This is a clear (and I say this as someone who grew up learning the peculiar language of elementary educators in an immersion environment) coded message for
in-class differentiation.
I agree that it may be. The question to ask would be, "I see this provides very strong evidence for the benefits of acceleration. How do you define acceleration here at School X? What would that look like for my child?"
No; the presentation gave positive scores to both.
Well, the scores for GT programming were relatively positive--acceleration most of all, clearly, But these? These look pretty darn lukewarm, esp. given the 4 slides afterwards listing reasons not to track...
tracking .11, reading 0, maths .02, attitude .10.
I have mixed feelings on tracking because it's obviously a complex issue, but no one benefits from avoiding the truth, whatever it may be. If the truth is that disadvantaged kids lose out from tracking and our kids benefit, we need to look at that honestly and consider what can be done--not just focus on our kids. If the truth is that our kids lose out by not tracking, but disadvantaged kids gain, the system needs to not just blow off our kids, but take that seriously as well.
