Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tracking is necessary to help those at lower levels. A teacher cannot meet the need of every student with such extreme levels of readiness in each class.

Huh? Kids break out into small groups anyway so clusters work just fine.

I honestly don’t know why this is considered an effective strategy. Can someone point to research on this? I would be interested to know how small group work has been so widely adopted. I don’t see how a group of, say, 4-5 kids (sometimes with one of the kids as the “supervisor”) is supposed to help a kid who’s struggling to read. And in the current virtual environment, 100x more.

Reading groups don't work like that in our school. The group most in need of help get pulled out to a reading specialist. The next lowest group works with the teacher. The rest of the class reads on their own. Kids with an IEP for things like dyslexia see the SPED teacher, who usually does OG with them.

Yes - say there are 4 groups in a class. During ELA, the reading specialist (or other assistant) comes in to help and will work with group who needs the most help. The teacher works with another group. The other two work independently (reading or completing assignment) until it's their turn to work with the teacher or assistant. Rotate, repeat. Some kids will get additional help as well from SPED teacher if they have IEPs.

And the groups are different for math. With clusters, it's also easier to regroup kids around as they progress.

It's not like whole class is ever working together for the entire ELA (or math) chunk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tracking is necessary to help those at lower levels. A teacher cannot meet the need of every student with such extreme levels of readiness in each class.

Huh? Kids break out into small groups anyway so clusters work just fine.

I honestly don’t know why this is considered an effective strategy. Can someone point to research on this? I would be interested to know how small group work has been so widely adopted. I don’t see how a group of, say, 4-5 kids (sometimes with one of the kids as the “supervisor”) is supposed to help a kid who’s struggling to read. And in the current virtual environment, 100x more.

Reading groups don't work like that in our school. The group most in need of help get pulled out to a reading specialist. The next lowest group works with the teacher. The rest of the class reads on their own. Kids with an IEP for things like dyslexia see the SPED teacher, who usually does OG with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tracking is necessary to help those at lower levels. A teacher cannot meet the need of every student with such extreme levels of readiness in each class.

Huh? Kids break out into small groups anyway so clusters work just fine.

I honestly don’t know why this is considered an effective strategy. Can someone point to research on this? I would be interested to know how small group work has been so widely adopted. I don’t see how a group of, say, 4-5 kids (sometimes with one of the kids as the “supervisor”) is supposed to help a kid who’s struggling to read. And in the current virtual environment, 100x more.

Anonymous wrote:Tracking is necessary to help those at lower levels. A teacher cannot meet the need of every student with such extreme levels of readiness in each class.

Huh? Kids break out into small groups anyway so clusters work just fine.

Tracking is necessary to help those at lower levels. A teacher cannot meet the need of every student with such extreme levels of readiness in each class.

Schools don’t diagnosis learning disabilities unless a parent requests an evaluation.

This is a huge failing of our schools. We should have a screening process and more extensive testing where indicated. This is such a critical thing that gets missed for so many kids. It’s heartbreaking.

She’s absolutely right. But many of the issues are contradictory. It’s difficult, for instance, to teach reading and writing effectively without tracking students, at least in the early grades. And yes, we need to test students more for learning issues, but doing so will raise the number of students identified with learning disabilities. Yes, we need to stop graduating students who are not passing literacy tests, but doing so decreases the graduation rate and increases the the failing grade rate.

Someone removed it from NextDoor? WTF?

Anonymous wrote:There was an ARLnow article, did you see it? I assume that's what it was about.

https://www.arlnow.com/2021/04/16/ed-talk-the-miseducation-of-black-students-in-arlington/

There was an ARLnow article, did you see it? I assume that's what it was about.

Anyone know why this post was removed from NextDoor and/or what it said?