Correlation of SES status, race, and FARMS with test scores and disruptiveness?

[Anonymous]

The other thing I would mention is how school is structured. I think there is a certain expectation that all kids have to be able to succeed in a very specific way and if you change the school environment you can reach kids that may not do as well the traditional way. My child changed schools and I can't say whether the teacher having a child psychology background, more gym periods and shorter period blocks or what has made the difference. Similar I would think to charter schools that have been successful with low income children.

This is a good suggestion. Meanwhile, it sounds to me like you are on the right track. Do the best you can and trust your own instincts as well as the advice you are given. I am the teacher whose post you quoted.

[Anonymous]

The other thing I would mention is how school is structured. I think there is a certain expectation that all kids have to be able to succeed in a very specific way and if you change the school environment you can reach kids that may not do as well the traditional way. My child changed schools and I can't say whether the teacher having a child psychology background, more gym periods and shorter period blocks or what has made the difference. Similar I would think to charter schools that have been successful with low income children.

Well, that's ultimately part and parcel of the whole issue that everyone is in denial of. Not all kids are exactly the same and not all kids learn the same way. Yet they want to pretend all kids are exactly the same and they want to teach them all the same way = and the reason for this is entirely about politics, and someone's idea about optics as opposed to being more soundly based on reality, child development, and pedagogy. All the more reason there DOES need to be tracking and specialized programs, to help meet kids needs.

[Anonymous]

All the more reason there DOES need to be tracking and specialized programs, to help meet kids needs.

That's not the problem or the answer. The answer is teachers and systems who allow for kids to learn in different manners--even within the same class. It is possible. As a teacher, I did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All the more reason there DOES need to be tracking and specialized programs, to help meet kids needs.

That's not the problem or the answer. The answer is teachers and systems who allow for kids to learn in different manners--even within the same class. It is possible. As a teacher, I did it.

Hogwash! If you have kids years behind with other kids years ahead in the same class who do you think the teacher's efforts are going to be focused especially with high stakes testing? Differentiation is not efficient and leaves advanced learners on their own.

[Anonymous]

In fact, there is an article speaking of how gifted students are essentially ignored in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/in-math-and-science-the-best-fend-for-themselves.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All the more reason there DOES need to be tracking and specialized programs, to help meet kids needs.

That's not the problem or the answer. The answer is teachers and systems who allow for kids to learn in different manners--even within the same class. It is possible. As a teacher, I did it.

Sorry, but the reality of it is that in the vast majority of classrooms around the area, what happens is that teachers teach to the middle and ignore the top and bottom performers. Teachers do not have the bandwidth or capability to adequately deal with, for example, a middle school classroom where some kids are reading at a college level and able to do algebra, versus others who can barely read or subtract a pair of two-digit numbers.

[Anonymous]

There is a vast difference between middle and elementary school. There should not be serious tracking until fourth or fifth grade. Too much change until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a vast difference between middle and elementary school. There should not be serious tracking until fourth or fifth grade. Too much change until then.

Why not tracking with frequent re-assessments and regrouping as needed? What you are proposing by not tracking until 4th or 5th grade would still leave a lot of advanced learners behind. My kid came into kindergarten reading at an 8th grade level per a reading assessment done by a teacher. What do you do with kids like that?

[Anonymous]

A kid who is reading at 8th grade level in K is going to be ahead of his peers no matter where he is. As a teacher, I would have provided challenging individual assignments to him--but I could not provide him competition from his peers.

[Anonymous]

Would you prefer to have your child be a Doogie Howser?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A kid who is reading at 8th grade level in K is going to be ahead of his peers no matter where he is. As a teacher, I would have provided challenging individual assignments to him--but I could not provide him competition from his peers.

Yes, but surely there would be enough students in a city like DC to have a classroom of advanced kindergarten and 1st grade readers. All of the kids may not be exactly on same reading level but would be reading chapter books and not have to sit through classes were instruction was focused on learning to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you prefer to have your child be a Doogie Howser?

Well in some cases it is appropriate for kid to go to college early. But for others like my kid who are very advanced learners but not ready emotionally it would not be good to go to college early. But those kids still deserve a chance to be challenged and to experience some sort of ability grouping in separate classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why not tracking with frequent re-assessments and regrouping as needed?

Because studies indicate that when kids are pegged as high achievers or low achievers, that influences how others deal with those children. So if you have a child who is not an early reader, that child may never be identified as an advanced reader, even if the child is reading at an 8th grade level when they're in 3rd grade.

My child was identified as gifted in K which was part of the reason her LDs were discovered late. Any issues seen in her school work were dismissed as a bright child being bored, or careless. I doubt the school would have identified the issues, because the child had already been pegged. Even though there were assessments that indicated there might be a problem, they were dismissed. Just as follow on assessments that indicate "advanced" for a child pegged as "average" or "below" are often ignored as flukes.

I don't know what the correct way to manage this is. I agree that differentiating within a classroom can mean children don't get what they need. Streaming kids also has issues. I think any system that tries to manage "generic child" is doomed to mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why not tracking with frequent re-assessments and regrouping as needed?

Because studies indicate that when kids are pegged as high achievers or low achievers, that influences how others deal with those children. So if you have a child who is not an early reader, that child may never be identified as an advanced reader, even if the child is reading at an 8th grade level when they're in 3rd grade.

My child was identified as gifted in K which was part of the reason her LDs were discovered late. Any issues seen in her school work were dismissed as a bright child being bored, or careless. I doubt the school would have identified the issues, because the child had already been pegged. Even though there were assessments that indicated there might be a problem, they were dismissed. Just as follow on assessments that indicate "advanced" for a child pegged as "average" or "below" are often ignored as flukes.

I don't know what the correct way to manage this is. I agree that differentiating within a classroom can mean children don't get what they need. Streaming kids also has issues. I think any system that tries to manage "generic child" is doomed to mediocrity.

Again, I think this is baloney since frequent re-assessments coupled with good, solid curricula (which many schools lack these days) ought to give teachers objective data with which to make decisions. Teachers could also be educated on not to peg students as well and taught to challenge students as much as possible in developmentally appropriate ways. Right now as it stands it seems to me that many DC schools with high numbers of FARMS students already have their students pegged as low achievers by setting very low expectations. This does a dis-service to these kids. It is also done without tracking so how could tracking be any worse with flexible grouping and frequent re-assessments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why not tracking with frequent re-assessments and regrouping as needed?

Because studies indicate that when kids are pegged as high achievers or low achievers, that influences how others deal with those children. So if you have a child who is not an early reader, that child may never be identified as an advanced reader, even if the child is reading at an 8th grade level when they're in 3rd grade.

My child was identified as gifted in K which was part of the reason her LDs were discovered late. Any issues seen in her school work were dismissed as a bright child being bored, or careless. I doubt the school would have identified the issues, because the child had already been pegged. Even though there were assessments that indicated there might be a problem, they were dismissed. Just as follow on assessments that indicate "advanced" for a child pegged as "average" or "below" are often ignored as flukes.

I don't know what the correct way to manage this is. I agree that differentiating within a classroom can mean children don't get what they need. Streaming kids also has issues. I think any system that tries to manage "generic child" is doomed to mediocrity.

Again, I think this is baloney since frequent re-assessments coupled with good, solid curricula (which many schools lack these days) ought to give teachers objective data with which to make decisions. Teachers could also be educated on not to peg students as well and taught to challenge students as much as possible in developmentally appropriate ways. Right now as it stands it seems to me that many DC schools with high numbers of FARMS students already have their students pegged as low achievers by setting very low expectations. This does a dis-service to these kids. It is also done without tracking so how could tracking be any worse with flexible grouping and frequent re-assessments?

+1000