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

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

There is differentiated instruction. Sometimes it is a grouping within a class, sometimes it involves going to another class for a particular subject. But in general, I do not believe they have entire classrooms of above grade level, below grade level an at grade level. At least not in elementary school.

[Anonymous]

It has been a couple years since we were there, but Rock View Elementary (in the Einstein cluster) was tracked in separate classes starting in first grade. It actually seemed like a bit too much tracking since there were three to four classes in each grade, and everyone knew exactly where they stood, which was hard for kids who weren't in the most advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Yes there is differentiated instruction. We are at Oakland Terrace. You should call your home school and set up a meeting.

[Anonymous]

IMO, MCPS is schitzophrenic where ability grouping is concerned. It is handled it very differently depending on whether you are talking about language arts or math. In math, beginning in 1st grade, the children are grouped into classes based on ability level, where some are given "on grade" instruction, while other classrooms are given an "above grade-level" curriculum. In our school the pace of the class is also ajusted for students ability level.

In language arts, on the other hand, the students stay in a heterogenous class with all different abilities. All are given the same curriculum; however, during reading groups (about 10-15 minutes per group) they differentiate and group children by reading level. The county mandates that the teachers meet with "at risk" readers on a daily basis, so the reality is that the higher level readers only meet with the teacher much less frequently. Our experience in first grade was that our child would sometimes go 2 weeks without reading group - it is much better now in 2nd grade.

"Tracking" is a dirty word in MCPS, and if you advocate for ability grouping, you are looked at as an elitest. I have asked MANY, MANY times for a reason on why MCPS believes that there should be such a distinction between math and language arts and have never received any satisfactory answer. In fact, the principal and assistant principal have never given me a direct answer ... all I get is " that is county policy and that's the way it's done."

[Anonymous]

"Tracking" is a dirty word in MCPS, and if you advocate for ability grouping, you are looked at as an elitest.

why is that? Seems like a huge waste of efficiency in terms of letting each group of kids get the most out of what they're learning rather than trying to pitch primarily to the middle (or the low end even to try to bring them up). (i'm the OP).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Tracking" is a dirty word in MCPS, and if you advocate for ability grouping, you are looked at as an elitest.

why is that? Seems like a huge waste of efficiency in terms of letting each group of kids get the most out of what they're learning rather than trying to pitch primarily to the middle (or the low end even to try to bring them up). (i'm the OP).

I agree with you .... my preference would be that they group students in language arts much the same way they do in math. I think it would make it easier on the teachers too because they wouldn't have to have all of these variations to their plans for multiple levels of guided reading groups. The administration doesn't like to hear this and at our school anyway, they don't like to be questioned.

[Anonymous]

What about in MoCo high schools? Besides AP, is there more than one "level" for each subject, so that a student can be in a class with other students at a similar level? Obviously, not for gym, etc. but for the more academic subjects?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

It's not currently vogue to track or ability group for language arts, because a a typical language arts whole group classroom usually has kids sitting at their desks doing seat work or writing in a journal or on a project while the teacher meets with small reading groups at the back table. Especially with writing (or writers workshop) as long as kids can write something, or draw pictures, they can be happily working on their own level in the journals. Kids who can barely write are writing something, kids who can write a TON are writing something. And you can have lots of different levels of reading books going at the same time for small group instruction.

For some reason people usually think that math requires more direct instruction than reading and writing. I guess kids can sit down and read their novels without much interaction, but the can't just sit and do math for 45 minutes without needing guidance from a teacher? So that's why people are more likely to allow teachers to group by ability level for math, but not reading.

Look for elementary schools that do something called "Departmentalization" in the upper grades. that's where you have 4 3 rd grade teachers, and each one teaches a different subject. Sometimes that allows schools to group students by ability levels across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not currently vogue to track or ability group for language arts, because a a typical language arts whole group classroom usually has kids sitting at their desks doing seat work or writing in a journal or on a project while the teacher meets with small reading groups at the back table. Especially with writing (or writers workshop) as long as kids can write something, or draw pictures, they can be happily working on their own level in the journals. Kids who can barely write are writing something, kids who can write a TON are writing something. And you can have lots of different levels of reading books going at the same time for small group instruction.

For some reason people usually think that math requires more direct instruction than reading and writing. I guess kids can sit down and read their novels without much interaction, but the can't just sit and do math for 45 minutes without needing guidance from a teacher? So that's why people are more likely to allow teachers to group by ability level for math, but not reading.

Look for elementary schools that do something called "Departmentalization" in the upper grades. that's where you have 4 3 rd grade teachers, and each one teaches a different subject. Sometimes that allows schools to group students by ability levels across the board.

I'm the Potomac Elementary poster above. We had the exact opposite situation. The kids were physically grouped by ability for reading but in Math it was all "differentiated" instruction. The kids totally knew who was receiving what level of instruction. The thing that made me angry is my DC needed to be in a more basic math group.

[Anonymous]

The thing that made me angry is my DC needed to be in a more basic math group.

Why would that make you angry? You'd rather he be plunked into the advanced group where he isn't ready to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The thing that made me angry is my DC needed to be in a more basic math group.

Why would that make you angry? You'd rather he be plunked into the advanced group where he isn't ready to be?

Not PP, but I think she is saying just that - that her DC was plunked into the advanced group, where he was expected to do things he wasn't ready to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about in MoCo high schools? Besides AP, is there more than one "level" for each subject, so that a student can be in a class with other students at a similar level? Obviously, not for gym, etc. but for the more academic subjects?

AP/IB
honors
on level/on level inclusion classes