All honors, All onlevel, All blended, or leveled classes - which is best?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
That just spreads the troublemakers out across all the classes, making it so nobody is safe from them. Better to keep the other kids safe from those troublemakers. |
Anonymous
Option 4 is fine provided anyone can sign up and are free to fail. |
Anonymous
I really like the idea of honors for all since it raises everyone up to a higher standard. |
Anonymous
Except that is simply not what happens. It ends up leading to lower standards because some of the kids simply can’t meet the higher standards that should be required for Honors classes. |
Anonymous
Maybe at your school but at ours they raise everyone up to a higher level. |
Anonymous
This is both unrealistic and incredibly simplistic. Some kids are stronger in certain areas than others. Just as some kids are more athletic, musical, artistic, etc., some will be stronger in academic subjects and find they are able to master a subject fairly easily that their classmate struggles with. It doesn’t mean that their classmate can’t learn, just as kids can learn sports, music, or art skills, even without a natural inclination in those areas, they just have to work harder. Kids have different starting points. For example, Some kids have had parents reading to them for hours each day and exposing them to enriching experiences. Other kids may not have the same range of experiences, and may have had limited exposure to books. Still other kids, regardless of the level of stimulation they received at home, may not be able to speak in English at all. Kids have different levels of motivation. A kid who is motivated may want to spend all their spare time and energy learning about and doing something. That doesn’t mean they’ll want to devote the same effort to all subjects, much less that all kids, regardless of their interest, should be expected to match the efforts of the top performers in every subject. A kid who enters kindergarten without knowing their ABCs will not be able to suddenly read chapter books because their classmate does. A child who is learning to count will not be ready for the same work as the child who figured out multiplication on their own. Most kids will fall somewhere in between. All kids should be taught at their own levels, with the goal of encouraging each individual child to progress on their individual path. |
Anonymous
I have said this for years. MCPS needs to focus on showing how much each child is IMPROVING. Quit focusing on the Achievement Gap. Quit focusing on putting kids in Honors/AP classes even when they don’t belong there. Show that each kid is progressing at an appropriate level for them. Focus on ESOL kids making progress. Focus on SN kids improving in the areas that they are capable of improving. Show that advanced Math students are progressing in Math. Kids spend 30 hours a week in school. Let’s show that those hours are actually useful. |
Anonymous
I get that you don't want to give others the benefit of a strong education, but this really works. I've seen it at my school. |
Anonymous
That's an exception. What usually happens is the "honors" classes are filled with low achievers and ends up getting dumbed down to an onlevel class. The high achievers are left to themselves. I guess MCPS doesn't care about those students. |
Anonymous
pp you’re responding to You obviously don’t get it because I DO want to give everyone a strong education. I think focusing instruction at each individual’s level is the best way to do that. You may be confusing ability grouping with tracking. I don’t think kids should be pigeonholed in rigid tracks or that learning should be rationed in any way. I want all kids to have challenges and choices. Every kid should receive a strong foundation so they have the ability to choose any path they want to pursue. Every child should be given the opportunity to pursue those choices. Every child should have the opportunity to challenge themselves along the way. Hypothetically, if you give advanced students 1% of the teacher’s time and on-grade level students 2% of the teacher’s time, that is 3% that is unavailable to students who are below grade level. I would rather they have a class where they get 100% of the teacher’s attention to bring them up to grade level and to prepare them for advanced work. Not to mention that ideally, students who are on grade level or above should have more than 1 or 2 % of instructional time because they deserve the chance to learn too. After all, why make a student attend school daily if they’re only taught 1% of the time? Don’t they deserve the benefit of a strong education as well? Since you’re concerned about a strong education, let’s look at what is one of the strongest educational offerings provided by the county. Students entering the Blair magnet are generally sorted by level into different classes according to their level and motivation. Some kids may take Magnet Geometry, others take Magnet Precalculus and a few who are extremely motivated may take Functions (basically a condensed version of Magnet Precalculus). I would say that hey are all getting the benefits of a strong education, but they are not all ready for Functions and most probably wouldn’t want the insane amount of stress and time required to succeed in the class. While I think the number of magnet spots should be greatly expanded to accommodate those who are interested and able, the vast majority of high school students wouldn’t want to undertake the stress and time required for magnet classes but still have opportunities to reap the benefits of a strong education without them. Those taking AP, IB, and dual enrollments classes, I think are absolutely getting benefits from a strong education, even if they don’t take Magnet Precalculus, and are probably better off not having had to suffer through Functions. The point is that each student needs the right level of instruction for them to prepare themselves to succeed at the next level. I’m very glad the grouping and instructional practices at your school were positive. It seems to me that, at best, they’re inefficient for everyone concerned. At the extremes, those who were the lower performing students may have felt lost, frustrated, intimidated, and generally stupid, while those at the high end may have felt frustrated, ignored, and stunted. I say this as someone who has at various times in my life been in classes where I was at either extreme, and have personally experienced all the associated emotions described above - none of which are conducive to learning in general, much less receiving “the benefits of a strong education”. |
Anonymous
Please share your school, so that we can all learn from it. 
|
Anonymous
Nah. You don’t really care about a strong education. A ‘strong education’ is not pushing kids along a Math pathway that puts them into Geometry even when they haven’t mastered Algebra. A strong education is not pushing all the kids into APUSH when they are still struggling with writing. You just care about optics. If you actually cared about kids getting a good education, you would want the school system to help them AT their level and not simply push them up to the next level. MCPS has tried mixed ability classes for the past decade and it’s clearly not working. Just look at the current abysmal stats in Math and Language Arts proficiency, |
Anonymous
Which MCPS school is it? I would like to know which school is implementing this well. |
Anonymous
| Option 4, which is how MCPS used to function in the past. It's a shame we deviated from differentiated learning at all. |
Anonymous
Lake Woebegone HS. I think it’s near BCC. |