Originally Posted by Quantum2003
Originally Posted by ultramarina
Quote
I have also been stunned that anyone could actually believe that simply dropping students into coursework that they are ill-suited to, and even less well-prepared for is somehow an... opportunity for those students. ???

Sometimes people and children do rise to a higher level based on what is expected of them or how they are treated. Not always, obviously.

And here's the thing. There seems to be an unexamined belief that tracking and grouping will be done correctly. Come on now. I've seen plenty of people posting here saying their GT child has been inappropriately placed for reading or math. If this happens to our kids, what happens to less obvious kids? What happens to kids whose parents lack the time, privilege, or willingness to fight? How many people here had their children retested or tested for 2E because the system somehow did not place them where they thought they should land?

Do we really believe all those "low" and "middle" kids are appropriately placed?

For that matter, I'm not sure about permanent "gifted" placement either.

Let me just say once more that I am not some huge detracking advocate. I feel pretty unsure about AP for all, etc. But I also see why it is proposed. I think there has got to be a better way than either of these systems.

ITA, ultramarina. That is really the source of discomfiture for me. I know that I benefited from a decently implemented tracking system and my kids as well. However, I also see the damage to those who are misplaced or placed into the lower classes as low expectations can be truly compounding.



ITA, too-- surprisingly, I know. But this then becomes a matter of baby and bathwater, to use the idiomatic turn of phrase. Eliminating tracking sounds fine-- but unless you replace it with something that is genuinely better at getting students (preferably MORE students) into positions aligned with their zones of proximal development, it's arguable to state that one might actually have been better to just keep tracking, as flawed as it is.

The difference seems to be whether one prefers meeting a FEW kids' needs outside of the central third of the distribution, or almost NOBODY's if they fall outside of that central third. Why punish those people whose needs are met through tracking by eliminating it so that everyone gets the same inadequate educational setting?? shocked

It's the false dichotomy of that which I find so objectionable. And stupid. I find it stupid. frown



Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.