|
0 members (),
355
guests, and
11
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
LoveSunnyDays, I theorize that the flip-flopping and various viewpoints on issues seems to coincide with an ability to monetize it: Profit motive?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 18
Junior Member
|
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 18 |
I'm not sure what profit motive that would be. I think it is more a question of ideology. The liberal/progressive ideology of the day favors equity over excellence, and by equity of course they meant equal outcome not equal opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 228 |
With respect to the effectiveness of in-class differentiation, from my son's experience, it is ineffective the way it is usually implemented. What usually ends up happening is the teacher gives the advance kid (after the parents asked for it) some advanced math worksheets to work on in class -- alone, with little to no help or checking from the teacher. Eventually the child loses interest and stops doing it and the teacher just tells the parents well your child isn't interested what can I do. This is the same experience we had when DS7 was in 1st grade. He was given math packet from the math specialist and was only able to check in with her once a week at the most. He became uninterested of doing the packet after only a few weeks. I don't think in-class differentiation is effective, especially in lower grades. Kids may see this as extra work if they are also doing regular class work (as my son did in the beginning until I asked he only should do the math packet). Also even with high ability kids, without any instructions to self study is not an easy task sometimes. Our district has the gifted program from grade 3-8. The school may have a pull-out of advanced 2nd graders this year, but not sure how that works yet. In order to keep DS7 challenged and interested in learning, we are hiring a private tutor. Expensive but this is the only way we can do right now so he doesn't think everything is so easy and he doesn't need to work hard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
With respect to the effectiveness of in-class differentiation, from my son's experience, it is ineffective the way it is usually implemented. What usually ends up happening is the teacher gives the advance kid (after the parents asked for it) some advanced math worksheets to work on in class -- alone, with little to no help or checking from the teacher. Eventually the child loses interest and stops doing it and the teacher just tells the parents well your child isn't interested what can I do.
My son also experienced the pull out group in the lower grades. It was equally ineffective. They tried to group too many kids of varying abilities in one group, and worked on stuff that primarily aimed at the lowest level kid in the group. The worksheets are mostly again enrichment (more problem solving) rather than teaching new material. Plus it was only 2x/wk for 40 minutes each time. The rest of the time they remained bored to tears.
Our district's full time self-contained gifted program only goes from 3rd-5th grade. The math was supposed to be a 3rd/4th grade combination class, the top third of the class remained bored and unchallenged, while the bottom third struggled to catch up. Most of these classes are again all about enrichment (i.e. busywork) rather than acceleration.
I have heard from parents that the full time gifted class made no difference, that when their children got to HS, they are taking the same classes and getting the same grades as those who didn't get into the gifted class. In our district by middle school the self-contained gifted class goes away and all kids are allowed to self select into advanced math and science track, though they are limited to advancing only 1 grade level ahead in math and science. My one child who didn't get into the gifted program ends up taking the same advanced classes and grades as the kids who were in the gifted program. I think what this means is the gifted class was ineffective in advancing the gifted kids. Too much enrichment aka busywork not enough acceleration.
Most schools, like our district, just put in a half-hearted gifted program so they can check off a box. The kids who are outliers in the gifted continuum will remain bored and unchallenged. They are better off letting these kids skip grades as mine ended up doing. It's hard for the kids when they skip alone. But if there is a small group of kids who skip 1 or 2 grades together, it won't be so bad. They will have a peer group to socialize with. If those years in the gifted programme were nourishing to the child that is a good programme irrespective of high school success. Many of us didn't get to high school intact enough to do anything. On the other hand if the child was equally unhappy in the gifted programme it truly made no difference. In respect to the rich/poor divide the current system in NZ is making it worse because the only kids getting focused instruction are the ones who can pay for it out of school.
Last edited by puffin; 08/10/16 01:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
I agree there is the ideology aspect. Additionally, individuals are earning a living through promoting this ideology. This includes: - authoring books (several links provided in earlier posts upthread), - speaker fees (for example, the link here). - While this statement from 2013 mentions that she will donate most of her speaking fees to Network for Public Education, she co-founded this as a 510(c)(3); Donating monies here may serve as a tax shelter. NPE also seeks donations. The "What We Do" page of the NPE website indicates that the work products are Press Releases - Newsletters - Reports - and an attempt to build a Grassroots Education Network.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
Most schools, like our district, just put in a half-hearted gifted program so they can check off a box. The kids who are outliers in the gifted continuum will remain bored and unchallenged. I agree with each item in your post. Parents who've not yet encountered this may want to prepare or brace themselves... as HG+ kiddos seem to be experiencing these negatives more frequently now that teachers and schools are rated/ranked on "closing the gap". I agree about "differentiation". It is a buzzword. In attempting to understand what a child would experience in a gifted program, parents may wish to learn the 5Ws: Who What Where When Why and How.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
And while your choice of words above was poor, I agree with your sentiments about Burris and Ravitch. I accept your critique. I considered saying "experimenting" (as their NPE newsletter uses this word to describe efforts undertaken by Gates). However "experimenting" may bring to mind legitimate research studies conducted with informed consent of participants, IRBs, etc. Therefore I described their activity as "playing" with education policy... the problem, I think, isn't that people AREN'T taking Ravitch and Burris seriously so much as that they ARE. Agreed!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
Interesting observations and insights, as usual!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 105
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 105 |
It seems to me that the main problem with tracking is this: rather permanent group consisting of age-peers moving together through the grade levels. Pupils are generally advanced in all subjects. Commonly receiving curriculum instruction one grade level ahead of gen-ed age-peers...When kids get on the "track" they typically do not leave; Similarly, new kids may have a difficult time getting on the track, as a "track" is generally considered closed...a student is either in it, or not. So the problem is that it's permanent. If it wasn't, kids who underperformed/slacked off/etc and improved would be able to move up, and kids who started in it and didn't deserve it/work hard could be removed. This also creates motivation to try to improve. There's mobility. Furthermore, students could choose advanced classes in, say, math, but not in English. However, if the classes were a year ahead, versus just being more in depth and challenging, that would cause some problems. ...I'm confused. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's what our HS's honors classes look like. Sure, they're not representative of the student body; sure, they're lacking for HG kids. But still -- kids can pick and choose honors classes, move in and out, etc. as long as the teachers/parents approve. Or are they keeping a similar system and eliminating tracking for, like, elementary / MS?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
It seems to me that the main problem with tracking is this... that it's permanent. Exactly! Once most people understood this, saw the permanence as a flaw, and backed the cessation of "tracking", some reformers began to use this tainted word, "tracking", to describe any type of sorting students by readiness and ability. The word "tracking" can be used to smear various considerations for appropriate placement of a student, and makes it difficult to have meaningful discussion of cluster grouping, Single Subject Acceleration (SSA), prerequisite courses, and other means of sorting students by readiness and ability. At one point, students needed to have done well in certain prerequisite classes in order to have the foundational knowledge and skills to take (and succeed in) Honors and AP courses. In recent years, the practice of prerequisites and GPA as qualifying criteria for eligibility to enroll in these advanced academics has changed to a practice of student self-selection for enrollment in these courses. There was lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of this, in response to an article posted on the forum some time ago. I believe it was titled something akin to "Honors Classes for All". If I recall, the number of seats for these courses was not expanded to meet the increased demand, therefore some highly qualified students were not allowed to take these courses. Meanwhile some less qualified students were failing and/or dropping advanced courses, even with school-provided study and support groups. It seemed costly, ineffective, and inefficient. Few seemed to benefit, while many suffered setbacks. I'll try to find the discussion thread and post a link to it here. For now, I'll go with Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All, although I recalled a much longer discussion thread.
|
|
|
|
|
