18:07/18:17 - based on what definition, because that's NOT what tracking means in many other instances - and how can you presume to say definitively that's how tracking is defined in DC, when DCPS doesn't even do tracking?

PP posting again, for clarity's sake.

So, in summary... the argument of these many people then is that we should never bother identifying and trying to improve performance of students who are falling behind, because it's "discriminatory" to do so.

I have no idea what made you jump to that ridiculous conclusion. Of course we should identify and try to improve student performance. That is not what tracking seeks to do, by definition. (Even wikipedia, which is painful to recommend as a source on a good day, explains pretty well what tracking is.) I'm having trouble believing you have any experience or understanding of what you're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
There are public schools in Virginia and elsewhere that have test-based admissions and tracking - the precedent exists in many schools around the nation - why not in DC?


Magnate high schools have different rules than public elementary schools, charter or no charter. Tracking has historically been used in a racist and discriminatory fashion in the U.S. and in the DelMarVa area in particular. Good for Sela for not trying the non-immersion track approach. I went and looked at YY threads - and this is the one thing that people complained about the most.


I am white and I was tracked into the lower tracks for 3 years of my schooling. I am in favor of ability grouping with the caveat that full supports be given to those in the lower "tracks" with frequent re-assessments so that students can be moved to higher "tracks" when ready. Differentiated instruction is a joke IMO and often leaves many students behind. How is a teacher to effectively teach when the abilities of students differ vastly in same the classroom?

Ability grouping and tracking are not the same thing at all. Tracking does not have the goal of moving students to a higher track when ready.

Seriously, people, do your research.

Of course tracking discriminates between categories of students.

But in saying this, one has to discard the traditional knee-jerk reactions and baggage that comes along with the word "discrimination".

By definition, all "discrimination" means is distinguishing between categories - and that doesn't necessarily automatically mean bad things. In the case of tracking, it's supposed to mean giving more tailored instruction with additional resources and attention to the underperforming group of students in order to bring them up to speed with the rest of the students, and get them out of the lower track. Any normal, healthy, and able child, say a 7th grader, should with help ultimately be able to perform at the same baseline level as other 7th graders.

That's a very different thing from special ed, which does not necessarily have the expectation of getting students performing at a normal level, particularly if they are profoundly disabled and might never be able to become fully proficient, for example, might never be able to read as well as a 7th grader - the expectation there is to simply get them up to their fullest potential possible given their disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are public schools in Virginia and elsewhere that have test-based admissions and tracking - the precedent exists in many schools around the nation - why not in DC?

Magnate high schools have different rules than public elementary schools, charter or no charter. Tracking has historically been used in a racist and discriminatory fashion in the U.S. and in the DelMarVa area in particular. Good for Sela for not trying the non-immersion track approach. I went and looked at YY threads - and this is the one thing that people complained about the most.

I am white and I was tracked into the lower tracks for 3 years of my schooling. I am in favor of ability grouping with the caveat that full supports be given to those in the lower "tracks" with frequent re-assessments so that students can be moved to higher "tracks" when ready. Differentiated instruction is a joke IMO and often leaves many students behind. How is a teacher to effectively teach when the abilities of students differ vastly in same the classroom?

Anonymous wrote:

NP here.

I've seen a lot of ignorance on these boards, 19:21, but you might just take the cake.

Tracking is the problem, and if you don't know what tracking is (or you think it's another word for differentiated instruction) than you need to school yourself.

I'm also going to take a wild guess that you're not in DC.


No, we're not talking about differentiated instruction, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking, just as special ed is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking. And also, beyond that, there are two SEPARATE pieces for consideration here, one being about tracking itself, versus the other, of HOW students are selected for tracking or other programs.

The only ignorance going on here is the indiscriminate munging all of these different concepts together.

Yes, I'm in DC - but I came from somewhere else - which is why I know about these things. My guess is you ONLY know DC, which may explain why you seem to be so confused about these different concepts, and are scrambling them up as you are.

I've only posted once on this thread, so it isn't me confusing or scrambling terms, and I'm glad you seem to understand that DI is different from tracking. What you don't seem to understand is that tracking itself is discriminatory, no matter how students are selected. It is a terrible and rigid system.

Also, I don't know why you assume I only know DC based on my single post (unless you are one of those posters thinking you are disagreeing with one person, when, in fact, many people are responding to this thread) but it so happens you are wrong.

So, in summary... the argument of these many people then is that we should never bother identifying and trying to improve performance of students who are falling behind, because it's "discriminatory" to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

NP here.

I've seen a lot of ignorance on these boards, 19:21, but you might just take the cake.

Tracking is the problem, and if you don't know what tracking is (or you think it's another word for differentiated instruction) than you need to school yourself.

I'm also going to take a wild guess that you're not in DC.


No, we're not talking about differentiated instruction, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking, just as special ed is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking. And also, beyond that, there are two SEPARATE pieces for consideration here, one being about tracking itself, versus the other, of HOW students are selected for tracking or other programs.

The only ignorance going on here is the indiscriminate munging all of these different concepts together.

Yes, I'm in DC - but I came from somewhere else - which is why I know about these things. My guess is you ONLY know DC, which may explain why you seem to be so confused about these different concepts, and are scrambling them up as you are.

I've only posted once on this thread, so it isn't me confusing or scrambling terms, and I'm glad you seem to understand that DI is different from tracking. What you don't seem to understand is that tracking itself is discriminatory, no matter how students are selected. It is a terrible and rigid system.

Also, I don't know why you assume I only know DC based on my single post (unless you are one of those posters thinking you are disagreeing with one person, when, in fact, many people are responding to this thread) but it so happens you are wrong.

New to this particular argument, but why is tracking terrible? I realize it is out of favor in academic circles, but why is it automatically terrible? I was tracked and found it to be educationally rewarding. I realize I'm only one data point, but I guess I need it explained to me why tracking is terrible.

NP here.

I've seen a lot of ignorance on these boards, 19:21, but you might just take the cake.

Tracking is the problem, and if you don't know what tracking is (or you think it's another word for differentiated instruction) than you need to school yourself.

I'm also going to take a wild guess that you're not in DC.


No, we're not talking about differentiated instruction, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking, just as special ed is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking. And also, beyond that, there are two SEPARATE pieces for consideration here, one being about tracking itself, versus the other, of HOW students are selected for tracking or other programs.

The only ignorance going on here is the indiscriminate munging all of these different concepts together.

Yes, I'm in DC - but I came from somewhere else - which is why I know about these things. My guess is you ONLY know DC, which may explain why you seem to be so confused about these different concepts, and are scrambling them up as you are.

I've only posted once on this thread, so it isn't me confusing or scrambling terms, and I'm glad you seem to understand that DI is different from tracking. What you don't seem to understand is that tracking itself is discriminatory, no matter how students are selected. It is a terrible and rigid system.

Also, I don't know why you assume I only know DC based on my single post (unless you are one of those posters thinking you are disagreeing with one person, when, in fact, many people are responding to this thread) but it so happens you are wrong.

Regardless of what you call it, having non-immersion classes for general population students at an immersion school is a lousy idea (I understand that special ed might require this) and I applaud Sela for committing to not doing that. If people want their kids in a Hebrew immersion program, they should apply early and get in on the ground floor, not wait around and try and have their kids admitted in a later grade. I do think DC should look into allowing language tests, though. That makes sense as having native speaking students around benefits everybody.

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I've seen a lot of ignorance on these boards, 19:21, but you might just take the cake.

Tracking is the problem, and if you don't know what tracking is (or you think it's another word for differentiated instruction) than you need to school yourself.

I'm also going to take a wild guess that you're not in DC.

No, we're not talking about differentiated instruction, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking, just as special ed is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from tracking. And also, beyond that, there are two SEPARATE pieces for consideration here, one being about tracking itself, versus the other, of HOW students are selected for tracking or other programs.

The only ignorance going on here is the indiscriminate munging all of these different concepts together.

Yes, I'm in DC - but I came from somewhere else - which is why I know about these things. My guess is you ONLY know DC, which may explain why you seem to be so confused about these different concepts, and are scrambling them up as you are.

NP here.

I've seen a lot of ignorance on these boards, 19:21, but you might just take the cake.

Tracking is the problem, and if you don't know what tracking is (or you think it's another word for differentiated instruction) than you need to school yourself.

I'm also going to take a wild guess that you're not in DC.

"A form of..." Ah, so the strategy is to try and change the subject.

None of what you have posted changes the fact that it's white kids who get tracked in predominantly white areas, and so on.

Again, it's not tracking itself that's the problem, it's the means used to decide who gets tracked.

You are clearly confusing the ends with the means.

Anonymous wrote:^ In reading the first couple of pages, it becomes evident that the paper is talking specifically about special education programs, not tracking - and identifies misdiagnosis as the problem, as opposed to the mere fact of tracking.

So now, I'm elucidated, thanks - but are you?

Can you really have lived your life so far under a rock that you don't recognize that classification as special ed. is a form of tracking?

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-22-fall-2002/something-wrong-here

^ In reading the first couple of pages, it becomes evident that the paper is talking specifically about special education programs, not tracking - and identifies misdiagnosis as the problem, as opposed to the mere fact of tracking.

So now, I'm elucidated, thanks - but are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are public schools in Virginia and elsewhere that have test-based admissions and tracking - the precedent exists in many schools around the nation - why not in DC?

Magnate high schools have different rules than public elementary schools, charter or no charter. Tracking has historically been used in a racist and discriminatory fashion in the U.S. and in the DelMarVa area in particular. Good for Sela for not trying the non-immersion track approach. I went and looked at YY threads - and this is the one thing that people complained about the most.

The idea that tracking is "racist" or "discriminatory" is a half-baked idea formed in a vacuum. If you look at tracking in many other states, depending on the geography and demographic, you will find that the students in the lower track may well be whites, may well be latinos, may well be vietnamese, may well be native American, may well be middle class, or whatever. If it happens that a disproportionate percentage of any group ends up in a lower track, that is likely NOT going to be a causal relationship or circumstance forced on them by the test, it's more likely a reflection of the reality of the background those students are coming from. And, once that lower track group is identified, schools can and should be held accountable for making sure they get the right remedial aid to bring them up to speed and get them out of that track. Tracking is not supposed to be a destination, it's supposed to be a remedy.

The ignorance on DCUM is stunning - the reason tracking was stopped was because it was applied in a discriminatory way - everyone involved in education knows this, but for your elucidation: http://www.abpsi.org/pdf/specialedpositionpaper021312.pdf.