and curriculum pitched at different levels.

How do you propose differentiated instruction should take place within one classroom? Say you have three levels of ability - do you have three different teachers to engage all three groups at the same time?

There is a whole literature on differentiated instruction. No, you should not need three different teachers.

Do you think people have difficulty accepting the notion that despite equal opportunity in learning, there won't be equal outcomes in learning? Or that unequal outcomes are the fault of someone other than the learner?

There will be different outcomes, obviously. People have different interests, skills, abilities, degrees of motivation. We should decide what level of knowledge and skills we need to get everyone too and then offer different paths (that do not lock students in but cater to different interests...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are not talking about Albert Einstein here. We are talking about the track that sends to to prison vs. the track that sends you to Harvard. Just asking for something a bit better than prison for these children.

Your examples seem a little extreme, but let's go with it. So, to your line of thinking, Banneker, SWW, Ellington, and the Wilson academies (except for the sports one) are the track to Harvard? And all the other DCPS HS options are the track to prison?

[Anonymous]

This piece made me think a lot about the effects of tracking. Maybe it is more consequential up and down in the later grades where most of us find it acceptable. Conceiveably these IQ shifts also could be affected by these IQ shifts given the content of their classrooms:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/19/news/la-heb-iq-changes-teens-20111019

[Anonymous]

You know, I now get what makes people so riled up about this issue. At the heart of the matter is this conflict between YY's stated mandate as an alternative to regular public schools, and the essentially selective nature of its curriculum. Chinese immersion is a tough track, and naturally not all children will succeed there; a child that succeeds will be a particular kind of child with natural affinity, family resources to support commute and reinforcement at home and scholastic aptitude. In a magnet school, that would all be fine because it is understood that magnets are not meant for every child, but only for a particular subset of children. I mean, no one at TJ would argue with admissions testing and selectivity.

Yet YY is a "public school alternative" so it by definition cannot cater only to a particular kind of child. The only barrier to admission is lottery luck.

Is this correct, more or less?

Then the problem is that YY offers a curriculum that in all fairness, should be offered only to a prescreened pool of learners, and offers it to everyone, expecting everyone to succeed. But not everyone will, so feelings are hurt. Yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not talking about Albert Einstein here. We are talking about the track that sends to to prison vs. the track that sends you to Harvard. Just asking for something a bit better than prison for these children.

Your examples seem a little extreme, but let's go with it. So, to your line of thinking, Banneker, SWW, Ellington, and the Wilson academies (except for the sports one) are the track to Harvard? And all the other DCPS HS options are the track to prison?

I too thought that the Harvard-prison dilemma was a bit overly dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Nice article...and I agree with the following sentiment...

"We have a tendency to assess children and determine their course of education relatively early in life, but here we have shown that their intelligence is likely to still be developing," Price said. "We have to be careful not to write off poorer performers at an early stage when in fact their IQ may improve significantly given a few more years."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice article...and I agree with the following sentiment...

"We have a tendency to assess children and determine their course of education relatively early in life, but here we have shown that their intelligence is likely to still be developing," Price said. "We have to be careful not to write off poorer performers at an early stage when in fact their IQ may improve significantly given a few more years."

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't agree with that sentiment. Not to make this thread all about YY, but another poster mentioned it - I don't think any reasonable person can say that what YY is doing (based on performance thus far, puttign certain kids who are having trouble with both English and Chinese in a non-immersion class, that has a higher student-teacher ratio than other classes) can remotely be considered "writing them off."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, I now get what makes people so riled up about this issue. At the heart of the matter is this conflict between YY's stated mandate as an alternative to regular public schools, and the essentially selective nature of its curriculum. Chinese immersion is a tough track, and naturally not all children will succeed there; a child that succeeds will be a particular kind of child with natural affinity, family resources to support commute and reinforcement at home and scholastic aptitude. In a magnet school, that would all be fine because it is understood that magnets are not meant for every child, but only for a particular subset of children. I mean, no one at TJ would argue with admissions testing and selectivity.

Yet YY is a "public school alternative" so it by definition cannot cater only to a particular kind of child. The only barrier to admission is lottery luck.

Is this correct, more or less?

Then the problem is that YY offers a curriculum that in all fairness, should be offered only to a prescreened pool of learners, and offers it to everyone, expecting everyone to succeed. But not everyone will, so feelings are hurt. Yes?

For the sake of understanding terms, we need to draw a distinction between "magnet school" And a school with "selective admissions".
A magnet school simply pulls from a city wide pool. People "opt in" rather than "feed in". Logan Montessori is a magnet school even though there is no selective admissions. Banneker is a Magnet school that does use selective admission. All Dc charter schools are, by definition, magnet schools but they are NOT, by law, selective admission schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, I now get what makes people so riled up about this issue. At the heart of the matter is this conflict between YY's stated mandate as an alternative to regular public schools, and the essentially selective nature of its curriculum. Chinese immersion is a tough track, and naturally not all children will succeed there; a child that succeeds will be a particular kind of child with natural affinity, family resources to support commute and reinforcement at home and scholastic aptitude. In a magnet school, that would all be fine because it is understood that magnets are not meant for every child, but only for a particular subset of children. I mean, no one at TJ would argue with admissions testing and selectivity.

Yet YY is a "public school alternative" so it by definition cannot cater only to a particular kind of child. The only barrier to admission is lottery luck.

Is this correct, more or less?

Then the problem is that YY offers a curriculum that in all fairness, should be offered only to a prescreened pool of learners, and offers it to everyone, expecting everyone to succeed. But not everyone will, so feelings are hurt. Yes?

That pretty much sums it up. Now, apparently the question for some is whether or not this should be allowed at all. Some people's feelings might get hurt, so therefore nobody should be allowed to attend a Chinese immersion school.

Hard to believe anyone abandons DC for the suburbs on account of the schools, right?

[Anonymous]

I'm not following the logic some are using. At YY the curriculum is the same, it is just delivered in English in the DCC instead of both English and Chinese. Everyone benefits because one teacher isn't divided between ability levels that may span upwards of two years worth of academic difference (just a typical 2-3 ability levels in each class).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not talking about Albert Einstein here. We are talking about the track that sends to to prison vs. the track that sends you to Harvard. Just asking for something a bit better than prison for these children.

Your examples seem a little extreme, but let's go with it. So, to your line of thinking, Banneker, SWW, Ellington, and the Wilson academies (except for the sports one) are the track to Harvard? And all the other DCPS HS options are the track to prison?

I realize it's a bit dramatic. But, yes, I am talking about the structural racism that exists. In those specialized schools you named, those students are priviledged and have access, high quality teaching and resources in ways that the rest simply do not. The opportunities are severely limited in your East of the River schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not talking about Albert Einstein here. We are talking about the track that sends to to prison vs. the track that sends you to Harvard. Just asking for something a bit better than prison for these children.

Your examples seem a little extreme, but let's go with it. So, to your line of thinking, Banneker, SWW, Ellington, and the Wilson academies (except for the sports one) are the track to Harvard? And all the other DCPS HS options are the track to prison?

I realize it's a bit dramatic. But, yes, I am talking about the structural racism that exists. In those specialized schools you named, those students are priviledged and have access, high quality teaching and resources in ways that the rest simply do not. The opportunities are severely limited in your East of the River schools.

Structural racism? You do realize that Banneker is about 99% AA don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not following the logic some are using. At YY the curriculum is the same, it is just delivered in English in the DCC instead of both English and Chinese. Everyone benefits because one teacher isn't divided between ability levels that may span upwards of two years worth of academic difference (just a typical 2-3 ability levels in each class).

You are right, you are not following the logic. This thread is about tracking and not YY, but again, the logic is this: not everyone benefits!! Only the students in the mission-consistent classes benefit. The rest are doing basic test prep. Please just ask yourself what is happening in this low track and you have your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not talking about Albert Einstein here. We are talking about the track that sends to to prison vs. the track that sends you to Harvard. Just asking for something a bit better than prison for these children.

Your examples seem a little extreme, but let's go with it. So, to your line of thinking, Banneker, SWW, Ellington, and the Wilson academies (except for the sports one) are the track to Harvard? And all the other DCPS HS options are the track to prison?

I realize it's a bit dramatic. But, yes, I am talking about the structural racism that exists. In those specialized schools you named, those students are priviledged and have access, high quality teaching and resources in ways that the rest simply do not. The opportunities are severely limited in your East of the River schools.

Are you saying that you are opposed to any public school with selective admissions simply because it may offer something that others do not? Are you saying that nothing in the public school system should be available only to a selected pool of highly able, or highly gifted in some way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not following the logic some are using. At YY the curriculum is the same, it is just delivered in English in the DCC instead of both English and Chinese. Everyone benefits because one teacher isn't divided between ability levels that may span upwards of two years worth of academic difference (just a typical 2-3 ability levels in each class).

You are right, you are not following the logic. This thread is about tracking and not YY, but again, the logic is this: not everyone benefits!! Only the students in the mission-consistent classes benefit. The rest are doing basic test prep. Please just ask yourself what is happening in this low track and you have your answer.

No, they're doing the same curriculum, just 100% in English instead of 50/50.

What is happening? They are mastering English at the level they need to survive in an English-speaking country. What do you know? I have my answer and it makes perfect sense.