Why does mcps do a crappy job with magnet/enriched opportunities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

I don't disagree with this generally, with a child new to a CES this year, but notwithstanding what some say on this forum, the CES classroom is filled with really bright, generally enthusiastic and motivated kids. That makes a lot of what they do in class work. One could replicate that in the larger ES's and MS's by simply tracking kids, but nobody, apparently, wants to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

But in the home classroom the teacher would be busy trying to get the lower performing students up to speed and would be drilling etc..that is the whole point of having a separate program.

I have seen the kids who “need” drilling back at the home school and their bright spark is dying. I cannot think of many kids who actually need endless, boring, repetitive drilling. That is just poor curriculum or lazy teaching. You can hide drills in engaging activities that allow kids to slow down or reach further.

My struggling reader/writer needed drilling. For kids with a limited vocabulary due to spelling/writing/language issues that assignment would be quite stressful. When you have a really strong student it is hard to think of the rest of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't disagree with this generally, with a child new to a CES this year, but notwithstanding what some say on this forum, the CES classroom is filled with really bright, generally enthusiastic and motivated kids. That makes a lot of what they do in class work. One could replicate that in the larger ES's and MS's by simply tracking kids, but nobody, apparently, wants to do that.

Nobody wants to do that because it's bad for all of the kids who are, for whatever reason, in lower tracks. Research has established this over and over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

But in the home classroom the teacher would be busy trying to get the lower performing students up to speed and would be drilling etc..that is the whole point of having a separate program.

I have seen the kids who “need” drilling back at the home school and their bright spark is dying. I cannot think of many kids who actually need endless, boring, repetitive drilling. That is just poor curriculum or lazy teaching. You can hide drills in engaging activities that allow kids to slow down or reach further.

My struggling reader/writer needed drilling. For kids with a limited vocabulary due to spelling/writing/language issues that assignment would be quite stressful. When you have a really strong student it is hard to think of the rest of the class.

But that is just it... if they are struggling*, then they will make a shorter initial list and have an easier time of it writing the poem. I am trying to say that activities with built in differentiation would go a long way toward making the classroom a more engaging experience for all kids. And I have a lot of sympathy for the kids who are struggling... l they need better differentiation in the curriculum, too. I would say their need is the greatest under the current system. I would see the teacher slap the same rigid worksheet in front of all the kids in the class and it didn’t allow any child to adjust to their own level. The kids who were struggling were starting to check out, feel dumb, all kinds of sad, bad things. If we aren’t going to track kids, we should focus on giving them a learning experience that can adjust to their abilities.

*But if your child is still struggling to read in 4th grade, then they should definitely be getting special support and teaching that helps them. “Almost” all kids means just that... some children do need a special approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

My DC is also 4th grader in a top CES, and I agree with you for most of his experiences by far. However, the success of implementing such a curriculum depends highly on a bright, highly-motivated student "cohort", as well as a motivated and responsible teacher. In regular classroom, not-that-motivated teacher has to spend most of his/her time on the low-performing students, hence it's impossible to implement this curriculum to all regular classes. I do think, however, that MCPS should consider implementing a "compact literacy" track similar to "compact math", to enrich the relatively highly abled students in home schools - they are bored to death in my DC's home school (highly rated on greatschool) as far as I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

But in the home classroom the teacher would be busy trying to get the lower performing students up to speed and would be drilling etc..that is the whole point of having a separate program.

I have seen the kids who “need” drilling back at the home school and their bright spark is dying. I cannot think of many kids who actually need endless, boring, repetitive drilling. That is just poor curriculum or lazy teaching. You can hide drills in engaging activities that allow kids to slow down or reach further.

My struggling reader/writer needed drilling. For kids with a limited vocabulary due to spelling/writing/language issues that assignment would be quite stressful. When you have a really strong student it is hard to think of the rest of the class.

But that is just it... if they are struggling*, then they will make a shorter initial list and have an easier time of it writing the poem. I am trying to say that activities with built in differentiation would go a long way toward making the classroom a more engaging experience for all kids. And I have a lot of sympathy for the kids who are struggling... l they need better differentiation in the curriculum, too. I would say their need is the greatest under the current system. I would see the teacher slap the same rigid worksheet in front of all the kids in the class and it didn’t allow any child to adjust to their own level. The kids who were struggling were starting to check out, feel dumb, all kinds of sad, bad things. If we aren’t going to track kids, we should focus on giving them a learning experience that can adjust to their abilities.

*But if your child is still struggling to read in 4th grade, then they should definitely be getting special support and teaching that helps them. “Almost” all kids means just that... some children do need a special approach.

Kids graduate from HS without being fluent readers..this is 4th grade. Struggling does not mean they don't read but they might not have 20 alternatives to describe a butterfly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My DC is also 4th grader in a top CES, and I agree with you for most of his experiences by far. However, the success of implementing such a curriculum depends highly on a bright, highly-motivated student "cohort", as well as a motivated and responsible teacher. In regular classroom, not-that-motivated teacher has to spend most of his/her time on the low-performing students, hence it's impossible to implement this curriculum to all regular classes. I do think, however, that MCPS should consider implementing a "compact literacy" track similar to "compact math", to enrich the relatively highly abled students in home schools - they are bored to death in my DC's home school (highly rated on greatschool) as far as I know.

A what now?!

In my kids' experience in a CES that was undoubtedly not "a top CES", there were a lot of motivated kids, but by no means were all of the kids motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

But in the home classroom the teacher would be busy trying to get the lower performing students up to speed and would be drilling etc..that is the whole point of having a separate program.

I have seen the kids who “need” drilling back at the home school and their bright spark is dying. I cannot think of many kids who actually need endless, boring, repetitive drilling. That is just poor curriculum or lazy teaching. You can hide drills in engaging activities that allow kids to slow down or reach further.

My struggling reader/writer needed drilling. For kids with a limited vocabulary due to spelling/writing/language issues that assignment would be quite stressful. When you have a really strong student it is hard to think of the rest of the class.

But that is just it... if they are struggling*, then they will make a shorter initial list and have an easier time of it writing the poem. I am trying to say that activities with built in differentiation would go a long way toward making the classroom a more engaging experience for all kids. And I have a lot of sympathy for the kids who are struggling... l they need better differentiation in the curriculum, too. I would say their need is the greatest under the current system. I would see the teacher slap the same rigid worksheet in front of all the kids in the class and it didn’t allow any child to adjust to their own level. The kids who were struggling were starting to check out, feel dumb, all kinds of sad, bad things. If we aren’t going to track kids, we should focus on giving them a learning experience that can adjust to their abilities.

*But if your child is still struggling to read in 4th grade, then they should definitely be getting special support and teaching that helps them. “Almost” all kids means just that... some children do need a special approach.

Kids graduate from HS without being fluent readers..this is 4th grade. Struggling does not mean they don't read but they might not have 20 alternatives to describe a butterfly.

So they come up with one or two. Able kid comes up with 10. Gifted kid comes up with 20. Resulting poem assignment is adequately challenging for each. Are you really saying you just want your child to have repetitive, poorly suited worksheets with no room for differentiation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't disagree with this generally, with a child new to a CES this year, but notwithstanding what some say on this forum, the CES classroom is filled with really bright, generally enthusiastic and motivated kids. That makes a lot of what they do in class work. One could replicate that in the larger ES's and MS's by simply tracking kids, but nobody, apparently, wants to do that.

Nobody wants to do that because it's bad for all of the kids who are, for whatever reason, in lower tracks. Research has established this over and over and over.

I'm the PP, and having gone through the MoCo system at a time when there was tracking, I get that being in all "regular" classes meant. But I don't understand how "enriched" (I hate that word) classes are supposed to avoid that, beyond being open to just about anyone. You can't have a challenging curriculum, let everyone in, and then make it easy to get an A and B, and still have a challenging curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

But in the home classroom the teacher would be busy trying to get the lower performing students up to speed and would be drilling etc..that is the whole point of having a separate program.

I have seen the kids who “need” drilling back at the home school and their bright spark is dying. I cannot think of many kids who actually need endless, boring, repetitive drilling. That is just poor curriculum or lazy teaching. You can hide drills in engaging activities that allow kids to slow down or reach further.

My struggling reader/writer needed drilling. For kids with a limited vocabulary due to spelling/writing/language issues that assignment would be quite stressful. When you have a really strong student it is hard to think of the rest of the class.

But that is just it... if they are struggling*, then they will make a shorter initial list and have an easier time of it writing the poem. I am trying to say that activities with built in differentiation would go a long way toward making the classroom a more engaging experience for all kids. And I have a lot of sympathy for the kids who are struggling... l they need better differentiation in the curriculum, too. I would say their need is the greatest under the current system. I would see the teacher slap the same rigid worksheet in front of all the kids in the class and it didn’t allow any child to adjust to their own level. The kids who were struggling were starting to check out, feel dumb, all kinds of sad, bad things. If we aren’t going to track kids, we should focus on giving them a learning experience that can adjust to their abilities.

*But if your child is still struggling to read in 4th grade, then they should definitely be getting special support and teaching that helps them. “Almost” all kids means just that... some children do need a special approach.

Kids graduate from HS without being fluent readers..this is 4th grade. Struggling does not mean they don't read but they might not have 20 alternatives to describe a butterfly.

So they come up with one or two. Able kid comes up with 10. Gifted kid comes up with 20. Resulting poem assignment is adequately challenging for each. Are you really saying you just want your child to have repetitive, poorly suited worksheets with no room for differentiation?

I am saying your child's fabulous experience would be very different in a classroom with a wide range of learners. And..yes for some kids repetition is an important part of learning so not all worksheet are poorly suited. Gifted kids do not need it..I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My DC is also 4th grader in a top CES, and I agree with you for most of his experiences by far. However, the success of implementing such a curriculum depends highly on a bright, highly-motivated student "cohort", as well as a motivated and responsible teacher. In regular classroom, not-that-motivated teacher has to spend most of his/her time on the low-performing students, hence it's impossible to implement this curriculum to all regular classes. I do think, however, that MCPS should consider implementing a "compact literacy" track similar to "compact math", to enrich the relatively highly abled students in home schools - they are bored to death in my DC's home school (highly rated on greatschool) as far as I know.

A what now?!

In my kids' experience in a CES that was undoubtedly not "a top CES", there were a lot of motivated kids, but by no means were all of the kids motivated.

This is by no means my emphasized point... If you feel offended, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't disagree with this generally, with a child new to a CES this year, but notwithstanding what some say on this forum, the CES classroom is filled with really bright, generally enthusiastic and motivated kids. That makes a lot of what they do in class work. One could replicate that in the larger ES's and MS's by simply tracking kids, but nobody, apparently, wants to do that.

Nobody wants to do that because it's bad for all of the kids who are, for whatever reason, in lower tracks. Research has established this over and over and over.

I get that kids on a lower track for whatever reason need great teachers and great curricula. What I don't get is why their needs should come before the needs of kids who can perform on a higher track to do so. It doesn't make sense to me to hold back better-performing kids because it benefits other kids. The better-performing kids have just as much right to get their educational needs met.

If anyone were to flip the paradigm -- let's not track because it's better for the higher-performing kids at the expense of the lower-performing kids -- people would lose their lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't disagree with this generally, with a child new to a CES this year, but notwithstanding what some say on this forum, the CES classroom is filled with really bright, generally enthusiastic and motivated kids. That makes a lot of what they do in class work. One could replicate that in the larger ES's and MS's by simply tracking kids, but nobody, apparently, wants to do that.

Nobody wants to do that because it's bad for all of the kids who are, for whatever reason, in lower tracks. Research has established this over and over and over.

I get that kids on a lower track for whatever reason need great teachers and great curricula. What I don't get is why their needs should come before the needs of kids who can perform on a higher track to do so. It doesn't make sense to me to hold back better-performing kids because it benefits other kids. The better-performing kids have just as much right to get their educational needs met.

If anyone were to flip the paradigm -- let's not track because it's better for the higher-performing kids at the expense of the lower-performing kids -- people would lose their lunch.

It's not "kids on a lower track need great teachers and great curricula". It's "tracking harms kids on the lower tracks".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in a CES this year, and the program is just awesome. They teach the way I think almost all kids should be taught, and the curriculum and activities they use are absolutely stellar. I appreciate that my child is in a class with academic peers, but really, he would be pretty happy if he could have even half this program, “watered down” at his home school. A key thing I see about the activities they do is that they allow the kids to reach their own limits. An example: they begin writing a poem and the teacher has them write down all the words they can think of that have to do with the topic. Then, they have to write their poem without using a single one of those words. This would work in ANY classroom, and is a wonderful way to let an assignment allow natural differentiation. This doesn’t happen once a week, this kind of teaching seems to happen throughout the day, every day. Too many of the “regular” classroom activities in the current ELA curriculum are rigid and limited, so that many kids feel trapped instead of inspired.

MCPS has been looking for a new curriculum for ELA and I really think they should look to the CES programs for fantastic ideas. I also think that there is comparatively little pressure on the CES teachers to get test scores up, and as a result, the teachers and kids have a real joy of teaching and learning together. Less worksheets, less drilling, more doing and talking and experiencing together. I, for one, would happily give up CES if all those things could come back to all the home classrooms.

But in the home classroom the teacher would be busy trying to get the lower performing students up to speed and would be drilling etc..that is the whole point of having a separate program.

I have seen the kids who “need” drilling back at the home school and their bright spark is dying. I cannot think of many kids who actually need endless, boring, repetitive drilling. That is just poor curriculum or lazy teaching. You can hide drills in engaging activities that allow kids to slow down or reach further.

My struggling reader/writer needed drilling. For kids with a limited vocabulary due to spelling/writing/language issues that assignment would be quite stressful. When you have a really strong student it is hard to think of the rest of the class.

But that is just it... if they are struggling*, then they will make a shorter initial list and have an easier time of it writing the poem. I am trying to say that activities with built in differentiation would go a long way toward making the classroom a more engaging experience for all kids. And I have a lot of sympathy for the kids who are struggling... l they need better differentiation in the curriculum, too. I would say their need is the greatest under the current system. I would see the teacher slap the same rigid worksheet in front of all the kids in the class and it didn’t allow any child to adjust to their own level. The kids who were struggling were starting to check out, feel dumb, all kinds of sad, bad things. If we aren’t going to track kids, we should focus on giving them a learning experience that can adjust to their abilities.

*But if your child is still struggling to read in 4th grade, then they should definitely be getting special support and teaching that helps them. “Almost” all kids means just that... some children do need a special approach.

Kids graduate from HS without being fluent readers..this is 4th grade. Struggling does not mean they don't read but they might not have 20 alternatives to describe a butterfly.

So they come up with one or two. Able kid comes up with 10. Gifted kid comes up with 20. Resulting poem assignment is adequately challenging for each. Are you really saying you just want your child to have repetitive, poorly suited worksheets with no room for differentiation?

I am saying your child's fabulous experience would be very different in a classroom with a wide range of learners. And..yes for some kids repetition is an important part of learning so not all worksheet are poorly suited. Gifted kids do not need it..I know.

No doubt, and it was a nightmare last year, but not because of his classmates. It was because the classwork felt like a tedious trap almost every day. He would still be very happy at the home school if he could have daily activities which permitted true differentiation. There are plenty of kids at his home school who would benefit from a livelier curriculum. It is as if MCPS has this precious elite CES and does such a great job of it... and then does not think the regular school kids have any need for a lovely and quality education - just dreary 2.0 worksheets or possibly cutesy TPT worksheets if the teacher got a little inspired. The CES program is intense and wonderful, and we feel lucky he has it, but I’d be happy with 50% of the wonderful available for lots of kids and none of the drama and hassle of leaving our home school.

So if the question is why MCPS does such a bad job of gifted education, I think it is because they have decided that the magnets are “enough” and that the kids left in the home schools should be in a curriculum which is one size fits all. We should be demanding differentiation over enrichment, because enrichment really just translates into extra worksheets but differentiation is what allows ALL children to learn in an authentic way, and it should be in the lifeblood of the curriculum. A good class assignment is structured so that struggling children aren’t left feeling inadequate and able children aren’t left feeling trapped. I really hope the new ELA curriculum will do a much a better job of supporting all children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't disagree with this generally, with a child new to a CES this year, but notwithstanding what some say on this forum, the CES classroom is filled with really bright, generally enthusiastic and motivated kids. That makes a lot of what they do in class work. One could replicate that in the larger ES's and MS's by simply tracking kids, but nobody, apparently, wants to do that.

Nobody wants to do that because it's bad for all of the kids who are, for whatever reason, in lower tracks. Research has established this over and over and over.

I get that kids on a lower track for whatever reason need great teachers and great curricula. What I don't get is why their needs should come before the needs of kids who can perform on a higher track to do so. It doesn't make sense to me to hold back better-performing kids because it benefits other kids. The better-performing kids have just as much right to get their educational needs met.

If anyone were to flip the paradigm -- let's not track because it's better for the higher-performing kids at the expense of the lower-performing kids -- people would lose their lunch.

It's not "kids on a lower track need great teachers and great curricula". It's "tracking harms kids on the lower tracks".

OK, well what about "not tracking harms kids on the upper tracks?" Again, why is it OK to slow down the higher-performers (who can and do get bored and turned off when classes are too slow, materials are not challenging, and teachers have to spend their time with the kids who need more help?