Tracking in the Era of College Prep for All - Gifted Issues Discussion Forum

Below I quote some conclusions from a new study on "skill-based sorting". Heterogenous grouping does not solve the problem revealed by tracking -- that some students do much better than others -- but it does mask the problem for a while (all parents can be told that their children are taking a college prep curriculum), at considerable cost to the best students.

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Sorting%20Brief_0.pdf
Skill-Based Sorting in the Era of College Prep for All:
Costs and Benefits
University of Chicago
March 2014

Average test scores are higher when classes
are sorted by skills due to large benefits for
high-skilled students� learning gains.

Skill-based sorting has different effects on
grades and pass rates than on test scores.

No Long-Term Benefits from Requiring
College-Prep Coursework for All

When classes are sorted by skill level,
low-skilled students are at higher risk
of being in disruptive classrooms.

Students with weak skills relative to classroom
peers need close monitoring and extra support.

Schools should anticipate behavioral problems
in classrooms with low-skilled students and
provide sufficient support to teachers.

Schools should anticipate behavioral problems
in classrooms with low-skilled students and
provide sufficient support to teachers.

To which I want to childishly say, "Duh."

Originally Posted by Bostonian

Schools should anticipate behavioral problems in classrooms with low-skilled students and provide sufficient support to teachers.

Yes. Unfortunately, too often the "good kids" are used as speed bumps placed amongst the misbehavers... as noted by a recent poster here:

Quote

Our son is polite, follows directions and is a very happy kid. He does not cause trouble. His teacher put him at a table with the three kids who have behavioral difficulties. OP

Some may say this practice is detrimental.

Originally Posted by Indigo

This is just really not ok, IMO.

Several years ago, a teacher was using my son as a tutor was baffled when I was angry about it (doubly angry, actually, because they had promised me that he could work on out-of-grade-level math when he had finished his own stuff, and she had him tutoring instead). She told me that she'd "always been taught to use my best students," and that this policy was common among teachers.

She honestly didn't see anything wrong with what she was doing. I suspect that, from her perspective, he knew the material and therefore simply didn't need more instruction, and so asking him to help other students was a good use of his time.

At that point, she simply didn't see that he might need more, especially because he was already doing reading and LA a year ahead.

I've run across so many people who don't even understand why indigo's point above is "wrong," much less Val's.

The answer to "Yes, but what is this highly gifted student getting out of this arrangement" is some bleating response about "learning social skills."

Well, okay-- but what of children who have no deficits in those areas??

"OH, all children need to work on those things."

FULL TIME??

Basically, this means that my PG child should be a-okay being placed in a "NON-ACADEMIC" and "life skills" setting. Unilaterally. Without my consent.

NIiiiiiiice.

Originally Posted by Val

... using my son as a tutor...

Some may say this is OK only if presented to the student as one of several non-punitive options, and the student is given free choice without pressure, coercion, or negative consequence.

While some tout the benefits to the peer tutors such as honing leadership and presentation skills as well as the opportunity to firm up academic skills by teaching... others have compared compulsory peer tutoring to slavery: forced servitude to perform the labor which others reap benefits from and/or are compensated (paid) for.

Quote

"always been taught to use my best students," and that this policy was common among teachers.

USE may be the operative word here. Bold, brazen, disgusting. Morally and ethically bankrupt.

(stepping down from soapbox)

Indeed, HK.

It's right around that time in the meeting that I ask the question, "When does my DD get to learn something?"

Originally Posted by Dude

"When does my DD get to learn something?"

And do they frankly answer: "When she is performing at the bottom of the class."

Originally Posted by article

An alternative approach�skill-based sorting with a uniform curriculum�involves just one of the two components that define tracking: sorting by skill, while not differentiating the curriculum based on students� skills.

Apply this to what is termed "1st grade", with some kids coming in with a skill set indicating "6th grade" level and it is quickly seen that what they describe would not serve those children well. Despite grouping children with similar incoming skill set together, if all students receive the same curriculum, groups of students coming in with a "1st grade" skill set may be expected to gain one year of knowledge after a year, while the groups of students coming in with a "6th grade" skill set have not moved ahead, may have stagnated, or possibly regressed after a year.

I did not find a portion of the article which considered grouping by readiness and ability regardless of age, to keep ALL students learning, acquiring knowledge, and moving forward. This is conspicuous in its absence.

Originally Posted by article

The new Common Core State Standards also attempt to strengthen academic curriculum across
the board, reducing the differences in students� curriculums.

In concert with the first excerpt quoted above, this second excerpt does not seem to present an understanding of Common Core as providing a "floor, not a ceiling." Might the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research and its "thought partners" have this wrong?

Exactly, indigo-- and this is what leads to commentary like that which I received from the "Director" of the "summer gifted program" at a regional university...

basically, once they hit the ceiling, there's no functional difference between those individuals, in the eyes of those evaluating how such students are performing.

"Oh, they are all operating at a high level."

What does that mean??

"Oh, they are all gifted."

"HOW gifted?"

"Well, they are all operating at a high level."

"99th percentile? Or 90th percentile?"

"Oh, we don't really look at that. They're all working at a very high level."

{'bang head here' sign on the wall}

Quote

What does that mean??

Some may say their explanation:
- is mathematically weak,
- seems to presuppose lack of critical thinking skills and/or curiosity on the part of the parent they are speaking with,
- may presume these levels of functionality cannot be known or measured,
- may possibly also reveal that the word "gifted" has been tainted by overuse (no doubt, as planned).

Originally Posted by indigo

Originally Posted by Dude

"When does my DD get to learn something?"

And do they frankly answer: "When she is performing at the bottom of the class."

This is precisely what happened recently with two of my kids and the math teacher I described on another thread. Short summary: she's not a good teacher. At all.

My DD9 is globally HG+. My second son is verbally gifted (he's been IQ tested as part of LD screening), but math doesn't come as easily to him as it does to his sibs. I'd say he's above-average-ish at it.

The school places all its sixth graders in pre-algebra. The book is a disaster; it bundles concepts like single-variable equations and inequalities into a single chapter (chapter 2, no less!). Decent algebra I books need three chapters to cover the content in that single chapter. Etc. The book and teacher are so bad, my DS13 who's very talented mathematically would have probably ended up hating math with a C in this class. You can imagine how my other son has been doing.

No one thought that his very poor grades were a problem except for DH and me. Teacher was blaming DS for not trying hard (2 hours a day was apparently not enough). We complained, mentioned his IEP and LD, and they let us pick our own math book for him (Singapore math for grade 6). The teacher, who's so spiral happy, she assigns work from 2-3 different chapters and 1-2 outside worksheets at once (!) agreed to go through the new book in order and follow its methods. In short, they're bending over backwards to help him. Fine. Thank you.

Not so with DD9. If she was capable of doing harder math, she'd be getting A+++s with garlands on her tests instead of mere As, and she would understand that "The sum of m and 9" is m + 9 and not 9 + m and that writing a sentence explaining how you did each step in a long subtraction problem is a really good idea. In fact, her resistance to "correcting" "wrong" answers like 0.25 = 1/4 is evidence of her lack of understanding (1/4 = 1/4).

Rant off.

In relation to college prep for all, have you seen the video on the common core website - Learn About the Common Core in 3 Minutes? This does not look like the standards are being represented as "a floor, not a ceiling". Some may say this looks lock-step and one-size-fits-all. Here is a brief roundup of links:

Originally Posted by Unofficial transcript - Three-Minute Video Explaining the Common Core State Standards

Like it or not, life is full of measuring sticks, how smart we are, how fast we are, how well we can, you know, compete. But up until now it's been pretty hard to tell how well kids are competing in schools and how well they're going to do when they get out of school. We like to think that our education system does that, but when it comes to learning what they really need to be successful after graduation... is a girl in your neighborhood being taught as much as her friend over in the next one? Is a graduating senior in say St Louis has prepared to get a job as the graduate in Shanghai? Well, it turns out the answer to both of these questions is no, because for years states had been setting different standards for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.

That's making it too hard to know if our kids are really doing well in the whole world and if they can really compete for a job someday. What we really need are clear goals. That's where the common core state standards come in. They're like a total sea change in education: consistent, strong, clear benchmarks for English language arts and math. Here's how it works. You can think of kindergarten through twelfth grade, like a giant staircase. Each step is a skill your child needs to learn before stepping up to the next one, but right now too many kids aren't really confident with like two plus two before they have to move on to two times two. We need more focus on the skills that help them move up the stairs or they can slip up and fall behind. And there's another problem. What if everyone's stairs will made a different height? Well here we go again. They are. So a boy in Seattle who's rocking an A in English literature could be getting a C on his Chicago friend's staircase. Oops.

We need to create consistent steps in education too. So first each standard creates a landing on the staircase. A stop along the way as your child heads toward high school graduation. Each stop is a chance for every parent and teacher to focus on the skills their students are supposed to know at that step, no matter the zip code, language or race. And more importantly, each standard makes sure all students are learning what they need to know to get to graduation and beyond because something like counting to 100 leads to understanding dollars and cents, which eventually leads to understanding how to manage your budget. Secondly, the standards are consistent from school to school and they match up against international standards, too. Now we know how we're doing compared to just about everyone, so even though local communities will still design their own curriculum... with the same rules, everybody can compete on the same kind of stair case. But standards aren't learning. That's why we need teachers, parents and students to help make that happen. By working together to help kids and meet these standards. The world is getting more and more competitive every day, but now when our kids get to the top of their staircase, they can have way more options of where their life goes from there. Clear goals, confident, well prepared students. That's the common core state standards.

NOTE: This vimeo video has been replaced with a different video on the Common Core website. However the original video may still be found by using the Way Back Machine (internet archive) and this Common Core link: http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ Once the archived page from March 14, 2014 loads, click on "video" in the upper right of the archived webpage. (Same video on youtube, here)

1. The video expresses dislike of steps of different heights (1:28-1:32). This seems to cap opportunities for gifted students, not allowing them to advance at a pace appropriate to each as an individual, based on readiness and ability.

2. By contrast we see a child being moved up, not under her own power, but by a giant hand representing the educational system (1:18-1:27)

In a video not related to the Common Core website, Sir Ken Robinson mentions the outdated industrialized model of processing students in batches by their chronological age or date of manufacture. See this at 6:4-7:45 in this youtube video Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Education Paradigms (length 11:40). This approach celebrates diversity by acknowledging and valuing individual differences among students.

Originally Posted by Val

Not so with DD9. If she was capable of doing harder math, she'd be getting A+++s with garlands on her tests instead of mere As, and she would understand that "The sum of m and 9" is m + 9 and not 9 + m and that writing a sentence explaining how you did each step in a long subtraction problem is a really good idea. In fact, her resistance to "correcting" "wrong" answers like 0.25 = 1/4 is evidence of her lack of understanding (1/4 = 1/4).

Holy smokes! That teacher would be triggering my throttling instinct. Your composure is commendable.

Originally Posted by aquinas

Holy smokes! That teacher would be triggering my throttling instinct. Your composure is commendable.

My composure lasted until December or so. I'm pretty much a persona non grata with the administration at this point. The straw that broke the camel's back was last month when I told the principal that I'd visited other private schools and had been told to expect that my kids would have to be remediated in math. This news came from teachers at other schools and parents of former students at our school. He did not like that statement AT ALL.

It is interesting for me, reading this thread, that in NYC's gifted classroom of more HG kids, based on OLSAT, DD was used to help other kids since she finished her math quickly, yet in Toronto, where there is more MG kids, and I thought the curriculum a little slack compared to NYC, she is allowed to log on and do her CTY accelerated math when her class does their 4th grade math. She doesn't have to help anyone here. Makes me appreciate it more.

Glad I found this thread. I am at wit's end. DD attended public school in a strong school district in VA for 2nd - 5th grade...was admitted to a public school IB program and gifted magnet school for middle school, but we moved back to CA before 6th grade. Schools there did a decent job with clustering gifted kids, plus DD was in a math/science academy in her elem school. She is now in 7th grade in our small school district in SoCal (one HS, one middle, 2 elementary school). It is an extremely well funded district - $ is not an issue. High average state test scores. Highly educated parent base. School rated #1 MS in our very large county last year. District's mantra: 'We are just a high functioning district; our average is way above the standard, thus don't need advanced academic classes' is the standard response. These administrators have no idea what the real world holds. 7th grade here is less rigorous than 5th grade on the east coast, per my dd. Teachers routinely rely on high performing students to lead the science labs, for ex. The 'focused' kids are not able to work together in groups (the response 'well, there are always kids who carry the bulk of the work, and nothing would get done if some of these kids were left to their own devices'). My daughter is not PG;she is HG, which means there are plenty of kids like her in the school. That those kids don't get to be together in classes is a disservice to all of them. DD maintains a 100 average or above in every class, takes 0 period extra class and algebra, but nothing else is available in her school. Administration is unwilling to offer independent study for some classes (where she WILL end up being behind due to lack of rigor in classrooms - limited writing, poor implementation of common core standards, etc.). It is so frustrating. Most parents don't complain because 65% of the school gets straight A's, so, their kids aren't complaining, whereas my daughter is so tired of feeling like 'no one cares'. Our family's experience is clear: grouping together kids with similar desires/abilities to learn helped our kids thrive. I won't let my younger kids attend this MS. I am trying to move my daughter out for 8th grade but options are limited. I really didn't appreciate how good we had it in VA in a school district with 40% less funding per student compared to my current district where aside from special programs, advanced academics for LA, science, social studies were available at every middle school. End of rant.