0 members (),
319
guests, and
29
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
While this may seem self-evident, I'm not immediately convinced. The variation in the middle of the bell curve is much smaller than at the edges. The entire cohort in the 25th-75th percentile range may still be substantially at the same point in the curriculum and capable of being taught in a single class effectively. IQ test scores are normed to have standard deviation of 15 or 16. If the deviation scale is comparable to the mental_age/chronological_age scale (which is why a standard deviation of 15 or 16 was chosen), then in a class of 6-year-olds, the +1 SD children have a mental age of 6*1.15 = 6.90 and the -1 SD children have a mental age of 6*0.85 = 5.1. So in 1st grade you have a spread of almost 2 years of mental age between +1 SD and -1 SD children, who are certainly not outliers. The within-school standard deviation of IQ may be less than 15, compressing the range, but OTOH chronological ages vary, causing another source of variation. I don't think dividing children into three groups is overdoing things. Elementary schools commonly have 3 or 4 classes per grade.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
This article touches on a lot of the problems our school system has: “Simply sticking students in courses without preparing them ahead of time for the class does not seem to work as an intervention,” said Chrys Dougherty, the author of the Arkansas and Texas analysis, published last month by the National Center for Educational Achievement, in Austin, which is owned by the test publisher ACT Inc. “It seems to work with adequately prepared students, but not for the most challenged students.” I'm amazed that anyone even needed to do a study to figure that out. How could anyone possibly think that disadvantaged students would succeed in a class that was years beyond their current skill levels ( seven years according to another study cited in this article)? This approach just makes these kids even MORE disadvantaged. I'd skip class, too, if it was that far over my head. His findings are in keeping with a larger body of studies from the 1990s and early 2000s that suggested algebra was, for many students, the primary gateway to advanced-level mathematics and college. The problem was that too many students—particularly those who were poor or members of disadvantaged minority groups—were turned away at the gate, screened out by ability-grouping practices at their schools. This guy makes it sound like the evil schools were deliberately excluding students based on either their family income or their races/ethnic groups as a way of slamming the gates of education squarely in their faces. Sorry, but this is wishful thinking. I'm not trying to deny that prejudicial attitudes and actions exist in this country, but in this case, I have to doubt that there was a systematic and successful large-scale movement to exclude low SES and minority students from algebra as recently as the 2000s. “And there’s no simple solution to this problem,” he added, “because we also know that when tracking is eliminated, students at high levels don’t gain as much as they do in high-level or [Advanced Placement] classes.” He's admitting that placing too many unqualified students into classes that they're not ready for ends up watering down the class and diluting the learning for the kids who belong there --- while still not giving skills to the unqualified kids. Again, forcing disadvantaged students into classes they aren't ready for just makes them MORE disadvantaged by making it even harder for them to catch up. ETA: I agree with 22B. A LOT of this stuff, including algebra-for-all, is about politics and not about what's best for the students.
Last edited by Val; 11/06/14 03:48 PM. Reason: ETA...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
While this may seem self-evident, I'm not immediately convinced. The variation in the middle of the bell curve is much smaller than at the edges. The entire cohort in the 25th-75th percentile range may still be substantially at the same point in the curriculum and capable of being taught in a single class effectively. IQ test scores are normed to have standard deviation of 15 or 16. If the deviation scale is comparable to the mental_age/chronological_age scale (which is why a standard deviation of 15 or 16 was chosen), then in a class of 6-year-olds, the +1 SD children have a mental age of 6*1.15 = 6.90 and the -1 SD children have a mental age of 6*0.85 = 5.1. So in 1st grade you have a spread of almost 2 years of mental age between +1 SD and -1 SD children, who are certainly not outliers. The within-school standard deviation of IQ may be less than 15, compressing the range, but OTOH chronological ages vary, causing another source of variation. I don't think dividing children into three groups is overdoing things. Elementary schools commonly have 3 or 4 classes per grade.Hear, hear. I have also been stunned that anyone could actually believe that simply dropping students into coursework that they are ill-suited to, and even less well-prepared for is somehow an... opportunity for those students. ??? I'm baffled by that sort of thinking. Truly. I'll go even further than Val does, though, and call it what I think it actually is-- magical thinking at its finest. And for the record, there are neither magnets NOR GT schools here. Cheers. What this means in practical terms is that there is no GT in secondary here due to the egalitarian thinking behind algebra-for-all. Here, of course, it's AP-for-all. Which has a lot in common with the term "free-for-all" but that is beside the point, I think.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272 |
Hello Everyone,
Thank you to those of you who have been posting appropriately.
This is the second time the behavior in the forum has resulted in a reminder that we all need to be friendly and courteous to others. If one more complaint is received and this behavior continues the thread will be closed.
I hope everyone has a nice safe rest of their week.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
The problem is that ultramarina made an absolutely false claim that I had made some expression of "opposition" to "gifted magnets". I'm sorry if I misrepresented you. I recall you saying that you did not want your children to be "score pawns" and that you regarded school within-school set-ups (I use this term to avoid the apparently problematic "gifted magnet" term, but I consider them the same--they are not "gifted programs," because we have gifted programs, ie pull-outs, in all schools here, as is common) as a ploy to manipulate statistics. I interpreted this as opposition to gifted magnet schools (and all magnet schools, I assume). You also said the choice to put gifted programs in lower-performing schools was unfortunate. What am I not getting? If this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify. I just spent a very long time, and expended significant thought and effort, typing a very detailed explanation, but it has disappeared. It is unbelievably cruel.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
I have also been stunned that anyone could actually believe that simply dropping students into coursework that they are ill-suited to, and even less well-prepared for is somehow an... opportunity for those students. ??? Sometimes people and children do rise to a higher level based on what is expected of them or how they are treated. Not always, obviously. And here's the thing. There seems to be an unexamined belief that tracking and grouping will be done correctly. Come on now. I've seen plenty of people posting here saying their GT child has been inappropriately placed for reading or math. If this happens to our kids, what happens to less obvious kids? What happens to kids whose parents lack the time, privilege, or willingness to fight? How many people here had their children retested or tested for 2E because the system somehow did not place them where they thought they should land? Do we really believe all those "low" and "middle" kids are appropriately placed? For that matter, I'm not sure about permanent "gifted" placement either. Let me just say once more that I am not some huge detracking advocate. I feel pretty unsure about AP for all, etc. But I also see why it is proposed. I think there has got to be a better way than either of these systems.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
Could someone please explain to me what's going on. I am absolutely stunned.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
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. 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 weird thing was she was talking about 5 to 7 year olds. I understand the problem with 13 year olds but if you can't get enthusiasm from 5 to 7.year olds you need to look within yourself not at other 5 to 7.year olds.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
I would like to add that in a public forum, people will express opinions that some people may not agree with or like. I don't think that we need to "tell on" these people and request censorship of unpopular opinions because some of us don't like them. I don't agree with a lot of opinions here, but I deal with them by refuting them with facts, not suppressing them. IMO, this approach enriches the debate. Squelching debate doesn't.
The problems with our education system are multi-factorial, as are the problems that a lot of students face. Politically motivated decision-making has a negative effect on all students, and stating the facts of how decisions are made is not, in my opinion, racist or worthy of being suppressed. Sometimes we have to face discomfiting facts in order to solve complex problems.
Last edited by Val; 11/06/14 06:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,076 Likes: 6
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,076 Likes: 6 |
Do we really believe all those "low" and "middle" kids are appropriately placed? I can tell you they are not, just based on the students who transfer into our system on IEPs--which is already a slice of the population with more attention and more placement-relevant data than the other 85% (on nation-wide average) or so of students. We have had to re-place numerous students, in either direction, sometimes fairly dramatically. These are not even necessarily complex cases.
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
|
|
|
|
|