s/o Tracking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's why School Without Walls is a hot franchise.

And why Banneker is, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The solution is to do it very intensively at the lower grades so that all the inequities (background, SES, learning differences, etc) are little to no factor by high school. Without the tracking/ ability grouping you simply have the entire system teaching to the middle. The less attention you give to the lower end of the bell curve the lower that middle sags as the grades progress.

Studies show that that does work to a point. With even so-so teaching, kids advance in learning more or less evenly through the school year. The problem is our long summers (remnant of an agricultural economy) where kids with more socio economic challenges fall further behind due to lack of stimulus, access to ongoing educational materials, etc. Not advocating tracking. Maybe more of the Haynes model though with trimesters and less downtime/ vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it fair for the parents of bright children to sequester their child's talent for private gain? Is it fair to ask for magnet schools?

Do you consider nurturing talent in a child who might eventually discover the cure for cancer/aids/etc solely a 'private gain'? I believe society as a whole benefits.

[Anonymous]

The problem is our long summers (remnant of an agricultural economy) where kids with more socio economic challenges fall further behind due to lack of stimulus, access to ongoing educational materials, etc.

Very true.

[Anonymous]

So your solution if to put my child reading at grade 6 level in a class with an English class with a child who can barely read for the public good? Then the world will end up with 2 low-performing children instead of one.

This world needs scientists and engineers to solve its many problems. Abusing smart children by boring them to tears in school instead of nurturing their talents is a loss for society as a whole.

Boring any child to tears instead of nurturing his/her talents is a loss to our society. We also need writers, artists, mechanics, etc. The multi-aged, multi-talented classes work if teachers optimally challenge all learners, which is not difficult to do. What kind of classrooms do you think spawned our Founding Fathers and writers, such as Laura Ingalls Wilder?

I just wanted to add, however, that the consequences of NCLB have contributed to these problems. When we narrow the curriculum and focus on testing rather than talent development, we all lose as a society.

[Anonymous]

I think it's best to have a panoply of options - high performing, heterogeneous and remedial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is our long summers (remnant of an agricultural economy) where kids with more socio economic challenges fall further behind due to lack of stimulus, access to ongoing educational materials, etc.

Very true.

Most kids would go to a really cool science camp if you gave scholarships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kind of classrooms do you think spawned our Founding Fathers and writers, such as Laura Ingalls Wilder?

While some of the great minds of old received a small part of their education in a one-room schoolhouse, the bulk of their knowledge was gathered through solo studying or one-on-one instruction.

They did NOT become founding fathers after sitting in a class studying exactly the same material as students with less motivation and ability.

[Anonymous]

The bulk of their knowledge was gathered through solo studying.

Precisely.


They did NOT become founding fathers after sitting in a class studying exactly the same material as students with less motivation and ability.

Who is talking about the same material??? It's a big assumption to make saying that students who struggle with some concepts have less motivation. Do you think Steve Jobs quit school because he had less motivation?

[Anonymous]

Valerie Strauss woudl beg to differ. She'd say that you are blinded by an idealism that privileges the privileged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/are-top-students-being-shortchanged/2011/10/20/gIQA4IEi1L_blog.html

[Anonymous]

So what are the students that get stuff quickly because of some combination of studying at home and ability supposed to do while they are waiting for the below-grade kids to catch up?

If they move ahead, whats the point of having them all in the same class?

[Anonymous]

Remedial? Seriously? I can just see the number of hands going up, who wants to be in the remedial class?

[Anonymous]

Here is my perspective:

I went to a school that didn't track or do much differentiatiation, though there were a couple of AP classes. I was bored, bored, bored. Didn't bring a book home senior year because I could get HW done in homeroom and during lunch. Got straight A's and 5's on AP's, went to an Ivy where I got my butt kicked because I didn't know how to study. Took a couple of years to recover. Bad grades in 1st 2 years ruined my chances for graduate school at that time. Waited to go back until almost 10 years later.

Wish I had been in a tracked school, and will be putting my kids in one regardless of their abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remedial? Seriously? I can just see the number of hands going up, who wants to be in the remedial class?

Yeah, lets torture the kids reading Harry Potter and doing long division by putting them in a class with kids reading Dick and Jane and addition. That will get those privileged snobs!

If a kid needs remedial work, how does giving them harder stuff help them?

[Anonymous]

and will be putting my kids in one regardless of their abilities.

Regardless of their abilities? Do you realize what you are saying here? How do you expect to just "get" your kid in the high track?