WIS or Norwood for K?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| 10:42 here. Happy and continuing at WIS. Again, the posters here and on threads about other schools who suggest talking directly with families at, and those who have left, a school, are giving wise guidance, regardless their personal views. |
Anonymous
Sounds like a warning... |
Anonymous
| 10:42 here. Not a warning, you though seem like a troll. The reason you need to talk to actual people about any of these schools is you might find the the complainers, met face to face, are folks you'd just as soon not see too often. But hey, it's anonymous DCUM so have some fun! |
Anonymous
| There is a big difference between the French and Spanish programs a WIS in the early years, so again, ask around and consider your cultural biases. Research the educational philosophies of some of the relevant countries. Some parents are very happy if the teachers run a tight ship and keep their active kids quiet. Others are not. |
Anonymous
| 1:41, when did you last have kids at the school? |
Anonymous
|
here are a few questions your should ask of both schools - 1) how do the children perform on ERBs (specific percentile rank) by subject,
2) how do teacher salaries compare to other schools - if they are paying mean salaries, dont go there, 3) when was the last time they laid off a teacher (shows they dont let slackers stick around), 4) how do they evaluate teachers and how often, 5) what is their teacher hiring process like (you want to get a sense that it is a thorogh, rigourous process) 6) what is their 5 year plan for the school - will they be growing (shrinking) # of students and teachers, adding new subjects, adding facilities etc 7) get the results of parent and student satisfaction surveys (if they dont have one dont go there) You are paying $30k per year. Dont be afraid to ask these questions and then based on the answers you can make an better informed determination. |
Anonymous
Tracking (what Norwood does) and differentiation are two entirely different things. Differentiation is considered best practice in education, while tracking hasn't been supported by any research I've seen. I don't have any experience with Norwood, but frankly the fact that they use tracking bothers me less than the fact that they call it "differentiation". Frankly this makes me wonder if they've read any literature or put any thought into designing their program. To be clear, I know nothing about Norwood, as it was too far away for us, and decided that WIS wasn't the right fit for my particular child, but every time I see people talking about differentiation at Norwood I think of this. |
Anonymous
| How do you know anything about Norwood if you're not part of the Norwood community? Please stop spreading mis-information about things you have no knowledge of. |
Anonymous
Honestly, you've got a point. Here's what I think I know, and those who are in the Norwood community can please tell me if I have it wrong. Mostly I get it from here, and a little bit from a Norwood teacher I knew briefly a few years ago. 1) Kids at Norwood are divided into reading groups and math groups that are ongoing, by that I mean that you go to the same reading and math group on Tuesday that you went to on Monday, and you'll go there again tomorrow. These groups are quite separate, with different teachers, and sometimes different rooms. 2) Groups are made up based on "ability". 3) Kids in different groups are working on different material, or through the same material at different paces. 4) These groups take up the majority or maybe all of the math instructional time, and a significant portion of the reading time. 5) Some members of the Norwood community, perhaps only parents, or perhaps only one parent who posts over and over again at DCUM refers to this as "differentiation". Now, I'll be clear that I don't actually know if any educators use the word Differentiation to describe this. If they do, it would raise red flags for me because they're using the word wrong, which makes me think they either aren't following the current literature in education, they aren't understanding it, or they are knowingly misleading parents. If it's only parents who are using this word this way, then I apologize, of course administrators can't be held responsible for the vocabulary choice of parents. |
Anonymous
| This thread is from folks facing a decision in spring 2011. Expect they've moved on. |
Anonymous
| Norwood's system does end up being tracking. |
Anonymous
? |
Anonymous
| 16:49 - curious to hear what about tracking does not work? And why tracking can't also be differentiation? This is not a challenge but geniune curiosity. (perhaps this should be a new thread but maybe keeping it here will keep it from getting out of hand?). BTW, I ask this keeping Norwood out of it. |
Anonymous
Last year, after Norwood switched from Everyday Math to the Common Core, I believe the groups worked on the same material and began and ended each unit at the same time. Groups that finished more quickly were supposed to receive enrichment instead of moving onto the next unit. I assume one goal of this approach is to make it easier for kids to move between groups within or at the beginning of a year. At a parent meeting with the math specialist, the idea of moving kids between groups for different units was floated (as some kids may be stronger in certain areas), but given the practical challenges, I think it's unlikely this approach will be adopted. The above is true of Lower School. I believe tracking starts in Middle School, but I don't have children there. |
Anonymous
Sometimes in education we see practices that seem very logical, like common sense, but when we look at the data we realize that they don't get the results that we'd predict. Medicine is the same way. Someone comes up with an idea that makes perfect sense "Don't feed your toddler peanuts, instead let their systems mature, and they won't get peanut allergies", made sense, but the data tells us it doesn't actually work that way. Tracking makes sense. It's easy to see why people think it should work. But the reality is that when they've done longitudinal studies on kids who in programs that track vs. programs that don't, they see that the in tracking programs the kids in the bottom group make far less progress than their peers in heterogenous classes, the kids in the middle group make a little less progress than their peers in heterogenous classes, and the kids at the top make a very small bit more progress than their peers in heterogenous classes. Overall, if you average them all together, the average child in a tracked program does significantly worse than the average child in a non-tracked program. As to why? I've heard lots of theories. Here are a few. Note, these are all theory, and may apply more or less to individual schools. Or they could all be wrong, and there could be some mechanism we don't understand at play. 1) Kids live up or down to our expectations. When we put a kid in the "low" group or the "middle" group, we're essentially saying we don't think very much of them. Kids absorb this message and are a little less likely to be tenacious about pursuing knowledge or understanding. 2) Kids on the bottom benefit from the exposure to advanced or sophisticated content, even if they can't master it or use it as well as their higher performing peers. 3) Academic growth, especially in the early years, is uneven. It's notorious for it's stop, start, fast, slow, nature. Programs that track are making assumptions about kids' long term potential based on a single snapshot in time. They don't move children quickly enough to respond to the ways that they grow, so kids are still likely to have time periods where things are over their heads, or times when they aren't being challenged. 4) Tracked programs discourage differentiation, because they promote the idea that the students in a group are the same. Teachers whose kids are tracked and who expect their kids to be on a single level, may be less likely to assess frequently, and make data based course adjustments, or changes in programming for individual kids. They're less likely to use strategies such as exit tickets, or strategy groups, or open ended assignments to accomodate a wide range of learners, and so kids may not receive teaching that is as responsive. 5) Because kids' skills are distributed on a bell curve, clustered about the center, tracking doesn't actually create heterogenous groupings. Imagine a grade of 45 second graders, where the average child reads on a level 20 (I'm using DRA scores here because that's what I'm most familiar with). In many schools, you'll have probably 20 kids on a 20, another 5 on a 18 and 5 on a 22, with the others spread out between 1 (not really reading at all) and 80 (ready for high school). Now, let's say you decide to divide that grade into 3 groups of 15. One group will range from non reading, to average. One group will be all average kids. And one group will range from average to high school. Only one group is actually at all homogenous. In addition, you will have students who are very close in skill level receiving 3 very different experiences. 6) Students in the lowest groups may have a disproportionate number of students who are particularly needy. In a heterogenous group of 15, a teacher might have 2 or 3 kids below grade level, and may be able to differentiate for those kids in part by providing them with extra attention. In a group of 15 where all 15 are struggling readers, those kids will get far less attention. |