I'm definitely interested to see how this turns out. I have reservations. From my reading on grouping/tracking, this doesn't sound like the optimal plan. It is good to get the top of the top segregated in self-contained classes. Then the top in their class (maybe that's your 130-140 group). After that, group heterogeneously. The high achievers will rise to the top now that the top of the top is gone. Perhaps you need a class for the lowest kids who would likely have LD issues and need special attention and accommodations. That leaves a good chunk in the middle.
Then there are other questions. What if parent questions placement? Is there a method in place such as portfolio review? What if the child is a poor tester? HOw often will they test? Can a teacher over-ride a test score and recommend class placement?
What test will they be using? Achievement tests? Nonverbal tests such as Naglieri or CoGAT? I think the issue w/ tracking in the past is that with achievement tests, you can get culture bias so you're classes will end up culturally-segregated which most often ends up being segregated by race. If your district is racially homogeneous then you won't have that problem. Then it might be based on economics. If your district is more economically homogeneous then that won't be a problem. I think I read in "Re-forming Gifted Education" that low-SES kids will be hurt on achievement tests for example, by not knowing that a schooner is a type of boat.
What about kids that are 2-4yrs advanced in math but more average in other areas such that they test in the middle of the pack? Will that kid have to suffer through grade level math? What about kids that are 2e?
I think a better system would be subject-based grouping. Have all subjects taught at the same time. Let kids move from teacher to teacher based on where they are in that subject. Kids are tested more than once per year and grouping is fluid.
This will definitely be an interesting experiment and I look forward to reading about how it goes.
