We are not talking about Albert Einstein here. We are talking about the track that sends to to prison vs. the track that sends you to Harvard. Just asking for something a bit better than prison for these children.

Anonymous wrote:Here is a difficult question I would like the answer on:

Has research shown whether low income students need different types and delivery of education than middle class kids?

Longer days, no summer breaks, different content?

Since many middle class kids come in with different foundations, does that translate into different things needed later in schooling?
IE, KIPP--its hailed for its work with low income kids, and great test scores, but I would never send my kid there because she/he doesn't need Saturday school, test prep, etc.?

I think you answered your own question. What KIPP does on weekends, late hours, summer school, etc. is basically seeking to replicate what you already provide for your child: a safe, stable, low-conflict environment which encourages creative thought and values education.

Here is a difficult question I would like the answer on:

Has research shown whether low income students need different types and delivery of education than middle class kids?

Longer days, no summer breaks, different content?

Since many middle class kids come in with different foundations, does that translate into different things needed later in schooling?
IE, KIPP--its hailed for its work with low income kids, and great test scores, but I would never send my kid there because she/he doesn't need Saturday school, test prep, etc.?

Anonymous wrote:Do you think people have difficulty accepting the notion that despite equal opportunity in learning, there won't be equal outcomes in learning? Or that unequal outcomes are the fault of someone other than the learner?

There are a few ideas that people like me have difficulty accepting:
1. When you track students into low ability tracks, the notion of equal opportunity to learn does not exist.
2. The notion of "equal" outcomes doesn't exist right now in our schools because of the narrowing of the curriculum and our current testing obsession. Outcomes are much broader than a test score.
3. Yes, indeed, unequal outcomes are the fault of MANY societal issues, not simply the learner.

All the best instruction in the world is not going to transform my child into LeBron James. I am not shocked, offended, or cheated by this. Is it outside the realm of possibility that all the best instruction in the world is not going to transform your child into Einstein? When your child doesn't become the next Einstein, yet someone else's child does, does that mean it's the school's fault? Was the instruction not properly differentiated?

Do you think people have difficulty accepting the notion that despite equal opportunity in learning, there won't be equal outcomes in learning? Or that unequal outcomes are the fault of someone other than the learner?

There are a few ideas that people like me have difficulty accepting:
1. When you track students into low ability tracks, the notion of equal opportunity to learn does not exist.
2. The notion of "equal" outcomes doesn't exist right now in our schools because of the narrowing of the curriculum and our current testing obsession. Outcomes are much broader than a test score.
3. Yes, indeed, unequal outcomes are the fault of MANY societal issues, not simply the learner.

How do you propose differentiated instruction should take place within one classroom?

You optimally challenge every learner and give developmentally appropriate materials for study. One teacher can and should be able to provide such instruction. For example, if the concept under study is threatened habitats, you have one group study the function of plants in a wetland while another more advanced reading group studies the sustainable use of the Earth's resources. Then the class can come together with their information and newfound knowledge and do a whole class project like a clean-up of the Anacostia River. All students are optimally challenged because they are reading books targeted to their reading level and yet learning about 1 substantial conceptual theme together.

Anonymous wrote:tracking and differentiation are two different strategies. differentiation happens within a classroom and all the students are learning a common curriculum, some may learn faster than others, some may be ahead, some may get some enrichment. it is more flexible so students get be grouped for different topics differently. tracking is separate classes and curriculum pitched at different levels.

How do you propose differentiated instruction should take place within one classroom? Say you have three levels of ability - do you have three different teachers to engage all three groups at the same time?

Do you think people have difficulty accepting the notion that despite equal opportunity in learning, there won't be equal outcomes in learning? Or that unequal outcomes are the fault of someone other than the learner?

tracking and differentiation are two different strategies. differentiation happens within a classroom and all the students are learning a common curriculum, some may learn faster than others, some may be ahead, some may get some enrichment. it is more flexible so students get be grouped for different topics differently. tracking is separate classes and curriculum pitched at different levels.

Thanks for the post!

You bring up a good point. I'll bet that for most of the kids taken out of Chinese immersion at Yu Ying, no longer having immersion is a great relief.

Since people tend to like subjects they feel they are good at, I bet most of the kids who were taken out of that class don't like Chinese, English or school in general. Bringing them up to speed in English will hopefully change that.

I agree with the previous posters who would simply change schools if they were placed in a non-immersion track in an immersion school. Why make my kid feel that they are "lesser" and it would be quite obvious that the school is not for us.

Here is my experience with tracked schooling:

I attended an advanced English instruction school, meaning three hours of English language daily starting at age 8. Standard curriculum at that time was one hour a week starting at age 10 (that was back home in Russia in early seventies). The school was technically a neighborhood school in that if you lived in the catchment area, you were enrolled automatically. However, it was also open to kids from all over the city whose parents cared enough and wanted their kids to speak English fluently, and didn’t mind a long commute (made 100% on public transit). For those kids, there was an informal interview and you were in or out based on how you came across (age 7). This is how I got in. I lived a 20-minute bus ride away. My cousin, who also got in, lived a 1 ½ tram ride away. There were similar schools in the city that offered advanced math, advanced P.E. or advanced physics. You could technically enroll during any grade, but your English speaking ability had to meet the school’s standard for that grade.

Now throughout the school years (we stayed in the same school age 7 through 17 till graduation), it was obvious that some kids struggled and some took to foreign language naturally. In a free-schooling, socialist country, they couldn’t really kick anyone out, but when it was obvious that a kid was struggling, his or her parents were told clearly that this school was not the best option for their child, and they should look into alternatives. Most kids who struggled ended up moving to other schools because they could only take being miserable for three hours a day for so long.

There was no remedial instruction of any kind, as the entire school was considered advanced track. The thinking was that “you don’t have to be here, because you can go to any other school, so if you want to stay, you must pull yourself up”. Most of us graduated at age 17 speaking English more or less fluently, meaning enough to succeed in an English-speaking country. By 11th grade, there were basically very few low performers left in our grade – simply weeded out. I would say we had a culture of achievement in the English language studies that said, you must perform on a high level, or you do not belong here.

Did that make snobs out of us? Maybe a little bit. But not a lot, because there was still a wide variety of high and low performers in all other subjects. Just because you were stellar in English didn’t mean you succeeded in all other subjects. I would say, though, that for most of us, it was presupposed that we were intelligent enough to learn a foreign language fluently, and had parents who cared enough to place us there and support us throughout.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Valerie Strauss woudl beg to differ. She'd say that you are blinded by an idealism that privileges the privileged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/are-top-students-being-shortchanged/2011/10/20/gIQA4IEi1L_blog.html

That article was not written by Valerie Strauss. The author was Paul Thomas, an associate professor of education at Furman University.

You are correct. Which is why I said she [would] say, because she didn't actually say it, but she reprinted a piece which does say it. You raise an important distinction without a difference.

Anonymous wrote:Valerie Strauss woudl beg to differ. She'd say that you are blinded by an idealism that privileges the privileged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/are-top-students-being-shortchanged/2011/10/20/gIQA4IEi1L_blog.html

That article was not written by Valerie Strauss. The author was Paul Thomas, an associate professor of education at Furman University.

They both would suffer.

I guess they both would suffer without the right teacher and parental support. I believe they both could flourish given the right conditions.

A lot of education thinkers really think the problem our grade by grade system. If you really do have 3rd grader doing 5th or 6th grade work or vice versa should they really be in those grades? This was in some resepects the idea of the one room classrooms that were so appealing. Mixed feelings on this but really maybe we should be considering some fluidity between grades or maybe for really committed advanced students we should be doing more online learning.

Anonymous wrote:and will be putting my kids in one regardless of their abilities.

Regardless of their abilities? Do you realize what you are saying here? How do you expect to just "get" your kid in the high track?

Never said that. I have one kid who is a v e r y s l o w learner who I would never put in the same class as my other kid who has an IQ of 140. They both would suffer.