Article on benefits of eliminating math tracking

[Anonymous]

Oh and PP again- small group instruction within the classroom still has the same dynamics. Please don’t think for a second kids don’t know which leveled group they are in. It’s honestly the same as tracking but you are doing it in such an obvious way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think students should learn the same type of math-- that is everyone takes algebra 1 in 7th grade, but it is at a different level. Say Algebra 1 level A or Algebra 1 level B. I think the issue is kids being behind in terms of not covering certain math topics than if they are separated by ability. It helps both the slow and fast students as a tracked class allows for the teacher to teach at their level.

Most students are not anywhere near ready for algebra in 7th. Common Core has it in 9th. If public schools offered eve try one the same class but some had more enrichment, it would not offer algebra until 9th. Kids who are ready for it earlier would be noted n class, even with enrichment.

You posters talking about deeper MS ms for advanced kids are missing that the same topics are covered in repetition in Math 6, 7, and 8, so the higher years *are* the deeper version of Math 6. That's why the 'pre-enriched' kids are ready to move on to Algebra 1.

My DS is in the Algebra 1 in 7th cohort. That is the right place for him, and he loves the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is in a hurry, particularly anxious UMC white folks.

Maybe that sense of urgency leads to good educational outcomes? Why does it bother you?

Note, too, that brain development happens on a schedule, whether you feel "in a hurry" or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students should learn the same type of math-- that is everyone takes algebra 1 in 7th grade, but it is at a different level. Say Algebra 1 level A or Algebra 1 level B. I think the issue is kids being behind in terms of not covering certain math topics than if they are separated by ability. It helps both the slow and fast students as a tracked class allows for the teacher to teach at their level.

There is a profound unwillingness to acknowledge that not all people have the same underlying intellectual capacity. We should focus on teaching everyone to reach their maximum and do whatever that is well. There are many kids who graduate unable to read and do arithmetic because we continued to push them into higher and higher classes before they had mastered the foundational content. Instead of being compassionate, we have now sent them into the world with basically no skills, and entirely at the mercy of other people. Tracking (and eliminating the expectation of college for all) would do more to help everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all of the studies, it seems like it hurts the kids who would have been ahead and may or may not help those who would have been on a lower track

That is not what the peer-reviewed study in the OP found, just the opposite.

That's because the NY case is not broadly applicable. They offered additional workshops to students who were struggling, allowing the overall class to continue at its normal pace. That is not feasible financially or from a staffing perspective in most districts. The PPs are describing what happens when you don't provide all the additional workshops and supports.

Further, many just don't prioritize education enough to bother with this. It's a completely unrealistic case manufactured to push their agenda.

[Anonymous]

These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

[Anonymous]

The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

Citation?

The PP is correct. There was also an exodus of white families from the public school system entirely to privates once they started implementing progressive ideas. Now instead of having a few strong public schools and many weak ones, they’re all weak. Talented LMC kids have no hope of a better future there.

[Anonymous]

Correct--not offering more accelerated options just means that families that can afford to supplement (not just money - also time) will do so or exit the public system entirely. Families that can't afford to do that but could benefit from acceleration are left behind. The outcomes are worse for those families, who are more likely to be poor and of color.

[Anonymous]

Private full time schools for the most part do not accelerate as much as public school. Certainly not enlarge enough numbers to make a difference for 95 r maybe even 98% of the population.

Acceleration is much more efficient to convenient as and after school or weekend school class. The hyper accelerated kids not doing it in public school are doing it in Chinese school or AOPS after hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

My son is a math major and very glad he was able to acclerate multi years and get DE credits in HS. Great to be able to skip those classes in college.

[Anonymous]

Should just stop teaching math in third grade. Since by 4th grade the majority of kids > 60% are below standard in the US, so tracking becomes a fait accompli.