Thank you for summarizing your lack of experience with these practices as that helps explain the virtual tossed-salad of ideas in your post.
I can see that self-deprecation is unappreciated here.
Dear philly103, as you've made only a handful of posts on this forum prior to this thread, we do not know you well. I believe the post which I was responding to was only your
6th post on this forum. You've mentioned only one child, 4 years old, therefore I took you at your word that you are unfamiliar with these concepts in practice.
However, some may say that the tone of your two most recent posts in this thread is clearly no longer that of a newbie asking questions of members of the gifted community with BTDT experience, but rather seems to be baiting... as you now state having a well-developed knowledge base.
When you raised the topic of "
all students taking the same coursework regardless of ability" I presumed you were familiar with AP and honors courses for which all prerequisites have been eliminated, making the AP and honors courses open to all... although some students are clearly not prepared to succeed in the AP or honors course for which they enrolled. You'll find threads with articles discussing the controversy and the impact upon students who were well-prepared but denied access to the opportunity to enroll because the course maximum was reached due to the enrollment being offered without prerequisite.
That is not "equality of outcome".
Please remain aware that you introduced the topic of "
all students taking the same coursework regardless of ability" into the thread, I did not. It was not among my lists of links in the
OP or in my
response to your
initial questions.
That's "equality of opportunity".
Therein lies the controversy. For students who are unprepared for an AP/honors course, is that class the right "fit", or is it too big to be an appropriate growth opportunity? For students who are prepared but do not get into the class, is the regular curriculum the right "fit", or is it too small to present an opportunity for growth? As "all students taking the same coursework regardless of ability" begins to veer off-topic from this thread's focus on "data collection is used to force equal outcomes", I mentioned in my prior post that the controversy over "all students taking the same coursework regardless of ability" could be read about in other threads.
Unfettered access to AP courses doesn't force outcomes.
When a prerequisite is dropped, that may appear as "unfettered access" to some, but to others it may appear as setting unprepared students up for failure. As previously mentioned, your topic is outside the scope of this particular thread, and other threads have addressed this. You could also feel free to begin a thread of your own on that topic, if you wish.
Your link is fine but people should really look at their state specific education code.
Yes, when posters seek advice on
preparing for an advocacy meeting, checking State laws is at the top of the list.
Differentiation might be a buzzword but teachers seem to have concrete ideas of how it's supposed to be applied. Effectiveness might be questionable but the goal is not "equality of outcomes".
Some may disagree, especially regarding "differentiated task demands."
A lower ceiling might obscure differences at the upper end of the spectrum but it doesn't obscure the lower or middle end of the spectrum.
Correct. This is but one of several tools, and was mentioned in response to your request for an explanation of "appearance of closing gaps."
are you saying that we just now started collecting data for this?
The links in my OP point to government mandates.
Better data and data collection
Some may say that
more is not
better, but that increased government mandated data collection, distribution, and analysis is intrusive, and invasive.
My OP raised awareness of current legislation being contemplated and what concerned individuals could do.
goals - better classroom outcomes for as many kids as possible
I am in favor of growth for all, and I believe that optimal rates of growth may be different for various pupils.
advocating for gifted kids requires so much work and why it's an uphill battle. We're advocating for the allocation of resources away from the many towards the few. And when parents of gifted kids become indifferent to that reality, they make it harder for us to achieve the goals we want.
Good advocacy recognizes the limitations that the other side is working under and structures it's critiques and needs with that in mind. And good advocacy for gifted kids must recognize that school districts have limited budgets and teachers have limited time in the day and yet must still educate all of the non-gifted kids with that budget and those teachers.
Agreed. This is why
grouping students by readiness and ability is often recommended... it is essentially a zero-cost solution.
for a forum dedicated to gifted kids and their needs, I'm surprised that you would make the assumption that I don't have the relevant personal experiences
I made no assumption but responded that your expressed perspective "
Describing "Withholding appropriate growth opportunities" as an attempt to "force equal outcomes" seems a pejorative way to describe that particular issue" typifies that of a person who has not experienced the common pains of gifted pupils with unmet educational needs.
policy makers don't make policy for the rarely encountered.
In the case of education, it is certainly possible to make a policy to teach each child at their level of readiness and ability, whatever that level may be. MAP tests are one example of showing what a child has learned and what would be learned next in sequence. However, optimal growth rate for each individual does NOT batch children by chronological age and then seek to minimize test score gaps among age peers.
The attempt to raise the bottom is not synonymous with an intent to cap the top.
Agreed. Unfortunately, closing gaps does not occur solely by raising the bottom. Closing gaps also occurs by capping the growth of students at the top.
I wish all the best for you and your child. And I invite you to stay on-topic and follow other
board rules for constructive, positive conversation.
