Why the aversion to grouping kids based on ability rather than age? Thoughts from down under.

[Anonymous]

"In fact, I would actually support lower student:teacher ratios for kids at the bottom of the test score distribution."

yep. Even in the same school. If my DD ends up being in the quicker learner category then I would love if her school let her and similar kids be grouped together in a larger class while the teacher w/ more challenging kids had fewer to juggle. This would seem to work better for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Schools can not fix societies problems but they are suppose to be the equalizers. It is the number one method in which people are supppose to be able to move to a higher station in life, from poor to middle class and so on. School and hard work are the great equalizer allowing any American or Immigrant to prosper.

I agree on the smaller classrooms for bottom tier students but I think they need to adopt a teach them and move them out approach. Get them up to speed into the normal classroom, do not just teach at a slower pace so that they end up years behind never being able to recover. Also, in the early years, kids learn at different paces and we do not want a kid to fall behind early on especially when they have the capacity to learn each and every thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools can not fix societies problems but they are suppose to be the equalizers. It is the number one method in which people are supppose to be able to move to a higher station in life, from poor to middle class and so on. School and hard work are the great equalizer allowing any American or Immigrant to prosper.

I agree on the smaller classrooms for bottom tier students but I think they need to adopt a teach them and move them out approach. Get them up to speed into the normal classroom, do not just teach at a slower pace so that they end up years behind never being able to recover. Also, in the early years, kids learn at different paces and we do not want a kid to fall behind early on especially when they have the capacity to learn each and every thing.

I am ok with some of what you say. For example, you could cut out specials and give the 'slower' classrooms extra math/reading time (double block of math and reading). You could also have afterschool, weekend, and summer activities for them (if they decide to particpate). That is what those 'Stand and Deliver' kids did to earn AP credit in a chaotic high school.

I think schools can't get to equalization by themselves without support from students and parents. I also think holding back fast learners is not a good option for keeping things equal. If a kid A goes home and reads 2 hours a day, but kid B watches videos instead and this happens day after day, year after year, then how is the school going to make up the extra 2 hours a day? It is not fair for Kid A to have to go to school and re-learn something that was mastered in the past. Nor is it fair for Kid A to teach Kid B. That is what mixed ability grouping does, IMHO. BTW, I am not even getting into whether some kids have a better innate learning ability beyond effort. I personally see innate learning idifferences within my own children, but I know people don't like to talk about it.

[Anonymous]

We liked Montessori so that the kids weren't pegged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools can not fix societies problems but they are suppose to be the equalizers. It is the number one method in which people are supppose to be able to move to a higher station in life, from poor to middle class and so on. School and hard work are the great equalizer allowing any American or Immigrant to prosper.

I agree on the smaller classrooms for bottom tier students but I think they need to adopt a teach them and move them out approach. Get them up to speed into the normal classroom, do not just teach at a slower pace so that they end up years behind never being able to recover. Also, in the early years, kids learn at different paces and we do not want a kid to fall behind early on especially when they have the capacity to learn each and every thing.

I am ok with some of what you say. For example, you could cut out specials and give the 'slower' classrooms extra math/reading time (double block of math and reading). You could also have afterschool, weekend, and summer activities for them (if they decide to particpate). That is what those 'Stand and Deliver' kids did to earn AP credit in a chaotic high school.

I think schools can't get to equalization by themselves without support from students and parents. I also think holding back fast learners is not a good option for keeping things equal. If a kid A goes home and reads 2 hours a day, but kid B watches videos instead and this happens day after day, year after year, then how is the school going to make up the extra 2 hours a day? It is not fair for Kid A to have to go to school and re-learn something that was mastered in the past. Nor is it fair for Kid A to teach Kid B. That is what mixed ability grouping does, IMHO. BTW, I am not even getting into whether some kids have a better innate learning ability beyond effort. I personally see innate learning idifferences within my own children, but I know people don't like to talk about it.

Most areas have magnet or GT programs for the kids who are fast learnes but yes I do believe that the schools can keep kids on grade level oppose to below even if they go home and play video games. Kids below grade level should be in classes with a 1 to 10 ratio or so and teachers should meet them where they are academically and get them moved to the next level. If the kid is not progressing then we should know why but during school hours we should be really working with kids. My local public, does exactly what you say, they have longer periods for core courses and make kids review material that they have mastered. I'm not a fan of this and thus have chosen private school. I support ability grouping but I understand why people do not like it, especially in the early grades when kids acquire skills at different rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely hate the argument that the smarter kids can teach the younger kids. I don't want my GT kid teaching anyone. I want this child to be challenged in school by teachers who are paid from my tax money. Every kid should be challenged to the best of their ability. Kids are not school system employees.

I also reject the notion about stigma. Kids know which kids do better in school, no matter how you group them. One of my kids knows that they are well behind other kids in reading in a mixed classroom environment. Believe me, it doesn't help my child's esteem to see how far behind DC is from the other kids everyday. We are talking like 2-3 grade levels behind.

Tracking is another BS argument. First off, I don't buy that falling behind in elementary school determines your lot in life. I don't even buy the fact that if you don't take AP classes in HS that you can't earn a PHD someday. ES, MS, HS is not the end of your education. Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein and a host of other people did poorly in early education due to things like dyslexia. Secondly, I don't think tracking exists anymore like it did in the past. Kids can work hard and get into higher level classes later. In MCPS, being in a magnet at one level (ES, MS, or HS) does not ensure you get into the next level magnet. Likewise, kids from neighborhood schools do get into magnets at the next level.

There is just not substitute for challenging every kid at the right level. Stop the social engineering.

+1

[Anonymous]

You are preaching to the choir ... of one tonight. Meet a kid where they are at intellectually and academically. These milestones may differ from kid to kid. One size (or grade or age or developmental age) doesn't fit all. Basic biological fact and common sense. Unfortunately, many without even a middle school student's grasp of fundamental biology and physilogy don't get it. From reading the dcum threads the majority of urban moms and dads in the D.C. area have little education in biology, physiology and science in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely hate the argument that the smarter kids can teach the younger kids. I don't want my GT kid teaching anyone. I want this child to be challenged in school by teachers who are paid from my tax money. Every kid should be challenged to the best of their ability. Kids are not school system employees.

I also reject the notion about stigma. Kids know which kids do better in school, no matter how you group them. One of my kids knows that they are well behind other kids in reading in a mixed classroom environment. Believe me, it doesn't help my child's esteem to see how far behind DC is from the other kids everyday. We are talking like 2-3 grade levels behind.

Tracking is another BS argument. First off, I don't buy that falling behind in elementary school determines your lot in life. I don't even buy the fact that if you don't take AP classes in HS that you can't earn a PHD someday. ES, MS, HS is not the end of your education. Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein and a host of other people did poorly in early education due to things like dyslexia. Secondly, I don't think tracking exists anymore like it did in the past. Kids can work hard and get into higher level classes later. In MCPS, being in a magnet at one level (ES, MS, or HS) does not ensure you get into the next level magnet. Likewise, kids from neighborhood schools do get into magnets at the next level.

There is just not substitute for challenging every kid at the right level. Stop the social engineering.

So your kids would not have learned anything or profited in any way having Steve Jobs and Albert Einstein in his/her class.

[Anonymous]

Why are Aussies and NZ'ers so racist? Is it because you are regarded as garbage people by white Northern Europeans? Is this why they always seem to have an inferiority complex not unlike Canadians. You eat your curries, etc., but make know bones about your overt racism? Stop talking about grouping kids according to "ability" you racist bastards.

[Anonymous]

Now, now smarty pants. Sounds like you are the one with an inferiority complex. Give me one good reason why a 5-year-old who is reading, writing and speaking fluently should be grouped in an englich class with other 5-year-olds who can barely read and write? Why should a 4-year-old fluid in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division by grouped in a math class with other 4 and 5-year-olds counting by their 10 fingers and toes?

Sounds assinine to me. Take due note of the prefix in assinine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is true for parents with means and parents focused on their child's education. I believe in tracking but I have no doubt that in general kids with parents who know how to and do advocate for their child will get more out of the system and that a lot of kids, especially poorer kids, will be placed in a track early on and never move out of that tracks. Of course, the current system allows that same student to get more services but chances are they will still stay behind their peers but I do believe they get more emphases in the current system to move head.

There are a lot parents who push to get their kid in GT although they did not meet the requirements. They will also prep the kids through Kumon, test prep and other ways. Poor kids have only their natural abilities.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think holding back good learners is an acceptable solution. In fact, I would argue that gifted kids from poorer backgrounds are hurt the most by mixed ability classrooms. I have a GT kid and I can afford to give my child extra resources when the school falls short. There are all sorts of camps, tutoring, software, and other tactics I can use to challenge my child. Without money or parental effort, the poor GT kid would just have to get bored in the mixed class. This could lead to future disenchantment with education and a poor outcome.

I also dispute the notion that GT kids have to have more resources. I think they should get regular resources, but at an accelerated pace that meets their needs. In fact, I would actually support lower student:teacher ratios for kids at the bottom of the test score distribution. I also would accept paying for Saturday school or summer school for kids that need extra help.

In the end, though, schools are not the solution to fixing societal inequities. For better or worse (worse in my opinion), our society does not want to transfer wealth and resources from the rich to the working class. The schools need to accept that they can't fix these inequalities and just try to help each kid the best they can. That doesn't mean holding back some kids, though.

This is an incredibly important point. I think it's well-meaning stereotypes that end up creating harmful, sometimes unintended, consequences. "Grouping hurts minority kids!" Why? Well, because minority kids are poor learners.

It's the same dynamic that leads DC to let violent juvenile criminals off with a slap on the wrist. "Minority kids are all criminals, therefore locking up juvenile criminals hurts minority kids." Meanwhile, it's their minority peers who are overwhelmingly likely to be the victims of these relatively few predators.

[Anonymous]

And it's usually these kids who run the gangs later on.

My MIL is a reading teacher in a middle school and it pains her to see both the struggling special needs students as well as bored, advanced kids who she can't devote enough time to challenge. She has kids who read at both a third grade level and at a college aged level in the same class and she's supposed to develop a curriculum for all of them. It's a joke and she knows it, and it makes her sad that she can't do anything about it.

I grew up in a 'tracked' ES, MS, and HS. Plenty of kids moved up from the 'slow' track to the middle or high track based on their progress. But we all weren't expected to all go to college, either. We lived in a rural town and only 10-20% of HS grads went to college. Most of the college-ambitious kids were in the same classes; there were plenty of HS seniors with plans that did not include furthering their education. This was not looked down upon. I don't get why that is so wrong nowadays.

All the 'combination' approach accomplishes is to frustrate teachers, make the 'stupid' kids feel dumb, and make the 'smart' kids bored/frustrated/elitist while employing a 'one size fits all' approach that we all know is only consistent with 'teaching for the test'.