Those of you asking for differentiation in ES have unrealistic expectations

[Anonymous]

I went to an excellent public school system in New England, and we had no differentiation or G&T in elementary school. Honors classes (for a couple of subjects) started in middle school (7th grade), with expanded honors/AP options in high school. I graduated in 2002.

However, the parent population was pretty well educated and kept tabs on their kids. Not many behavioral issues or disruptions to distract the teachers. And class sizes were ~22 kids. Everyone was taught the same lesson though. I felt I received a good education (later went to HYP for undergrad)

[Anonymous]

Oh, honey. Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Hmm, maybe there isn’t much differentiation needed when all of the students are more or less at the same level, in addition to having small class sizes.

In many APS elementary schools, students from all sorts of backgrounds are in classes together. There are bright kids, not-so-bright kids, kids living in poverty, kids from affluent homes, and kids that speak little to no English all in the same (overcrowded) classroom together. Of course many of them aren’t at the same reading and/or math levels.

Why is it wrong to want instruction based on the needs of each child?

It would be much better to separate classes into different levels, but nooooo... equity rules! (Even if that means limiting some students’ potential and growth. Gotta give all the teacher’s time and effort to the low performers!)

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to an excellent public school system in New England, and we had no differentiation or G&T in elementary school. Honors classes (for a couple of subjects) started in middle school (7th grade), with expanded honors/AP options in high school. I graduated in 2002.

However, the parent population was pretty well educated and kept tabs on their kids. Not many behavioral issues or disruptions to distract the teachers. And class sizes were ~22 kids. Everyone was taught the same lesson though. I felt I received a good education (later went to HYP for undergrad)

So, you went to elementary school in the 90s? Separating kids into different classes based on ability was allowed back then.

[Anonymous]

Separated it based on level should still be allowed. The teachers have to dedicate more time to the lower levels and the upper ones don’t get support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to an excellent public school system in New England, and we had no differentiation or G&T in elementary school. Honors classes (for a couple of subjects) started in middle school (7th grade), with expanded honors/AP options in high school. I graduated in 2002.

However, the parent population was pretty well educated and kept tabs on their kids. Not many behavioral issues or disruptions to distract the teachers. And class sizes were ~22 kids. Everyone was taught the same lesson though. I felt I received a good education (later went to HYP for undergrad)

“I went to school in a perfect situation and don’t understand why some situations might be different.”

Too bad that HYP degree didn’t help your reasoning ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an excellent public school system in New England, and we had no differentiation or G&T in elementary school. Honors classes (for a couple of subjects) started in middle school (7th grade), with expanded honors/AP options in high school. I graduated in 2002.

However, the parent population was pretty well educated and kept tabs on their kids. Not many behavioral issues or disruptions to distract the teachers. And class sizes were ~22 kids. Everyone was taught the same lesson though. I felt I received a good education (later went to HYP for undergrad)

“I went to school in a perfect situation and don’t understand why some situations might be different.”

Too bad that HYP degree didn’t help your reasoning ability.

LOL. OP is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, maybe there isn’t much differentiation needed when all of the students are more or less at the same level, in addition to having small class sizes.

In many APS elementary schools, students from all sorts of backgrounds are in classes together. There are bright kids, not-so-bright kids, kids living in poverty, kids from affluent homes, and kids that speak little to no English all in the same (overcrowded) classroom together. Of course many of them aren’t at the same reading and/or math levels.

Why is it wrong to want instruction based on the needs of each child?

It would be much better to separate classes into different levels, but nooooo... equity rules! (Even if that means limiting some students’ potential and growth. Gotta give all the teacher’s time and effort to the low performers!)

That is my point. In ES zones with low FARMs and ESOL rates, differentiation should not be needed. So go find those ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an excellent public school system in New England, and we had no differentiation or G&T in elementary school. Honors classes (for a couple of subjects) started in middle school (7th grade), with expanded honors/AP options in high school. I graduated in 2002.

However, the parent population was pretty well educated and kept tabs on their kids. Not many behavioral issues or disruptions to distract the teachers. And class sizes were ~22 kids. Everyone was taught the same lesson though. I felt I received a good education (later went to HYP for undergrad)

So, you went to elementary school in the 90s? Separating kids into different classes based on ability was allowed back then.

But it didn’t happen. Or if it did, it was done secretly, without informing students or parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, maybe there isn’t much differentiation needed when all of the students are more or less at the same level, in addition to having small class sizes.

In many APS elementary schools, students from all sorts of backgrounds are in classes together. There are bright kids, not-so-bright kids, kids living in poverty, kids from affluent homes, and kids that speak little to no English all in the same (overcrowded) classroom together. Of course many of them aren’t at the same reading and/or math levels.

Why is it wrong to want instruction based on the needs of each child?

It would be much better to separate classes into different levels, but nooooo... equity rules! (Even if that means limiting some students’ potential and growth. Gotta give all the teacher’s time and effort to the low performers!)

That is my point. In ES zones with low FARMs and ESOL rates, differentiation should not be needed. So go find those ES.

So, you can’t have differing levels of ability in affluent schools? The not-so-bright and disruptive students are only located in high FARM schools?

Even in the low FARM schools, they place all kids together, regardless of ability. So the low achievers in those schools still get all of the teacher’s time, and the high ability kids get to do busy work on their own.

Your point sucks.

[Anonymous]

Your argument is strange for someone so intelligent.
Just because YOU were fine, you think we should not try to improve the system from when you were a child?

The world has changed. You probably wouldn't get into the Ivy League now, OP. Some children are exposed earlier to more academics, and therefore, it's harder than ever to teach primary school because of the wide disparity in basic skills.
Because of this, we absolutely should provide more challenge to the children who need it, as well as support to others. This isn't one-size-fits-all anymore.

I have long been an advocate for increased academic rigor and critical thinking exercises, with or without acceleration. The two are very different. Acceleration usually only prioritizes rapid accumulation of basic facts, but a more rigorous, in-depth curriculum with brain-teasers and hands-on open projects hones children's problem-solving abilities - and this is what is really important. We're trying to train the world's next leaders, inventors and peace negotiators (we'll need a lot of the latter, what with climate change conflict). LOTS of critical thinking skills needed!

Bright kids risk losing their minds during their primary years if they are made to sit through their peers' slower reading and counting progress. Do you want to retain their love of learning and make them the next Nobel Prizes or are they just throw-away students to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an excellent public school system in New England, and we had no differentiation or G&T in elementary school. Honors classes (for a couple of subjects) started in middle school (7th grade), with expanded honors/AP options in high school. I graduated in 2002.

However, the parent population was pretty well educated and kept tabs on their kids. Not many behavioral issues or disruptions to distract the teachers. And class sizes were ~22 kids. Everyone was taught the same lesson though. I felt I received a good education (later went to HYP for undergrad)

So, you went to elementary school in the 90s? Separating kids into different classes based on ability was allowed back then.

But it didn’t happen. Or if it did, it was done secretly, without informing students or parents.

I also went to ES in the nineties, and we definitely were grouped according to ability. My mom was a teacher in the school district though. That’s probably the only reason I know about it. I’m not sure they told the parents. They also weren’t mainstreaming the special ed kids.

[Anonymous]

OP, please understand that many of the responders on this thread are very threatened by your ideas. They truly believe their children are 'gifted'. They aren't any more gifted than anyone else's kids, but it's very important to them that their kids have the label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Your argument is strange for someone so intelligent.
Just because YOU were fine, you think we should not try to improve the system from when you were a child?

The world has changed. You probably wouldn't get into the Ivy League now, OP. Some children are exposed earlier to more academics, and therefore, it's harder than ever to teach primary school because of the wide disparity in basic skills.
Because of this, we absolutely should provide more challenge to the children who need it, as well as support to others. This isn't one-size-fits-all anymore.

I have long been an advocate for increased academic rigor and critical thinking exercises, with or without acceleration. The two are very different. Acceleration usually only prioritizes rapid accumulation of basic facts, but a more rigorous, in-depth curriculum with brain-teasers and hands-on open projects hones children's problem-solving abilities - and this is what is really important. We're trying to train the world's next leaders, inventors and peace negotiators (we'll need a lot of the latter, what with climate change conflict). LOTS of critical thinking skills needed!

Bright kids risk losing their minds during their primary years if they are made to sit through their peers' slower reading and counting progress. Do you want to retain their love of learning and make them the next Nobel Prizes or are they just throw-away students to you?

There’s no way OP went to HYP. First off, they’d say which one, assuming they didn’t attend all three. Second, they wouldn’t post something so stupid.