Explain to Me How You Fund and Staff a Deal for All-in-Development

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't need 5 classrooms/teachers to split the class into 5 levels. See 17:33.

In fact, under this model, you can keep the kids mixed together and the teacher can still differentiate within the classroom because the teacher still only has to prepare 5 lesson plans.

Murch and Deal are both like this.

Yes. Best practice really is mixed levels within one class, except for certain subjects like math. At least through 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Best practice really is mixed levels within one class, except for certain subjects like math. At least through 8th grade.

Why is this? What's your source?

[Anonymous]

Article on ability grouping (a/k/a differentiation)
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/what-do-you-think-of-grouping-students-by-ability-in-schools/comment-page-4/

It was once common for elementary-school teachers to arrange their classrooms by ability, placing the highest-achieving students in one cluster, the lowest in another. But ability grouping and its close cousin, tracking, in which children take different classes based on their proficiency levels, fell out of favor in the late 1980s and the 1990s as critics charged that they perpetuated inequality by trapping poor and minority students in low-level groups.

Now ability grouping has re-emerged in classrooms all over the country — a trend that has surprised education experts who believed the outcry had all but ended its use.

A new analysis from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a Census-like agency for school statistics, shows that of the fourth-grade teachers surveyed, 71 percent said they had grouped students by reading ability in 2009, up from 28 percent in 1998. In math, 61 percent of fourth-grade teachers reported ability grouping in 2011, up from 40 percent in 1996.

“These practices were essentially stigmatized,” said Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who first noted the returning trend in a March report, and who has studied the grouping debate. “It’s kind of gone underground, it’s become less controversial.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The key is teacher specialization. One teacher teaches math to between 100 - 150 students in one grade. That teacher can then prepare differentiated lessons in one subject only to cover the range of abilities in the grade.

Example: Jefferson has 20 core teachers for 273 student in 3 grades (this doesn't include specials teachers or special ed staff, etc.). That is 6 core teachers per grade with grades smaller than 100 students. They have 7 class periods plus lunch. I have no idea how they schedule now, but clearly they have enough teachers to make the logistics work with so few students.

Their PARCC scores suggest they would need 3 remedial groups of PARCC 1s, one of 2s, and 1 of 3s, one group of 4/5s. That covers 6 of the seven periods for the math teacher, who then has one other period for either LEAP or another class. So they need 3 math teachers to do that --- but they already have 5, so no added cost. Do the same for each core subject and the school even has teachers left over.

Teachers don't usually teach 6-7 periods a day of 4 different classes. The prep work, the grading, the attending IEP meetings, doing other paperwork, talking with other teachers and counselors, writing recommendations, being available for homework help, eating lunch, going to the bathroom....there has to be some time for that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article on ability grouping (a/k/a differentiation)
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/what-do-you-think-of-grouping-students-by-ability-in-schools/comment-page-4/

It was once common for elementary-school teachers to arrange their classrooms by ability, placing the highest-achieving students in one cluster, the lowest in another. But ability grouping and its close cousin, tracking, in which children take different classes based on their proficiency levels, fell out of favor in the late 1980s and the 1990s as critics charged that they perpetuated inequality by trapping poor and minority students in low-level groups.

Now ability grouping has re-emerged in classrooms all over the country — a trend that has surprised education experts who believed the outcry had all but ended its use.

A new analysis from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a Census-like agency for school statistics, shows that of the fourth-grade teachers surveyed, 71 percent said they had grouped students by reading ability in 2009, up from 28 percent in 1998. In math, 61 percent of fourth-grade teachers reported ability grouping in 2011, up from 40 percent in 1996.

“These practices were essentially stigmatized,” said Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who first noted the returning trend in a March report, and who has studied the grouping debate. “It’s kind of gone underground, it’s become less controversial.”

I find it interesting that no one ever polls the students about what they want. I would expect that, when polled, high-achieving students would rather be in a tracked class than a mainstreamed class. I base this expectation on my own experience, of course, but I doubt humans have changed all that much since I was in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on ability grouping (a/k/a differentiation)
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/what-do-you-think-of-grouping-students-by-ability-in-schools/comment-page-4/

It was once common for elementary-school teachers to arrange their classrooms by ability, placing the highest-achieving students in one cluster, the lowest in another. But ability grouping and its close cousin, tracking, in which children take different classes based on their proficiency levels, fell out of favor in the late 1980s and the 1990s as critics charged that they perpetuated inequality by trapping poor and minority students in low-level groups.

Now ability grouping has re-emerged in classrooms all over the country — a trend that has surprised education experts who believed the outcry had all but ended its use.

A new analysis from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a Census-like agency for school statistics, shows that of the fourth-grade teachers surveyed, 71 percent said they had grouped students by reading ability in 2009, up from 28 percent in 1998. In math, 61 percent of fourth-grade teachers reported ability grouping in 2011, up from 40 percent in 1996.

“These practices were essentially stigmatized,” said Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who first noted the returning trend in a March report, and who has studied the grouping debate. “It’s kind of gone underground, it’s become less controversial.”

And I bet no one wants to be in the low achieving classes when polled?

I find it interesting that no one ever polls the students about what they want. I would expect that, when polled, high-achieving students would rather be in a tracked class than a mainstreamed class. I base this expectation on my own experience, of course, but I doubt humans have changed all that much since I was in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

At most what you get outside of a true gifted program is a grade level and an honors class.

That already exists at Hardy for classes other than Math. It doesn't happen at Deal, because it isn't consistent with the IB MYP model, and they'd lose their certification.

I think what you want is happening already to some degree. But using PARCC scores, there are very, very few students who are that far ahead of the grade level curriculum. Even at the best WOTP ward 3 schools, the number of 5s is tiny.

Why on earth does Deal bother with IB Middle Years without a Diploma program to follow? I've taught at international schools abroad in several countries and have never heard an IB MYP that doesn't feed an IBD program. IB MP is supposed to go through 10th grade (project year), not just 8th. Very odd and dead-ended sounding arrangement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key is teacher specialization. One teacher teaches math to between 100 - 150 students in one grade. That teacher can then prepare differentiated lessons in one subject only to cover the range of abilities in the grade.

Example: Jefferson has 20 core teachers for 273 student in 3 grades (this doesn't include specials teachers or special ed staff, etc.). That is 6 core teachers per grade with grades smaller than 100 students. They have 7 class periods plus lunch. I have no idea how they schedule now, but clearly they have enough teachers to make the logistics work with so few students.

Their PARCC scores suggest they would need 3 remedial groups of PARCC 1s, one of 2s, and 1 of 3s, one group of 4/5s. That covers 6 of the seven periods for the math teacher, who then has one other period for either LEAP or another class. So they need 3 math teachers to do that --- but they already have 5, so no added cost. Do the same for each core subject and the school even has teachers left over.

Teachers don't usually teach 6-7 periods a day of 4 different classes. The prep work, the grading, the attending IEP meetings, doing other paperwork, talking with other teachers and counselors, writing recommendations, being available for homework help, eating lunch, going to the bathroom....there has to be some time for that too.

One class, not 4. One subject. Lots of teachers do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on ability grouping (a/k/a differentiation)
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/what-do-you-think-of-grouping-students-by-ability-in-schools/comment-page-4/

It was once common for elementary-school teachers to arrange their classrooms by ability, placing the highest-achieving students in one cluster, the lowest in another. But ability grouping and its close cousin, tracking, in which children take different classes based on their proficiency levels, fell out of favor in the late 1980s and the 1990s as critics charged that they perpetuated inequality by trapping poor and minority students in low-level groups.

Now ability grouping has re-emerged in classrooms all over the country — a trend that has surprised education experts who believed the outcry had all but ended its use.

A new analysis from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a Census-like agency for school statistics, shows that of the fourth-grade teachers surveyed, 71 percent said they had grouped students by reading ability in 2009, up from 28 percent in 1998. In math, 61 percent of fourth-grade teachers reported ability grouping in 2011, up from 40 percent in 1996.

“These practices were essentially stigmatized,” said Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who first noted the returning trend in a March report, and who has studied the grouping debate. “It’s kind of gone underground, it’s become less controversial.”

I find it interesting that no one ever polls the students about what they want. I would expect that, when polled, high-achieving students would rather be in a tracked class than a mainstreamed class. I base this expectation on my own experience, of course, but I doubt humans have changed all that much since I was in school.

Not in ES. But after that, probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

At most what you get outside of a true gifted program is a grade level and an honors class.

That already exists at Hardy for classes other than Math. It doesn't happen at Deal, because it isn't consistent with the IB MYP model, and they'd lose their certification.

I think what you want is happening already to some degree. But using PARCC scores, there are very, very few students who are that far ahead of the grade level curriculum. Even at the best WOTP ward 3 schools, the number of 5s is tiny.

Why on earth does Deal bother with IB Middle Years without a Diploma program to follow? I've taught at international schools abroad in several countries and have never heard an IB MYP that doesn't feed an IBD program. IB MP is supposed to go through 10th grade (project year), not just 8th. Very odd and dead-ended sounding arrangement.

Any Deal student who wants to can apply to Banneker or enter the lottery for Eastern. A few do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Best practice really is mixed levels within one class, except for certain subjects like math. At least through 8th grade.

This may be true for a class with a narroe ranfe of abilities, but cannot always be true. For example, you cant successfully teach an English class containing both advanced stydents and English learners.

In DC, that is what you have. Even sme native speakers are barely literate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

At most what you get outside of a true gifted program is a grade level and an honors class.

That already exists at Hardy for classes other than Math. It doesn't happen at Deal, because it isn't consistent with the IB MYP model, and they'd lose their certification.

I think what you want is happening already to some degree. But using PARCC scores, there are very, very few students who are that far ahead of the grade level curriculum. Even at the best WOTP ward 3 schools, the number of 5s is tiny.

Why on earth does Deal bother with IB Middle Years without a Diploma program to follow? I've taught at international schools abroad in several countries and have never heard an IB MYP that doesn't feed an IBD program. IB MP is supposed to go through 10th grade (project year), not just 8th. Very odd and dead-ended sounding arrangement.

Any Deal student who wants to can apply to Banneker or enter the lottery for Eastern. A few do.

Scant consolation. The Banneker IBD program isn't nearly as strong as the Wilson AP program (and that's putting it mildly, Banneker's IBD points totals are painfully low; most of their IBD students barely clear the pass bar, with points totals in the mid to high 20s). The Eastern IBD program is even weaker - most IBD students there don't even earn the Diploma. The logical arrangement would be for Wilson to house a strong school-within-a-school IBD program on a par academically with its strongest AP classes, e.g. BC Calc and Physics C.