Aw, that's rough on your daughter! Seems like they might at least have gone 2 and 2. Maybe they think your daughter is strong enough to face making some new friends this year? It might be sort of a compliment. Or it might just have been sort of a mistake/oversight. That's the thing about it, you don't really know.

My 1st grader was given a first year teacher, after having a first year teacher last year too. I can only suspect they see him as a relatively easy kid if they gave him first years two years in a row. He had a fantastic year last year so I'm over my jitters about 1st year teachers (both student taught at the same school so the admin know their styles/strengths, etc). He also befriended a very shy, sweet and smart ESOL student last year in his class - kind of took him under his wing - and that boy is in the same class as my son again this year. Again, I have to imagine this is intentionally since my son is pretty outgoing but clearly bonded with this other boy. And by the way, this is a school with 10 K classes and 11 1st grade classes so getting class groupings right must be very difficult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering this, too. It seems like making sure each kids has a buddy in the class does NOT go into the equation.

The buddy request shouldn't extend beyond kindergarten or maybe 1st. After that buddies become kids who act cliquish.

Eh. Not in this case. They kept 3 of the 4 together and one in a class by herself without any friends from previous years. They weren't kids who would act up and actually the well-behaved rule followers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First they divide up all the low performers/academically behind/ELL kids equally. Then they divide up all the academically ahead kids equally. Then they fill in the classes with the rest trying to create a boy/girl balance. That's what I was told, at our school.

ELL are not necessarily academically behind or low performers. I teach MS and they are some of my best students.

Is it possible that's because by the time they reach MS they have had some great opportunities in elementary to strengthen their English? I can see where it would be challenging for a teacher if she had a large component of ESL kids in a class that wasn't set up for that. Spreading out kids that have the potential to require more one-on-one attention makes the grade more equitable and manageable for everyone, teachers and students alike.

Anonymous wrote:First they divide up all the low performers/academically behind/ELL kids equally. Then they divide up all the academically ahead kids equally. Then they fill in the classes with the rest trying to create a boy/girl balance. That's what I was told, at our school.

ELL are not necessarily academically behind or low performers. I teach MS and they are some of my best students.

DS is in 2nd. I'm pretty sure they purposely split him and his close buddies into all different classes. In this case it's a good thing for the teachers!

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering this, too. It seems like making sure each kids has a buddy in the class does NOT go into the equation.

The buddy request shouldn't extend beyond kindergarten or maybe 1st. After that buddies become kids who act cliquish.

Kind of a similar, later thread going on over here: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/498500.page#7551798

I wonder about this too. I'd love to be a fly on the wall. When we went in to see DD's teacher at the open house this year I commented to the teacher that it was the first time DD and DS have had the same teacher, probably because they are very different kids. She said, "oh yes, I've heard that they are very different." So, clearly there's been some conversation about that.

Anonymous wrote:First they divide up all the low performers/academically behind/ELL kids equally. Then they divide up all the academically ahead kids equally. Then they fill in the classes with the rest trying to create a boy/girl balance. That's what I was told, at our school.

Thi sis how the classes are formed at our school. But that is about grouping the kids. The assignment of the teacher to the group happens separately.

I'm wondering this, too. It seems like making sure each kids has a buddy in the class does NOT go into the equation.

First they divide up all the low performers/academically behind/ELL kids equally. Then they divide up all the academically ahead kids equally. Then they fill in the classes with the rest trying to create a boy/girl balance. That's what I was told, at our school.

I taught in three different schools and this was done in three different ways. I do think the attempt was to balance the classes in each case, though. In one school, the principal did the class lists, in another the teachers did it (not the teacher assignment, but the class grouping), and in a third it was done by the counselors.

Our MCPS school appears to have given some of the more challenging students to the most veteran teacher in my DC's year.

Now, this was probably at least partly because, for a variety of reasons, there were several totally brand new tiny little baby teachers in that year and the administration wanted to give them a bit of a slower start compared to the more veteran educators.

But, in general, I see the school trying to balance gender, race, ESOL, IEPs, etc.

Do all the teachers from each grade get together and split kids up according to their strengths: "these are the kids who need a strong disciplinarian which is you Francis, and here are the sensitive kids for you, Lisa" etc? Or is it more like trying to do a seating chart for a wedding, "no Timmy can't be in Alice's class, he won't leave her alone." "Hey you have to put Larla with the superstar teacher because her parents bought the $2K day with the principal at the auction." Is the meeting with teachers and administrators? Do last year's teachers sit in when they are dividing them up? Are PTAs involved?

Just curious over how these decisions are made. Our class seems like a good mix this year and I'm just wondering how this weird alchemy works. We are in APS elementary, but curious about all over.