Anonymous wrote:So, all middle schools English classes are taught in advanced level? What are AP and Honor English classes then? Are those for HS only?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?
A couple of thoughts on advocacy.
First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.
Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping
Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.
This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.
Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)
There are no allies to be had on the school board. They collude and work in unision behind closed doors. Even if they personally are sympathetic to your cause or issue, they won't go it alone. They will only back what they think a majority of the board will go along with.
This other thread talks about how the school board is in process (unfortunately super-delayed) of reviewing the options for a new middle school ELA curriculum. I'm just a parent, so I don't know much about this, but presumably the choice of new curriculum and the extent to which the chosen curriculum has materials available for differentiation, would be important.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1250259.page
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?
A couple of thoughts on advocacy.
First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.
Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping
Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.
This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.
Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)
There are no allies to be had on the school board. They collude and work in unision behind closed doors. Even if they personally are sympathetic to your cause or issue, they won't go it alone. They will only back what they think a majority of the board will go along with.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes.
But can't teachers do this in a class of all below-level or on-level kids? I can kinda see the logic in exposing all/most kids to higher-level tasks/coursework, but why do the advanced kids need to be in the same room physically? Let the advanced kids go more quickly and deeply, and let the other kids go slower. Then all kids get to work at the pace that works best for them with the amount of support that works best for them (without expecting teachers to split their time and attention meeting the very different needs of disparate groups of kids.)
But that’s not what’s happening. Classes have all levels in them.
Anonymous wrote:The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes. The model is similar to elementary with multiple skill levels in one class. At the middle school level this can work well for English, Science, and World Studies when ~25% of kids are advanced, 50% of kids are grade level, and no more than 25% are behind. Strategic grouping and well structured assignments can keep the whole class moving forward with enough engaged & independent learners, and the teacher can effectively help a small number of students needing more support.
The problem really comes in when that mix of students gets to be more than 1/3 of the class. Things just grind down - it’s hard to keep pace, more % absent, fewer kids ready to learn. While it’s easy to say when this happens, we should split into two levels, but how do you draw the line? Student abilities and readiness for any given course fall on a bell curve. Parents, teachers, and administrators will all disagree on where to draw the line. Do we only separate the top 25% and really let them accelerate, leaving enough capable kids in the other group so there is a critical mass to still engage in rich content, although at a slower pace? Or do we separate the bottom 25% into remedial classes, which has shown us over decades to simply relegate that group of kid to never catching up or being exposed to higher level thinking.
This doesn’t have an easy solution.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?
A couple of thoughts on advocacy.
First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.
Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping
Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.
This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?
A couple of thoughts on advocacy.
First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.
Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping
Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.
This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.
Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?
A couple of thoughts on advocacy.
First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.
Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping
Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.
This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes.
But can't teachers do this in a class of all below-level or on-level kids? I can kinda see the logic in exposing all/most kids to higher-level tasks/coursework, but why do the advanced kids need to be in the same room physically? Let the advanced kids go more quickly and deeply, and let the other kids go slower. Then all kids get to work at the pace that works best for them with the amount of support that works best for them (without expecting teachers to split their time and attention meeting the very different needs of disparate groups of kids.)
Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?
Anonymous wrote:The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes.