You don't need 5 classrooms/teachers to split the class into 5 levels. See 17:33.

In fact, under this model, you can keep the kids mixed together and the teacher can still differentiate within the classroom because the teacher still only has to prepare 5 lesson plans.

Murch and Deal are both like this.

Anonymous wrote:Omg. The choice of metric is not what makes it expensive!. Listen to what people are telling you. Five classrooms=better but expensive, politically difficult, comes with scheduling tradeoffs.. Four classrooms=not much better academically, politically doable but not great, and still comes with some scheduling tradeoffs. The four classroom model is being done at some schools now, but guess what? It isn't much better, and people are not much happier.

OK, I'm really trying to understand you here. I'm setting aside for a moment the politics and scheduling to avoid muddying the waters. You're saying a school with 4 classes of 25, 25, 25, 25 will not have much improvement in outcomes if those classes are differentiated vs randomly sorted. (And I guess you don't like my 30, 25, 25, 20 alternative either.) But you're saying that same school would show marked improvement for all students if you have 5 classed of 17, 25, 25, 25, 17. Is that what you're saying?

You're going to have to point me to some research or something to back that up. I don't see how that shift of just 8 students from the top and the bottom classes will make a huge difference. I suppose smaller class sizes are always nice, so those two 17-student classrooms would get some benefit. But whatever benefit they get costs a lot extra. And there's zero benefit for the 3 classes that remain at 25 students.

I guess we come back to a "gifted" program. If what parents really want is a "gifted program" with extra benefits (like a small class size) for the gifted students, then I agree that's a non-starter for DCPS. Not only will a gifted program face the "optics" of a largely white/Asian gifted class at the top, but everyone will be seeing those white/Asian gifted students getting the extra benefit of more resources. We can agree there's no way that gets approved.

If you're right the the four-classroom model has no meaningful benefits, and only extra costs of moderate political headwinds + moderate scheduling conflicts, then maybe it's not worth the effort. But I'd like to see your evidence that there are no meaningful benefits.

I hear you saying it's being done at some schools, but I also hear other posters saying it's not. Maybe someone with first-hand knowledge can clearly spell out what is and isn't done right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are ignoring the political aspect of this. The optics would be terrible and you know it. Everything else is beside the point.

I'm 15:19, but I'm not OP.

Are you basically just saying no one at DCPS will allow differentiation by student ability because it would mean mostly white and Asian kids in some classrooms together, and mostly black and Hispanic kids in other classrooms together? Is that what you mean by "optics would be terrible"?

Yup.

Well that's unfortunate if it's really how DCPS thinks. It also seems silly because DCPS puts out the PARCC results every year, and those clearly show the "optics" you're saying DCPS is trying to avoid. If your description is true, it seems like DCPS is refusing to try steps that might actually help reduce segregated learning, just so it can avoid "optics" of segregated learning.

Also, looking at the PARCC data (https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2016%20OSSE%20PARCC%20Presentation.pdf), it appears the divide is not quite so stark. There seem to be a fair number of black and Hispanic students who reach 4-5 on PARCC. So while each classroom might not "look like DC," they wouldn't be completely homogeneous either.

IDEA is about the rights of kids with disabilities to be educated with their peers. Not about acceleration or differentiation for typical or advanced students.

The key is teacher specialization. One teacher teaches math to between 100 - 150 students in one grade. That teacher can then prepare differentiated lessons in one subject only to cover the range of abilities in the grade.

Example: Jefferson has 20 core teachers for 273 student in 3 grades (this doesn't include specials teachers or special ed staff, etc.). That is 6 core teachers per grade with grades smaller than 100 students. They have 7 class periods plus lunch. I have no idea how they schedule now, but clearly they have enough teachers to make the logistics work with so few students.

Their PARCC scores suggest they would need 3 remedial groups of PARCC 1s, one of 2s, and 1 of 3s, one group of 4/5s. That covers 6 of the seven periods for the math teacher, who then has one other period for either LEAP or another class. So they need 3 math teachers to do that --- but they already have 5, so no added cost. Do the same for each core subject and the school even has teachers left over.

Special education is a different issue altogether. But not all spec students are in those classes -- some are in the advanced and grade classes too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

They could, but it is really expensive to do it well on the scale that would be needed. If you are sticking with only four classrooms, in your example, it wouldn't be much of an improvement, not necsaarily worth the scheduling tradeoff.

I'm clearly no expert. But I don't see how it would be expensive if they just use existing metrics like PARCC scores or grades. And I'm not sure why you say there wouldn't be much improvement; is there research showing this? If differentiation doesn't generate any improvement, why do other school systems use it? Even if the improvement is slight, it would certainly help satisfy all the vocal parents who keep asking for differentiation, and maybe keep more of them invested in DCPS, so that might make it worthwhile on a trial basis. Most of the other steps DCPS is taking are not appearing to be much more successful.

Differentiation is the law, IDEA!

Anonymous wrote:OP - at Deal all classes are taught at the same level (ELA, humanities, science, PE/art/music). No differentiation or tracking outside of Math (up to Geometry) and foreign language.

At Hardy and SH students can also advance to a higher level of math (up to Geometry). I don't think advanced language are offered.

DCPS has committed to offering Algebra at every middle school starting next year. That hasn't been the case before now.

Not so at Deal, students who are very low or who have low reading / math and are Special Ed. have their own English and math class. Maybe not supposed to, so it is just a small group class but there are only a handful of students in the class and teacher is a Special Ed teachers. Other content classes have two teachers and there are aides for some students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

They could, but it is really expensive to do it well on the scale that would be needed. If you are sticking with only four classrooms, in your example, it wouldn't be much of an improvement, not necsaarily worth the scheduling tradeoff.

I'm clearly no expert. But I don't see how it would be expensive if they just use existing metrics like PARCC scores or grades. And I'm not sure why you say there wouldn't be much improvement; is there research showing this? If differentiation doesn't generate any improvement, why do other school systems use it? Even if the improvement is slight, it would certainly help satisfy all the vocal parents who keep asking for differentiation, and maybe keep more of them invested in DCPS, so that might make it worthwhile on a trial basis. Most of the other steps DCPS is taking are not appearing to be much more successful.

Omg. The choice of metric is not what makes it expensive!. Listen to what people are telling you. Five classrooms=better but expensive, politically difficult, comes with scheduling tradeoffs.. Four classrooms=not much better academically, politically doable but not great, and still comes with some scheduling tradeoffs. The four classroom model is being done at some schools now, but guess what? It isn't much better, and people are not much happier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

They could, but it is really expensive to do it well on the scale that would be needed. If you are sticking with only four classrooms, in your example, it wouldn't be much of an improvement, not necsaarily worth the scheduling tradeoff.

I'm clearly no expert. But I don't see how it would be expensive if they just use existing metrics like PARCC scores or grades. And I'm not sure why you say there wouldn't be much improvement; is there research showing this? If differentiation doesn't generate any improvement, why do other school systems use it? Even if the improvement is slight, it would certainly help satisfy all the vocal parents who keep asking for differentiation, and maybe keep more of them invested in DCPS, so that might make it worthwhile on a trial basis. Most of the other steps DCPS is taking are not appearing to be much more successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are ignoring the political aspect of this. The optics would be terrible and you know it. Everything else is beside the point.

I'm 15:19, but I'm not OP.

Are you basically just saying no one at DCPS will allow differentiation by student ability because it would mean mostly white and Asian kids in some classrooms together, and mostly black and Hispanic kids in other classrooms together? Is that what you mean by "optics would be terrible"?

Yup.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

So then admin would try to use fuzzy non-test-based metrics to split the classes, and we are back to all mixed ability classes.

But it's not like they're going to make grade-level 8th graders study the multiplication tables. They'll offer algebra, and it will be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

They could, but it is really expensive to do it well on the scale that would be needed. If you are sticking with only four classrooms, in your example, it wouldn't be much of an improvement, not necsaarily worth the scheduling tradeoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are ignoring the political aspect of this. The optics would be terrible and you know it. Everything else is beside the point.

I'm 15:19, but I'm not OP.

Are you basically just saying no one at DCPS will allow differentiation by student ability because it would mean mostly white and Asian kids in some classrooms together, and mostly black and Hispanic kids in other classrooms together? Is that what you mean by "optics would be terrible"?

Yup.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

So then admin would try to use fuzzy non-test-based metrics to split the classes, and we are back to all mixed ability classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are ignoring the political aspect of this. The optics would be terrible and you know it. Everything else is beside the point.

I'm 15:19, but I'm not OP.

Are you basically just saying no one at DCPS will allow differentiation by student ability because it would mean mostly white and Asian kids in some classrooms together, and mostly black and Hispanic kids in other classrooms together? Is that what you mean by "optics would be terrible"?

Yup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because in order for it to be really gifted, and really effective remedial, you need smaller class sizes than that. It just isn't the case that 30% are advanced. And 20 is way too big for real remediation (while managing behavior). A real split would be more like 17, 22, 22, 22, 17.

15:19 replying. I see where we're missing each other: I'm NOT trying to identify a "gifted" population or a "remedial" population. I'm just suggesting the schools try using differentiation to reduce the spread of abilities in any single classroom. Look at all those overpriced private schools as an example; most of them seem to use differentiated classrooms. Plenty of other public school systems also use differentiated classrooms. Why can't DCPS try it at one middle school?

At most what you get outside of a true gifted program is a grade level and an honors class.

That already exists at Hardy for classes other than Math. It doesn't happen at Deal, because it isn't consistent with the IB MYP model, and they'd lose their certification.

I think what you want is happening already to some degree. But using PARCC scores, there are very, very few students who are that far ahead of the grade level curriculum. Even at the best WOTP ward 3 schools, the number of 5s is tiny.