Grouped by achievement test scores, then, right?
Since not all GT kids are high achievers, this isn't going to be my personally preferred method. And it sort of depends on what they do with the kids once they have them grouped. If they all take the same curriculum at the same speed, it makes virtually no difference. If they use these tracks to give the more capable kids a greater challenge and give the kids who need more help the time and attention they need, then it could be a step in the right direction, at least. But I'm wary.
If I'm reading Karen Rogers' original metastudy correctly, "Enriched classes ability grouped" gives a GT child .33 of a year gain over a GT child not ability grouped. (In other words, the child in this situation makes and additional .33 of a year's progress, which is a positive and statistically relevant correlation.) "Separate classes for GT" also gains .33.
I thought she compared ability vs. achievement grouping, and my memory (faulty!) held that abiilty grouping was better than achievement grouping. But I don't see achievement grouping in the original report. Can anyone help? Here's the link I'm using:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9102/rbdm9102.pdf (The table is on page 12 of the .pdf file.)
BTW, I don't have online access to Rogers' updated numbers from 1990/1-now that have just been released, but we got a preview at the DYS Summit, and my notes (also faulty, though less so than my memory) says that the 1990/1-now metastudy shows that clustering kids by IQ gained .59, whereas clustering by performance gained .44.
So I guess I'd say that tracking makes me nervous--I'd prefer more flexible grouping with the ability to shuffle individuals around as needed to ensure that underperforming GT kids don't get missed and the hard workers who aren't as GT don't wind up killing themselves to keep up. I'd probably also prefer *ability* grouping instead of achievement grouping. I'd also want to know what they plan to do with the kids once they're tracked.
But with that said, I think there are worse things than trying to ensure a peer group for kids. I just hope this doesn't fall flat and become evidence for why grouping can't work. I'm not sure this attempt is a fair trial.
I'm surprised any school is doing this. Tracking went out of vogue some 20-30 years ago and gets a terrible rap now. The tracking bashing has even slopped over onto the much more preferable and useful grouping of kids. I'm surprised.
Oh, and I'd also want to know how they're handling LDs. 2E kids could get really hosed in this sort of scenario.
