Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

How so?

But why would you want to hurt the top learners?

What do the top learners owe to the bottom learners?

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

How so?

Hey, I’m an Asian American who was a good student but had a harder time with math. It just wasn’t my forte— I became a journalist, so you can imagine. I was in honors math in public school, but when I went to boarding school, I was placed a full year behind. Many of my fellow students from ny state were in the same boat, because of the state curriculum sequenced math by grade level. In any case, I was grateful to be in the lower class— I needed more help! My kids seem to be sharper in math than both my husband and I, but I doubt they’d make aap if we’re in a district that had it (our kids are in dcps). Maybe they would, but with a lot of pushing and tutoring. And to what end? So they can get some overvalued STEM job? It’s not for everyone. I’m ok with that. Let the geeks have their AAP!

Anybody read the COGAT explanation of learning needs for your kid?

The letter from the company that came with DS's scores said the single most important thing for his educational needs was to be grouped with similarly performing students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.

This isn’t a study about math education. They didn’t look at education at all. They used math to answer a problem that started with assumptions and then created a mathematical model.

But at least one of the assumptions they made isn’t something that research has consistently demonstrated. It’s like if someone used a mathematical model to determine the best option for paint color and programmed it with the assumption that everyone liked gray.

The assumption is not as controversial as you make it seem. In fact it’s one of the most widely accepted facts in the theory of learning and is known as the zone of proximal development. The learner is exposed to material that can be done with aid and guidance, aka scaffolding until it can be done alone, aka mastery. Not saying the study is perfect, but the vast majority of research supports grouping by ability for the high tier students. The issue is that grouping by ability doesn’t seem to benefit the lower tier, for a variety of reasons, possibly not related to grouping by ability in itself.

I’m the first person who pointed out this assumption. The issue is less whether the assumption is true, but rather that any model based on that assumption alone is going to result in findings that support tracking. As I said, it’s not clear if any other factors that support learning were also included.

There is not one single study to prove tracking is beneficial, but the trend is there. The point the authors make is that modeling an abstract hypothetical situation shows that tracking optimizes benefits for the entire population of students. Of course this is not true in practice because other factors are at play that can’t be untangled from the tracking. The study does support tracking because it is pointing that the low performance in lower tier student population may not have anything to do with tracking itself and the causes need to identified elsewhere.
I’m not a fan of modeling studies in education, but saying the study is meaningless is not exactly accurate either.

I think everyone knows this. But it's who you're trying to support- top learners benefit from AAP, but taking top learners out of gen ed hurts the bottom learners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.

This isn’t a study about math education. They didn’t look at education at all. They used math to answer a problem that started with assumptions and then created a mathematical model.

But at least one of the assumptions they made isn’t something that research has consistently demonstrated. It’s like if someone used a mathematical model to determine the best option for paint color and programmed it with the assumption that everyone liked gray.

The assumption is not as controversial as you make it seem. In fact it’s one of the most widely accepted facts in the theory of learning and is known as the zone of proximal development. The learner is exposed to material that can be done with aid and guidance, aka scaffolding until it can be done alone, aka mastery. Not saying the study is perfect, but the vast majority of research supports grouping by ability for the high tier students. The issue is that grouping by ability doesn’t seem to benefit the lower tier, for a variety of reasons, possibly not related to grouping by ability in itself.

I’m the first person who pointed out this assumption. The issue is less whether the assumption is true, but rather that any model based on that assumption alone is going to result in findings that support tracking. As I said, it’s not clear if any other factors that support learning were also included.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.

This isn’t a study about math education. They didn’t look at education at all. They used math to answer a problem that started with assumptions and then created a mathematical model.

But at least one of the assumptions they made isn’t something that research has consistently demonstrated. It’s like if someone used a mathematical model to determine the best option for paint color and programmed it with the assumption that everyone liked gray.

The assumption is not as controversial as you make it seem. In fact it’s one of the most widely accepted facts in the theory of learning and is known as the zone of proximal development. The learner is exposed to material that can be done with aid and guidance, aka scaffolding until it can be done alone, aka mastery. Not saying the study is perfect, but the vast majority of research supports grouping by ability for the high tier students. The issue is that grouping by ability doesn’t seem to benefit the lower tier, for a variety of reasons, possibly not related to grouping by ability in itself.

Anonymous wrote:I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.

This isn’t a study about math education. They didn’t look at education at all. They used math to answer a problem that started with assumptions and then created a mathematical model.

But at least one of the assumptions they made isn’t something that research has consistently demonstrated. It’s like if someone used a mathematical model to determine the best option for paint color and programmed it with the assumption that everyone liked gray.

AAP is not how fcps handles math. AAP tracks kids across all other subjects. For math you can test into advanced math every year. But you can’t test into the rest of aap annually.

Do this kids who aren't at AAP schools take math classes on their levels and see appropriate learning gains as well?

Anonymous wrote:Shut up troll

Takes one to know one.

Tracking or grouping works. It maximizes total learning of the collective.

It’s what is done in Europe. It’s what is done in Asia.

It is what needs to be done here.

Mixing classes is a strain on teachers.

AAP forever!

Shut up troll

This seems like a problematic assumption that will necessarily lead to the results found:

an optimal teaching environment would be one in which a student is taught at a level that matches his or her skill level;

Actual article is behind a paywall so it’s hard to know if they included any of the other issues known (by educators) to facilitate learning. I’m not weighing in on the conclusions, but it is pretty annoying to crow about how unbiased you are cause you used math and then list a series of assumptions that are obviously not objective.

I know we all want to do what is best for all of the kids.

But apparently, tracking works!!!! In particular for math education!

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/global-grouping-theory-math-strategies-students-529492/

Don’t get rid of AAP. It works better for all groups.