Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually there is research on this and it typically shows that separating by ability does not hinder the education of kids in the less advanced groups. Everyone does better when instruction is geared to their level because it allows them to learn at an appropriate pace and level that is neither too easy nor too difficult. I am on the metro and can't link any articles right now but there are many studies on gifted education that show this.

Now that you are back home. Please follow this up and link your articles.

NP. BUT a quick google turns up this, which seems to support the PP's position: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14475

And selfishly, as a parent I would want my child tracked if appropriate, as it is obviously better for high achieving students.

It may very well be that differentiation done well, does well for all kids -- even those in the less elite groups. I think there is an argument... HOWEVER, there is plenty of evidence that other factors besides ability affect placement. Then what?

My experience was that my son's elementary school pegged him as a jock in year 1, and after that there was no altering their opinion until he left for middle school. Thankfully, ability grouping beyond reading instruction was minimal, because I can promise you he would have been sold short and probably have been closed out of the honors classes he landed in once middle school started to differentiate.

If you have contrary studies to post that you think are bias-free, go ahead. I posted some of the things that I have read. Studies aside, I also don't see why, as a matter of common sense, it would be better for everyone to learn all subjects together regardless of their level - this approach either makes the teacher's job nearly impossible or it means that only the students in the middle will have an appropriate level of challenge and academic growth. Kids who need a slower pace are left behind and may not be getting the attention they need for adequate progress and kids who need a faster pace are not learning or progressing academically.

Actually there is research on this and it typically shows that separating by ability does not hinder the education of kids in the less advanced groups. Everyone does better when instruction is geared to their level because it allows them to learn at an appropriate pace and level that is neither too easy nor too difficult. I am on the metro and can't link any articles right now but there are many studies on gifted education that show this.


Now that you are back home. Please follow this up and link your articles.


Anyone interested in this topic can find tons of info on this, but here are a few:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10218.aspx

http://www.cmu.edu/cmites/abilitygrouping.html

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/05/20/fp_olszewski.html

The problem with your articles is two fold. One is that the first two use some pretty old research to back their claims. The second is that all three are about gifted education. It is hard to weigh claims about the less advanced students without acknowledging the "gifted" student bias in the research chosen.

Basically, PP, you aren't very convincing.

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that public elementary schools offer this much information about their tracking and teaching practices. Can you imagine what it would be like if MCPS or DCPS shared this information?

When we were looking for schools schools for my child, which we've done several times because he's now high school, every school I talked to, including DCPS, MCPS, charters, and private, was willing to answer questions about this. Have you actually asked?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually there is research on this and it typically shows that separating by ability does not hinder the education of kids in the less advanced groups. Everyone does better when instruction is geared to their level because it allows them to learn at an appropriate pace and level that is neither too easy nor too difficult. I am on the metro and can't link any articles right now but there are many studies on gifted education that show this.

Now that you are back home. Please follow this up and link your articles.

Anyone interested in this topic can find tons of info on this, but here are a few:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10218.aspx

http://www.cmu.edu/cmites/abilitygrouping.html

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/05/20/fp_olszewski.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually there is research on this and it typically shows that separating by ability does not hinder the education of kids in the less advanced groups. Everyone does better when instruction is geared to their level because it allows them to learn at an appropriate pace and level that is neither too easy nor too difficult. I am on the metro and can't link any articles right now but there are many studies on gifted education that show this.

Now that you are back home. Please follow this up and link your articles.

NP. BUT a quick google turns up this, which seems to support the PP's position: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14475

And selfishly, as a parent I would want my child tracked if appropriate, as it is obviously better for high achieving students.

Anonymous wrote:Actually there is research on this and it typically shows that separating by ability does not hinder the education of kids in the less advanced groups. Everyone does better when instruction is geared to their level because it allows them to learn at an appropriate pace and level that is neither too easy nor too difficult. I am on the metro and can't link any articles right now but there are many studies on gifted education that show this.

Now that you are back home. Please follow this up and link your articles.

I am amazed that public elementary schools offer this much information about their tracking and teaching practices. Can you imagine what it would be like if MCPS or DCPS shared this information?

Actually there is research on this and it typically shows that separating by ability does not hinder the education of kids in the less advanced groups. Everyone does better when instruction is geared to their level because it allows them to learn at an appropriate pace and level that is neither too easy nor too difficult. I am on the metro and can't link any articles right now but there are many studies on gifted education that show this.

Anonymous wrote:
I question a lot of so-called educational "research" if this is truly what "best practices" are.

Common sense and personal observation as a parent and teacher, and anecdotal evidence from all of my friends and relatives, and personal experience as a child in school, all lead me to believe that kids in the highest group do best, learn the most, are the most challenged, (and don't learn it's OK to slack off, and learn better study skills), and learn how to handle frustration and difficult work... when they are grouped with each other, and instruction is ramped up accordingly.

This is actually the perfect argument for why research is necessary.

Because sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are so. And sometimes we know things are so based on "common sense" and personal observation, and then research shows that they really are NOT so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, even if DS is not in the highest group, the tracked school might be the best choice because he would get more attention at his level. On the other hand, there are arguments that on-level or below-level kids benefit from learning with kids who are ahead of level.

The latter. Tracking is great for kids in the highest group. It's not great for the other kids.

That's an understatement. Tracking has some small benefits for kids in the highest group, and significant negative impacts on the other students.

I would only look at school #2. I wouldn't want my child at a school where the leadership demonstrated that they were unaware of educational research and best practice, or, alternatively, that they valued one group of parents over another to the degree that they were willing to sacrifice some children's future for marginal gains for already advantaged kids.

I question a lot of so-called educational "research" if this is truly what "best practices" are.

Common sense and personal observation as a parent and teacher, and anecdotal evidence from all of my friends and relatives, and personal experience as a child in school, all lead me to believe that kids in the highest group do best, learn the most, are the most challenged, (and don't learn it's OK to slack off, and learn better study skills), and learn how to handle frustration and difficult work... when they are grouped with each other, and instruction is ramped up accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, even if DS is not in the highest group, the tracked school might be the best choice because he would get more attention at his level. On the other hand, there are arguments that on-level or below-level kids benefit from learning with kids who are ahead of level.

The latter. Tracking is great for kids in the highest group. It's not great for the other kids.

That's an understatement. Tracking has some small benefits for kids in the highest group, and significant negative impacts on the other students.

I would only look at school #2. I wouldn't want my child at a school where the leadership demonstrated that they were unaware of educational research and best practice, or, alternatively, that they valued one group of parents over another to the degree that they were willing to sacrifice some children's future for marginal gains for already advantaged kids.

Anonymous wrote:Are you choosing between two public schools, or are you choosing between two houses that are zoned for those two public schools?

OP, it depends on your school district, but around here schools are rezoned all the time. You should never buy a house assuming it will feed into a certain elementary school.

In addition, schools change all the time. You can get a new principal, new educational model etc.

It wounds as if both schools are acceptable to you, and they both feed into the same middle and high school. So I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the educational model in use at each school.

All else being equal, I'd mildly prefer a school that used tracking, but would want my child to be in the highest track, assuming she had the ability of course, and if she weren't able to be there would provide extra tutoring to get her there. (I teach elementary school) Do note that just splitting up subjects by teacher (here we call it departmentalizing) is not necessarily the same thing as dividing kids by ability level. In addition, it is hard for an elementary school to group kids by ability level in both math and language arts. Usually they group just by one -- say, math.

If I were looking for a house now, I would place more emphasis on location of kid services and activities. Imagine living in both neighborhoods -- how much walking or biking or driving to locations like sports, piano lessons, religious education, schools,extra curricular events, church, community center for Scouts and judo, etc? How uch of that can happen at school? There's so much driving involved with having school aged kids that it is a major stress reducer to have access to those things at school or very close by. Also it helps if other families nearby send their kids to the same school.
,

I would go with the tracking school if such an option existed. I really dislike that DC area does not seperate classes for ability level.

Anonymous wrote:Our experience has been that differentiation in the classroom doesn't work very well in general because not all teachers are skilled at it or committed to it. Kids who are outliers do not get appropriate attention. If you think your kid(s) may be an outlier in either direction, I would go with the school that has groupings by levels.

+1