How to choose an elementary school. By "tracking" or intangibles?

[Anonymous]

Adam Gamoran, a superb sociologist, did some excellent work on ability grouping and tracking in the early 90's. Yes, a long time ago.

Here's his punchline: This all isn't so black and white. How children in different parts of the ability distribution fare under ability grouping and tracking depends on the characteristics of the actual programs in the actual school. They are not all the same, and this matters for the effects.

I would be very hesitant to buy into a school district with a rigid system unless I was VERY SURE my kid was going to turn out to be bright enough for that top track placement and be one of those uber-responsibile kids who always do their homework without prompting, always color in the lines, and have very neat handwriting (not likely in general, and less likely if a boy).

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks for all the thoughts. I am still as torn as ever, but I appreciate the experiences and opinions to think about.

One PP said that she would lean one way based on the tracking issue but consider other things about the schools highly (location, services, etc.).

Do those who have posted about tracking/not tracking feel strongly that this is a critical factor, or are there other factors as strong? These two school districts are right next to each other -- one was actually created as overflow when the community serving the first grew, so difference in commute to work is only about 10-15 minutes.

Thanks again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all the thoughts. I am still as torn as ever, but I appreciate the experiences and opinions to think about.

One PP said that she would lean one way based on the tracking issue but consider other things about the schools highly (location, services, etc.).

Do those who have posted about tracking/not tracking feel strongly that this is a critical factor, or are there other factors as strong? These two school districts are right next to each other -- one was actually created as overflow when the community serving the first grew, so difference in commute to work is only about 10-15 minutes.

Thanks again!

I actually think that this should be the least important factor. School zones change, school policies change, principals change... So you might find that you bought a house zoned for School A because you like/don't like tracking, and then your child ends up going to School B, or School A stops/starts tracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all the thoughts. I am still as torn as ever, but I appreciate the experiences and opinions to think about.

One PP said that she would lean one way based on the tracking issue but consider other things about the schools highly (location, services, etc.).

Do those who have posted about tracking/not tracking feel strongly that this is a critical factor, or are there other factors as strong? These two school districts are right next to each other -- one was actually created as overflow when the community serving the first grew, so difference in commute to work is only about 10-15 minutes.

Thanks again!

Based only on my experiences, I would pick the differentiating school: I went to an K-8 ES that tracked, and I don't like tracking. It was very bad for kids who were good at one subject but weaker in another -- they usually ended up in the bottom track for everything. For kids who were outliers at the top, there was no advancement as we were lumped in with "the top half" of the grade, which left a wide gap within the class. But because they tracked, and we were in the top class, our parents had no argument that we weren't being challenged, even though the class was paced to the lower end of the top track. The best we got was one day per week GT pull outs unrelated to core subject matter. This was most telling in math, when Algebra I was taught to the top track, but at the pace of the slowest students, such that everyone had to repeat Algebra I in high school because the class as a whole didnt' make it all the way through the book. It the end, I did very well in life, but ES could have been more FWIW. That was a long time ago, so maybe tracking is different now, but I doubt it.

Contrast with my DCs, who are in a school that differentiates within the grade and has teachers who are very well trained and supported in differentiation (meaning specialists come in to work with groups too, etc.). I see in these classes groupings that make sense based on actual abilities in the subject matter and even within subsets of a subject matter. For example, in reading, if 5 students need to work on skills for comprehension, they are in a unit group learning comprehension strategies together even though their reading levels are different - they each use texts at the appropriate level for the child and work together on the comprehension strategy. In the next time block, they regroup to examine advanced texts with a different group of students reading at their same Lexile level. I was skeptical of this at first, but then really amazed at how well it seemed to work. The flexibility of instruction seemed to mirrors the reality of how students learn. For my DCs, even though they are advanced, they remain a part of the class as a whole, and are still pushed to advance at their own pace within the range of their own abilities. They also receive support for areas where they need it, without the risk of being dropped a level in all subjects (this would have been a problem for one DC and would have happened at my ES). I really wish my ES had been this good. To be sure, differentiation requires teachers who can handle this and support from reading and math specialists; plus excellent classroom management skills because this model requires lots of independent and small group work. In reality, for a whole lot of kids, either model will work. It seems to me, (not an expert opinion), that differentiation is best for kids who are very advanced, 2E, or who have split abilities. A social difference I've noticed too is that tracking creates a 'class' culture - are you in the high group or the low group. Differentiation is a different atmosphere. Kids still know who is smart and who is struggling, to be sure; but they get that abilities are nuanced. Some kids are good at everything; some are good at math, but work hard at writing; some kids struggle with reading, but are science geeks. But they are all one class, and for some subjects they are all learning the same thing at the same time, and there is no difference between them. This will change in MS, but I think it is healthy for ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I question a lot of so-called educational "research" if this is truly what "best practices" are.

Common sense and personal observation as a parent and teacher, and anecdotal evidence from all of my friends and relatives, and personal experience as a child in school, all lead me to believe that kids in the highest group do best, learn the most, are the most challenged, (and don't learn it's OK to slack off, and learn better study skills), and learn how to handle frustration and difficult work... when they are grouped with each other, and instruction is ramped up accordingly.

This is actually the perfect argument for why research is necessary.

Because sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are so. And sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are NOT so.

Yeah, well, if the research directly contradicts what experienced parents and teachers have observed over time, I'd question the research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all the thoughts. I am still as torn as ever, but I appreciate the experiences and opinions to think about.

One PP said that she would lean one way based on the tracking issue but consider other things about the schools highly (location, services, etc.).

Do those who have posted about tracking/not tracking feel strongly that this is a critical factor, or are there other factors as strong? These two school districts are right next to each other -- one was actually created as overflow when the community serving the first grew, so difference in commute to work is only about 10-15 minutes.

Thanks again!

Based only on my experiences, I would pick the differentiating school: I went to an K-8 ES that tracked, and I don't like tracking. It was very bad for kids who were good at one subject but weaker in another -- they usually ended up in the bottom track for everything. For kids who were outliers at the top, there was no advancement as we were lumped in with "the top half" of the grade, which left a wide gap within the class. But because they tracked, and we were in the top class, our parents had no argument that we weren't being challenged, even though the class was paced to the lower end of the top track. The best we got was one day per week GT pull outs unrelated to core subject matter. This was most telling in math, when Algebra I was taught to the top track, but at the pace of the slowest students, such that everyone had to repeat Algebra I in high school because the class as a whole didnt' make it all the way through the book. It the end, I did very well in life, but ES could have been more FWIW. That was a long time ago, so maybe tracking is different now, but I doubt it.

Contrast with my DCs, who are in a school that differentiates within the grade and has teachers who are very well trained and supported in differentiation (meaning specialists come in to work with groups too, etc.). I see in these classes groupings that make sense based on actual abilities in the subject matter and even within subsets of a subject matter. For example, in reading, if 5 students need to work on skills for comprehension, they are in a unit group learning comprehension strategies together even though their reading levels are different - they each use texts at the appropriate level for the child and work together on the comprehension strategy. In the next time block, they regroup to examine advanced texts with a different group of students reading at their same Lexile level. I was skeptical of this at first, but then really amazed at how well it seemed to work. The flexibility of instruction seemed to mirrors the reality of how students learn. For my DCs, even though they are advanced, they remain a part of the class as a whole, and are still pushed to advance at their own pace within the range of their own abilities. They also receive support for areas where they need it, without the risk of being dropped a level in all subjects (this would have been a problem for one DC and would have happened at my ES). I really wish my ES had been this good. To be sure, differentiation requires teachers who can handle this and support from reading and math specialists; plus excellent classroom management skills because this model requires lots of independent and small group work. In reality, for a whole lot of kids, either model will work. It seems to me, (not an expert opinion), that differentiation is best for kids who are very advanced, 2E, or who have split abilities. A social difference I've noticed too is that tracking creates a 'class' culture - are you in the high group or the low group. Differentiation is a different atmosphere. Kids still know who is smart and who is struggling, to be sure; but they get that abilities are nuanced. Some kids are good at everything; some are good at math, but work hard at writing; some kids struggle with reading, but are science geeks. But they are all one class, and for some subjects they are all learning the same thing at the same time, and there is no difference between them. This will change in MS, but I think it is healthy for ES.

PP, if all schools were as you describe about, wow, I'd have no concerns about having my child in such a class.

Sadly, teaching as you describe is very very hard, and not often accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I question a lot of so-called educational "research" if this is truly what "best practices" are.

Common sense and personal observation as a parent and teacher, and anecdotal evidence from all of my friends and relatives, and personal experience as a child in school, all lead me to believe that kids in the highest group do best, learn the most, are the most challenged, (and don't learn it's OK to slack off, and learn better study skills), and learn how to handle frustration and difficult work... when they are grouped with each other, and instruction is ramped up accordingly.

This is actually the perfect argument for why research is necessary.

Because sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are so. And sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are NOT so.

Yeah, well, if the research directly contradicts what experienced parents and teachers have observed over time, I'd question the research.

Absolutely you should question the research if one study comes up with something that contradicts what experienced parents and teachers have observed (or believe they have observed). But if every study comes up with the same result, then maybe you should question the observations of experienced parents and teachers.

[Anonymous]

Lower-level students do better in classes with higher-level students because teachers can then rely on the advanced students to act as "teaching assistants" -- essentially the classroom ends up with the teacher teaching a "smaller class," as only a portion are really being taught new things, and on top of that, doing it with assistance, so naturally this environment helps the lower-achieving ones do better.

Unfortunately, the advanced ones end up spending day after day helping the teacher do his/her job instead of being able to move on to new material. Very frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lower-level students do better in classes with higher-level students because teachers can then rely on the advanced students to act as "teaching assistants" -- essentially the classroom ends up with the teacher teaching a "smaller class," as only a portion are really being taught new things, and on top of that, doing it with assistance, so naturally this environment helps the lower-achieving ones do better.

Unfortunately, the advanced ones end up spending day after day helping the teacher do his/her job instead of being able to move on to new material. Very frustrating.

As the experienced teacher, I can tell you why lower-ability/performing students likely "do better" (however that is measured) when grouped with higher ability/performing students.

Higher-ability/performing students, as a whole, have more active and involved AKA "pushy" parents. These "pushy"/assertive parents have, on the whole, more resources (knowledge, connections, self-assertiveness, sense of efficacy) than parents of the lower performing kids, as a group. Individuals may be a different story, but this trend holds for the group.

Pushy/assertive parents COMPLAIN. If enough HW isn't being assigned, they let teachers/principal know their views. They research, the learn what kids in other schools are being assigned; they comment, they complain. If the HW is too confusing, they complain. If the teacher isn't effective, they go in and see what is going on and organize a group of parents to get the teacher help, or to get the teacher out.

Teachers raise their game when they teach higher performing children, because they have to, because the parents are holding them to a higher standard. NOT because the kids are any special students, but because of the parents.

When you group all the higher performing kids into one class, you are also grouping all the pushy parents (again, oversimplification) into one class; leaving the less pushy parents for the other classes. Less pushy parents = less pressure on teachers = less pressure on the principal.

Any research on grouping of higher/lower performing kids into heterogenous or homogenous instructional groups needs to take into account the effect parents have on teacher performance and quality and on things like clarity of instruction and feedback, homework assignments, etc.

Research should also take into account how you are defining "success" or "kids do better". Unless tests are measuring above grade level skills, for instance, it will be impossible to demonstrate that kids in the higher performing group have learned more than kids in the lower performing group. Very few schools measure above-grade level skills. Another "skill" higher ability kids need to learn is how to deal with being bad at something and how to persevere. Many such kids coast through their heterogenously grouped schools for years, and never learn how to really work hard at something because they were never required to! I would define "do better" as having better skills at dealing with things that are hard. I would like to see research in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adam Gamoran, a superb sociologist, did some excellent work on ability grouping and tracking in the early 90's. Yes, a long time ago.

Here's his punchline: This all isn't so black and white. How children in different parts of the ability distribution fare under ability grouping and tracking depends on the characteristics of the actual programs in the actual school. They are not all the same, and this matters for the effects.

I would be very hesitant to buy into a school district with a rigid system unless I was VERY SURE my kid was going to turn out to be bright enough for that top track placement and be one of those uber-responsibile kids who always do their homework without prompting, always color in the lines, and have very neat handwriting (not likely in general, and less likely if a boy).

I totally agree with this. There are good and bad ways to do ability grouping. One thing that I think is important for it to be successful and fair is to allow kids more than one chance to "move up" so to speak if their skills improve. It shouldn't be that you get a label in 1st grade and then that's it. As far as I know, the schools around here do use that approach as kids are tested yearly (and more frequently than that).

[Anonymous]

Thank you, 9:34. Appreciate your insight and happy to know that maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about appearing to be a "pushy" parent!

[Anonymous]

Lower-level students do better in classes with higher-level students because teachers can then rely on the advanced students to act as "teaching assistants" -- essentially the classroom ends up with the teacher teaching a "smaller class," as only a portion are really being taught new things, and on top of that, doing it with assistance, so naturally this environment helps the lower-achieving ones do better.

Unfortunately, the advanced ones end up spending day after day helping the teacher do his/her job instead of being able to move on to new material. Very frustrating.

This may happen occasionally, but it is mostly a myth. I taught for years and I don't know any teacher who used this tool on a regular basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lower-level students do better in classes with higher-level students because teachers can then rely on the advanced students to act as "teaching assistants" -- essentially the classroom ends up with the teacher teaching a "smaller class," as only a portion are really being taught new things, and on top of that, doing it with assistance, so naturally this environment helps the lower-achieving ones do better.

Unfortunately, the advanced ones end up spending day after day helping the teacher do his/her job instead of being able to move on to new material. Very frustrating.

This may happen occasionally, but it is mostly a myth. I taught for years and I don't know any teacher who used this tool on a regular basis.

Do you know of any teachers who ignored their kids who were "going to do well no matter what" and who had already mastered the grade level curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, 9:34. Appreciate your insight and happy to know that maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about appearing to be a "pushy" parent!

You should never feel bad about being a "pushy" parent. Just be polite, be respectful, and be reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I question a lot of so-called educational "research" if this is truly what "best practices" are.

Common sense and personal observation as a parent and teacher, and anecdotal evidence from all of my friends and relatives, and personal experience as a child in school, all lead me to believe that kids in the highest group do best, learn the most, are the most challenged, (and don't learn it's OK to slack off, and learn better study skills), and learn how to handle frustration and difficult work... when they are grouped with each other, and instruction is ramped up accordingly.

This is actually the perfect argument for why research is necessary.

Because sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are so. And sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are NOT so.

Yeah, well, if the research directly contradicts what experienced parents and teachers have observed over time, I'd question the research.

Absolutely you should question the research if one study comes up with something that contradicts what experienced parents and teachers have observed (or believe they have observed). But if every study comes up with the same result, then maybe you should question the observations of experienced parents and teachers.

Has anyone here actually posted a link to one study saying that grouping by ability benefits the "high" group slightly, but the "lower group" is harmed by it or benefits them not at all? I missed that link.