Do any MoCo schools on Eastern side do class "tracking"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was in school we called it tracking or ability grouping - essentially grouping kids together into classes within that grade based on whether the kids were faster learners, avg, or needed more help. Does this happen in MoCo at all - specifically interested in schools in the eastern/downcounty area since we can't afford Bethesda and Rockville/Olney, etc are too far north for commuting.

I'm leery of staying put where I live now for MS and HS but am willing to consider going to the local ES if there's ability grouping - but not if it's just a jumble of kids at all ability levels meaning those that are doing better will get less attention since more will need focused on those who are struggling.

If it's not done at all, anyone know why or if this is a question that's ever up for debate within the schools?

Why? Because it's one of those things where research leaves no doubt that it doesn't work for anyone. Kids at the bottom do substantially worse in situations where they are isolated from their higher performing peers, and isolating the higher performing peers doesn't improve their performance at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in school we called it tracking or ability grouping - essentially grouping kids together into classes within that grade based on whether the kids were faster learners, avg, or needed more help. Does this happen in MoCo at all - specifically interested in schools in the eastern/downcounty area since we can't afford Bethesda and Rockville/Olney, etc are too far north for commuting.

I'm leery of staying put where I live now for MS and HS but am willing to consider going to the local ES if there's ability grouping - but not if it's just a jumble of kids at all ability levels meaning those that are doing better will get less attention since more will need focused on those who are struggling.

If it's not done at all, anyone know why or if this is a question that's ever up for debate within the schools?

Why? Because it's one of those things where research leaves no doubt that it doesn't work for anyone. Kids at the bottom do substantially worse in situations where they are isolated from their higher performing peers, and isolating the higher performing peers doesn't improve their performance at all.

I thought it was the opposite: isolating kids at the bottom doesn't improve their performance (especially if they are given the weakest teachers and an unchallenging curriculum), but grouping kids at the top with like peers improves their performance -- especially if they are gifted learners.

[Anonymous]

isolating the higher performing peers doesn't improve their performance at all.

I'm the OP and if you have data on this, I'd like to see it. Intuitively I find it very hard to believe though. I don't see as how it could help high performers at all to have instruction pitched at a lower level to aim at the middle of the group, nor to have the teacher spending the necessary additional time focusing on bringing those struggling up to speed rather than on further encouraging the high performers at the level best suited to where THEY are. That just doesn't make sense. if the benchmark being used to judge this is how many pass the state tests, maybe that makes sense (since presumably most all the high performers pass one way or the other so from that metric it would not show up as 'progress') but aside from that, how would it be possible that such an approach would NOT help higher performers more fully reach their potential?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Potomac Elementary did this when my DC's went there. The teacher's and principal called it differentiated instruction to whole class. They did not physically group them according to ability, except in reading. They insisted that the kids had no idea which learning group they where in. Which was a joke since the kids all knew and talked about it a lot.

This reminds me of the episode on "The Office" where Jim tries to avoid his old elementary school classmate. The storyline is that they were best friends in elementary school, but Jim gets put in the Blue Jay" reading group and the other one is in a different reading group. Jim's mom suggests he hang out more with his new peers and Jim delivers the news to his friend as: "My mom thinks you're too dumb to hang out with."

When I watched the episode I both laughed and cringed because who doesn't have memories of the reading groups. Every kid was well aware of what reading group you were in. You can dress it up however you wanted with cutesy names but among ourselves the kids would talk about it as the smart kids, the slow kids, etc. To this day, I can still remember the kid in the highest reading group by himself. I went to an elementary school that was almost completely minority so you had minority kids at all levels. When I later went to a high school (different state) that was integrated, the honors level classes were almost predominantly white and the on-level and remedial classes had a higher percentage of minority students. So I think the underlying problem being addressed by the reluctance for MCPS to have hard core tracking in elementary school is - how do you work with each child in reading - but not have kids feel that if they come in at the Blue Jay group they will always be in the Blue Jay group, and if we are in a racially mixed school, not have it visually break down among racial and SES lines so kids see one group is always in the lower level or higher level reading group. So the answer is some sort of flexible grouping for reading that is fluid and people move in and out of groups etc. I think officially I have only read of one elementary school that has tracking for reading. Unofficially, you have to talk to people that have kids in the school and the teacher and principal in the school.

Here's your reason, regardless of what's said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

isolating the higher performing peers doesn't improve their performance at all.

I'm the OP and if you have data on this, I'd like to see it. Intuitively I find it very hard to believe though. I don't see as how it could help high performers at all to have instruction pitched at a lower level to aim at the middle of the group, nor to have the teacher spending the necessary additional time focusing on bringing those struggling up to speed rather than on further encouraging the high performers at the level best suited to where THEY are. That just doesn't make sense. if the benchmark being used to judge this is how many pass the state tests, maybe that makes sense (since presumably most all the high performers pass one way or the other so from that metric it would not show up as 'progress') but aside from that, how would it be possible that such an approach would NOT help higher performers more fully reach their potential?

I seriously doubt that you'll get a straightforward answer from your school system, but there are all kinds of issues associated with tracking by ability. Placement in a program for the gifted is probably the only way for a child to get instruction that's more advanced.