Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments More inclusive "GT" classes in middle/high schools

Oh yes my quote of last week 'we spend a lot of time getting a balance of low,middle and high achievers. It is hard for a teacher to teach a class of low achievers because they have no-one to spark off'. Glad you think gifted kids serve some purpose.

Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at. I keep "using the term" because that is the term used for my daughter's program by everyone, including the school board. A magnet draws students from around the district because of its special qualities. In our case, we have a GT magnet that is a school within a school. You have to have an IQ over 130 to get in, but anyone from the district with that number can apply. Selection is by lottery with preference to students with a sib already at the magnet. I have no idea why the terms gifted and magnet would be mutually exclusive. It's a well-known concept, not an oxymoron. I'm not understanding what you are getting at--sorry.

I have read "Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality", 2nd ed. (2005) by Jeannie Oakes. The first edition of the book was very influential. I think she is misguided and has had a negative effect on American education, but she never says anything like what was asserted above.

I think 22B wrote elsewhere in the thread that gifted or ability grouped classes won't have much benefit if they use the same curriculum as the other classes, and I have seen research supporting this. Even in kindergarten, if some children don't know the alphabet and how to spell their names, and others read fluently, the language arts curriculum should be different for the two groups. But a good multi-year curriculum builds on what was covered in previous years and does not repeat material unnecessarily. If you group children from the beginning and provide different curricula, how do you preserve the ability of children starting in the lower groups to move to a higher group? Do you give exams each September to help sort the students?

I think there should be ability grouping in math and reading, from the beginning, with distinct curricula, but doing so will raise thorny questions.

Ah yes "spark off" appears to be another variation of "sprinkle magic gifted pixie dust". It appears to be another excuse to deny gifted/advanced kids the education they need, so they can languish captive in a regular class providing their pixie dust spark. (Thank you anti-tracking "researchers".) But why can't teachers do their job? Why are students expected to do the teacher's job? Can't the teacher provide a "spark"?

The link provided is a chapter of a book, not research, and while it refers to research it also draws heavily on personal anecdote. A careful read shows apples-and-oranges comparisons.

A bibliography of the cited research is not included, making it difficult to find the actual research upon which assertions are based and determine whether there was cherry-picking of certain data while ignoring other data, conclusions, or known shortcomings.

The authors do not use neutral language but choose a presentation style which may be intended to persuade but shows a slant or bias. This leaves readers to discuss opinions of opinions.

Anyone have a link to a source document (research paper) to share what informed their view on the topic?

Indigo, I'd try Google Scholar. I don't know if you have university library access, however. There are lots of articles about this. I've read them in the past for work. It is, of course, a political subject, as are many education topics.

As I say, I don't necessarily agree with the antitracking POV but I consider it very reasonable to look at the data, and some does seem to show that tracking can create issues. Now, is that the fault of ability grouping as a concept or poorly done ability grouping? That's another question. But I have to have concern for kids who were "tracked" early, are stuck in that track, and could achieve more. What if it were your own child? Some of our 2E kids could easily get "tracked" into a low-achieving group. In fact, it's been discussed here on the board. Parents get up in arms about it because they feel the child is being denied opportunity.

I think part of what needs to be thought about is something GT advocates don't love to think about: ability is not as fixed or as easily determined by a test as we might like. A child might test high as a preschooler due to an enriched environment and struggle later in a high track. A child may test low due to being ESL or 2E but be capable of more. I know some gifted kids who are not motivated and prefer to focus on other things, and some bright-not-gifted kids who are highly motivated and can cope with having a lot asked of them. All these children may be poorly served by a rigid tracking system. In HS, a friend of mine transferred from another district and was put in the "average" track because that's wht my high-achieving school did with new kids. She was gifted in science but it took two years before the school relented and moved her up to AP. That was a waste of her time and ability.

I don't regret having been tracked as a child, but I saw its negative effects as well. If we do track and group, we have to be open to changes in children's skills and abilities. But many parents would fight their child being "demoted" tooth and claw. (FTR, I was demoted in math out of the accelerated track and into "high average." It was likely the right choice, and my parents were dismayed but did not protest.)

I'm asking for the research which informed your view. Can you point us to it?

In addition to the cajoling, there will be preparation. The Russian School of Math, a chain which is growing in the Boston suburbs and around the country, says its students are more likely to be in "top track" math (Advanced Algebra I) in 7th grade. Their math contest preparation programs make it more likely that your child will qualify for inter-school math competitions in middle school. We are hoping that our younger two children, who are bright but not at the level of the eldest child, will be so boosted. I am impressed by how our 3rd-grader daughter is learning algebra at RSM. Chinese-American parents organize weekend schools that include advanced math classes, taught by the many Chinese fathers that are scientists and engineers.

My point is that when you group or track or have academic competitions, afterschools will crop up, catering heavily but not exclusively to the children of immigrant parents. I'll admit that if 1st grade math were tracked based on a test, my wife and I would be preparing our children well in advance for it. Are Americans ready for this level of sorting and attendant competition and after-schooling from an early age? The amount of afterschooling would decline if better curricula were used (our schools use Everyday Math, and I don't expect my children to learn much from it), but it would not go to zero.

I have seen some subject ability grouping going on in our schools and they do test and change groups a couple times a year. They do not tell the parents when they are doing the testing, although they do not hide it either so I guess some parents may prep the kids.

None of the grouping in early elementary is high enough for a HG+ child, but it surely is better for an HG+ child to be in the top group than in a general group with kids of all abilities in terms of less boredom and maybe they are learning a little.

I have inquired about tracking/grouping in middle school years and it sounds like they do it to some extent but was not given a clear answer.

Indigo, I don't have the time to look for the research right now. I read educational/psyc research for work so I read literally hundreds of articles a month and don't recall where I read what. But I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is a ton of research on this.

I don't really have a "view," as I think I said. I see both sides of this argument. However, I think it's important that people know that there is research behind the anti-tracking movement. Good research? That's a worthwhile question, as ever. Why not start here and look at the studies cited? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(education)

I didn't think it was news that people oppose tracking and that there is research to support that, though the topic is obviously controversial.