tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post2087859189150440496..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Another Nail in the Coffin of the Savage Inequalities MemeKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-21946125203337388102007-05-10T22:25:00.000-04:002007-05-10T22:25:00.000-04:00"To often gifted programs totally ignore accelerat..."To often gifted programs totally ignore acceleration for enrichment."<BR/><BR/>I've seen cases where parents fight for a gifted program but end up with enrichment. They think they've won, but they haven't. Pull-out usually means enrichment. Differentiated instruction means enrichment. Tracking usually means acceleration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-77444595751561533012007-05-10T17:18:00.000-04:002007-05-10T17:18:00.000-04:00"halycon days"I was hardly painting a rosy picture..."halycon days"<BR/><BR/>I was hardly painting a rosy picture of education in the 60s. However, you either passed or you did not, and if you did not, you repeated the grade. It was that simple.<BR/><BR/>That was my point.rightwingprofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419372059353408855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-46074516299841182512007-05-10T13:36:00.000-04:002007-05-10T13:36:00.000-04:00"My problem with TAG/GATE programs (like tmao's co..."My problem with TAG/GATE programs (like tmao's comments) is that they are using the "special needs" angle of the top end kids to get ability grouping, without dealing with the ability grouping needs of all."<BR/><BR/>Actually, one of my biggest complaints is exactly the opposite. To often gifted programs totally ignore acceleration for enrichment. My 1st grade daughter could do the silly projects in my sons 3rd grade pullout gifted class.TurbineGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781298806992944235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-43931967120152910632007-05-10T10:35:00.000-04:002007-05-10T10:35:00.000-04:00Sorry, parents can be idiots. You took my quote o...Sorry, parents can be idiots. You took my quote out of context - if they don't want to do what is best for their child, then they are idiots. On dictionary.com: "uneducated or ignorant person," from L. idiota"<BR/><BR/>So I feel confident to say that, yes, parents are idiots if they argue with ability grouping if the child needs it.<BR/><BR/>I am a parent, not a teacher. I admit I have seen some idiot parents who deny their child has a disability which then keeps the child from receiving needed services. They are idiots (ignorant) due to denial. Others might be idiots (ignorant) because they hold their average child up as brilliant.<BR/><BR/>I'm as hard on parents as I am on teachers. We all need to expect more of ourselves and be honest.harriska2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17226608221340271931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-85948098149010035012007-05-10T09:32:00.000-04:002007-05-10T09:32:00.000-04:00The gifted may (or may not - I don't like how they...The gifted may (or may not - I don't like how they are so casually tossed aside.) get by, but there is a huge gap until you get to those in the "low group". This is not a zero-sum tradeoff. I really dislike it when people pit one group against another. It doesn't have to be that way. This is not a money issue.<BR/><BR/>RWP was talking about the specific problem of ability grouping versus grade-level standards. The question is whether ability grouping is being used to ignore the problem of social promotion. If social promotion is eliminated, will the need for ability grouping go away, at least until 7th or 8th grade?<BR/><BR/>My view is that there are a couple of problems here. One is social promotion and grade-level standards. More social promotion creates a bigger need for ability grouping in the lower grades for all students. Whether the problem is genetic or motivational, the results are the same.<BR/><BR/>Second is the desire to have kids of all learning abilities taught in one environment. In the old days, all of the low end students were shipped off elsewhere. Out of sight - out of mind. No problem, right? The modern goal of inclusion is great, except when schools feel that inclusion means tracking by age in the same classroom, rather than just the same environment or school.<BR/><BR/>The problem I see at our public schools is that even though there is now a much wider range of abilities in the classroom, they don't want to separate the kids by ability. This requires a redefinition of grade-level expectations and spawns desperate solutions like differentiated instruction. It also inspires spiraling curricula that pedagogically allow kids to move ahead to the next grade because they will see the material again. (social promotion becomes pedagogical promotion) All of this requires lower or fuzzier expectations of content knowledge and mastery. NCLB is an attempt to stop this trend by setting minimal expectations. Unfortunately, these minimal standards become maximum goals.<BR/><BR/>The modern goal of full-inclusion is forcing the debate about ability-grouping into the lower grades. The problem is not money. It has to do with separating kids by ability or willingness to work and setting specific grade-level standards.<BR/><BR/>My problem with TAG/GATE programs (like tmao's comments) is that they are using the "special needs" angle of the top end kids to get ability grouping, without dealing with the ability grouping needs of all. All kids have "special needs" and the problem has to be solved for all and not just for one group.<BR/><BR/>Full-inclusion is a nice goal, but it can't be solved by differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Social promotion makes the problem worse. You have to have ability grouping. The question is how should this be done for the benefit of all; not just one segment of the population.<BR/><BR/>By the way, one could still argue that no social promotion and specific grade-level standards would do the trick. Grades become ability groups, not age groups.<BR/><BR/>"The only [thing] worse than not having high standards, is applying high standards without the necessary support to accomplish those goals."<BR/><BR/>What kind of support are you talking about? From the schools to the teachers? From the district to the schools? From the government to the districts? From the parents? From society? You have to be more specific here because one might interpret this as a cop-out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-8893889253314194432007-05-10T08:44:00.000-04:002007-05-10T08:44:00.000-04:00Rory,You may be right, but I don't know. Logically...Rory,<BR/><BR/>You may be right, but I don't know. Logically that makes sense, but then I think about how much crime costs -- investigation, prosecution, incarceration -- and then I look at all the correlational data between high school graduation and incarceration. When kids don't achieve in school, they no longer go off to their merry jobs at the steel mill, earn a living wage, and provide for their families; they tend to become criminals.Kilian Betlachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11626393961559999435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-79205670075131214342007-05-10T07:03:00.000-04:002007-05-10T07:03:00.000-04:00"The true value of ability grouping is not in its ..."The true value of ability grouping is not in its use with high-achieving students, but rather with low-achieving. With all due respect to the frustrated parents of the "gifted and talented," I'm not worried about your kid. There's bigger fish to fry."<BR/><BR/>TMAO, I am going to disagree with one point and agree with one point.<BR/><BR/>I agree that ability grouping would be most beneficial with struggling students, because high ability students will usually find a way on their own to thrive.<BR/><BR/>The upside is that its a win win situation for all kids.<BR/><BR/>The only point I would disgree on is the bigger fish point: The biggest economic returns from education are going to be from the above average students.TurbineGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781298806992944235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-76930435857612443432007-05-09T23:19:00.000-04:002007-05-09T23:19:00.000-04:00The true value of ability grouping is not in its u...The true value of ability grouping is not in its use with high-achieving students, but rather with low-achieving. With all due respect to the frustrated parents of the "gifted and talented," I'm not worried about your kid. There's bigger fish to fry.<BR/><BR/>All too often, ability grouping is used to provide greater opportunity for those high kids. We find the greatest range of instruction above grade level, while everyone else gets dumped in the "low" group, without thought or plan for remediating and addressing the factors that caused those kids to get there in the first place. Ability grouping needs to be used to lower the range of required differentiation, such that powerful, targeted instruction can be delivered to students in greatest need. The greatest level of academic need, as well as the greatest diversity of required instruction, occurs at these lower levels, and among the various ELL levels.<BR/><BR/>RWP's suggestion, while invoking the halycon days where gas was cheap, marriages happy, and all kids learned all the time, is insufficent to deal with SpEd students, ELL kids, and the stark sad reality of schools where teachers don't teach and leaders don't lead. The only worse than not having high standards, is applying high standards without the necessary support to accomplish those goals.Kilian Betlachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11626393961559999435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-48603230042592610312007-05-09T20:59:00.000-04:002007-05-09T20:59:00.000-04:00Wickelgren had a whole scheme for accelerating kid...Wickelgren had a whole scheme for accelerating kids without doing fancy ability grouping inside grades.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if I can find the old posting.<BR/><BR/>He had kids simply move ahead a year in math.Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-49645463029373953322007-05-09T20:20:00.000-04:002007-05-09T20:20:00.000-04:00I'll post Part 2 of La Salle High School over at k...I'll post Part 2 of La Salle High School over at ktm.<BR/><BR/>This is apparently one of the best high schools in the country, and parents have an override on high school placements.Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-1958149639263176512007-05-09T20:19:00.000-04:002007-05-09T20:19:00.000-04:00Seriously, though, it is a bad attitude.I've spent...Seriously, though, it is a bad attitude.<BR/><BR/>I've spent -- oh, 15 years or so now having educators tell me I'm crazy.<BR/><BR/>In the beginning, I was crazy.<BR/><BR/>I was in a state of terror and anticipatory grief, and I couldn't bear to have a professional tell me my child was autistic.<BR/><BR/>I was in denial, though denial can't possibly capture what it's like to be hanging on for dear life by denying the obvious.<BR/><BR/>Professionals who know what they're about can deal with this.<BR/><BR/>We took Jimmy to a speech therapist who, seeing that I wasn't going to be able to cope with the word "autism" at that point, went to work and skipped the word.<BR/><BR/>Especially with a very disabled child, but in fact with all children, parents are IT. They are the child's bulwark against the world, the child's advocates, the child's fierce protector.<BR/><BR/>They do what they need to do.<BR/><BR/>That may not track with what teachers and therapists think they ought to do, but <I>tant pis</I>.Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-16188998893498658132007-05-09T20:15:00.000-04:002007-05-09T20:15:00.000-04:00"Parents are idiots" is an extremely bad attitude...."Parents are idiots" is an extremely bad attitude.<BR/><BR/>I thought we had established that.<BR/><BR/>hmmphCatherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-47328859594566423952007-05-09T16:26:00.000-04:002007-05-09T16:26:00.000-04:00"If schools went back to actual standards and stop..."If schools went back to actual standards and stopped promoting students who should be held back, wouldn't we have ability grouping without spending millions of dollars on worthless studies? "<BR/><BR/>When I was growing up, kids really, really feared being held back. Even summer school was torture and a black mark on your reputation. It was a great motivator. (good or bad) There was no separation until 7th grade, which was in preparation for full tracking in high school.<BR/><BR/>Then came mainstreaming and then full-inclusion and some funny ideas about social promotion. Kids were supposed to magically become self-motivated learners, all in a very mixed ability classroom, and mixed ability learning groups. Expectations and standards evaporated.<BR/><BR/>Now that parents are demanding more, schools don't want to go back to the original "one size fits all, flunk or pass" philosophy, so some are adding ability grouping in the lower grades. At my niece's public school in Michigan, they start allowing kids to "move up" for certain subjects starting in 4th grade. This says nothing about the curriculum or expectations, but this might work for some kids. I would have to see the details. In her case, it's a full year jump up, so this may be difficult for many kids.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Isn't the problem that we have students with 3rd grade knowledge in 7th grade classes?"<BR/><BR/>This could still happen with with separation by ability. Schools either need to flunk the kids or separate them by results (perhaps this is better than saying ability). I'm not sure how social promotion got so big in this country. Perhaps someone has a link to more information. I have never seen any sort of rational justification for it. It seems like it does more damage (over the long term) to the kids they think they are helping. It definitely hurts the kids who can move at a faster pace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-66830250703533606822007-05-09T16:05:00.000-04:002007-05-09T16:05:00.000-04:00RightWing,The problem with just sticking to grade ...RightWing,<BR/><BR/>The problem with just sticking to grade levels is that it limits the highest ability group to achieving at an average level. I agree that students not on grade level shouldn't be promoted, but how about the top 10% or so of bright kids who are capable of moving much faster through the system.<BR/><BR/>Also, lets say a student arrives in 3rd grade a year late because he needed two years in 2nd grade to get up to grade level. Because he is slower, by the end of the school year he will still be behind the average and faster moving students.<BR/><BR/>Implementing ability grouping for each subject will take an adjustment, but as I understand it, DI schools do it.<BR/><BR/>I would of guessed that large schools would of been easier to implement an ability grouping program. Theoretically you would need at least 3 teachers in any grade level, one to cover each group at any given time in any given subject.TurbineGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781298806992944235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-10825695554069320492007-05-09T15:42:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:42:00.000-04:00"Educators should only be concerned about ability ..."Educators should only be concerned about ability in each specific skill, so that then can adequately place them in an appropriate class/group in that particular subjects."<BR/><BR/>When you toss in "each specific skill," you enter an organizational and administrative nightmare (been there, done that, it was my idea, and I apologized profusely for it for years). And when we did it, it was a dismal failure in only one program. Each grade level in each school is going to be just like that program. You can only make this work well in very small schools, and then, you don't have the variance in skills to justify it.<BR/><BR/>But if I may ask a question--and forgive me if I'm being naive here--but there's a great deal of talk about grouping by ability. If schools went back to actual standards and stopped promoting students who should be held back, wouldn't we have ability grouping without spending millions of dollars on worthless studies? I mean, isn't that what "1st grade" as opposed to "5th grade" is? Isn't the problem that we have students with 3rd grade knowledge in 7th grade classes?<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but the election is coming up, and like many here, I'm more than disgusted with wasting money on education.rightwingprofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419372059353408855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-244017577976797462007-05-07T09:54:00.000-04:002007-05-07T09:54:00.000-04:00From what I understand, ability grouping takes int...From what I understand, ability grouping takes into consideration pacing and starting point. With tracking you get completely different texts, etc. With ability grouping it is the same texts. Also, you are not supposed to put kids into an ability group more than one grade ahead or behind, at least according to the Intro to DI book.harriska2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17226608221340271931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-34431294713927218022007-05-07T09:37:00.000-04:002007-05-07T09:37:00.000-04:00It occurred to me that most people equate ability ...It occurred to me that most people equate ability grouping, with levels of difficulty, but it shouldn't be like that.<BR/><BR/>Every group should be taught to mastery, it would just take some groups more work and time to achieve it.<BR/><BR/>Under mastery teaching, even parents who had kids in a slower group could be assured that their children were learning the same things, and to the same degree (relatively) of competence.TurbineGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781298806992944235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-68900838757403256822007-05-06T10:42:00.000-04:002007-05-06T10:42:00.000-04:00Sad, as I'm one of the parents [an idiot]. But on...Sad, as I'm one of the parents [an idiot]. But one thing that perturbs me is that parents are sometimes in denial. This keeps the child from getting what they need in order to catch up.harriska2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17226608221340271931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-45395759839115372112007-05-06T00:31:00.000-04:002007-05-06T00:31:00.000-04:00"Then they [the parents] are idiots?"Most of the e..."Then they [the parents] are idiots?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Most of the edu-bloggers would fully with this statement.<BR/><BR/>While it's a bit over-broad, I don't really disagree with it either.CrypticLifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05313033952671292402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-22827560875214791842007-05-05T21:10:00.000-04:002007-05-05T21:10:00.000-04:00I am sure the parents would reconsider after a few...<I>I am sure the parents would reconsider after a few F's.</I><BR/><BR/>You'd be amazed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-15665691692176828042007-05-05T18:19:00.000-04:002007-05-05T18:19:00.000-04:00As know you, I teach an ability based group this y...As know you, I teach an ability based group this year. I have a second language learner who has gotten A's all year because he is in the appropriate placement. Mom, however, seems to think that the class is too easy. However, based on his work habits and REACH assessments, he will be able to move out of the REACH program (yay!) when he starts school next year as a 7th grader.<BR/><BR/>Otoh, I have other students who are failing, even though they are also appropriately placed, because of other issues that as a classroom teacher I am ill-prepared to deal with. The good news for them is that they will not be allowed to move out of their current placement until they show proficiency (based on their work and assessments from the REACH program).ms-teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800541997565774872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-34437573270791576402007-05-05T16:28:00.000-04:002007-05-05T16:28:00.000-04:00"And if a parent objects, either rightly or wrongl..."And if a parent objects, either rightly or wrongly, what then?"<BR/><BR/>Personally, if it was up to me, every school would have ability grouping that moved along at a preset pace. If parents decided to put their kids in a group that was above the students ability, I am sure the parents would reconsider after a few F's.TurbineGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781298806992944235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-37904828535451044452007-05-05T13:40:00.000-04:002007-05-05T13:40:00.000-04:00Then they [the parents] are idiots? I wouldn't ex...Then they [the parents] are idiots? I wouldn't expect parents to know or understand grouping, curriculum, or the fact that it is the educators job to try to CATCH UP the kids.harriska2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17226608221340271931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-40413899486116373272007-05-04T21:57:00.000-04:002007-05-04T21:57:00.000-04:00Educators should only be concerned about ability i...<I>Educators should only be concerned about ability in each specific skill, so that then can adequately place them in an appropriate class/group in that particular subjects.</I><BR/><BR/>And if a parent objects, either rightly or wrongly, what then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-20922491653722754132007-05-04T11:55:00.000-04:002007-05-04T11:55:00.000-04:00Bottom line... the IQ gap exists. People can deba...Bottom line... the IQ gap exists. People can debate about its causes all day, but on the frontlines of the classrooms and the schools, it doesn't matter whether it is caused by genetics, enviroment, or little green martians with ray guns.<BR/><BR/>Education is about doing two things, maximizing their achievement and as many D.I. advocates would argue, ensuring all kids achieve at a certain minimum standard.<BR/><BR/>The IQ gap has no place in schools because it is only a composite (though highly correlated on a large scale), of several different abilities.<BR/><BR/>Educators should only be concerned about ability in each specific skill, so that then can adequately place them in an appropriate class/group in that particular subjects.TurbineGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781298806992944235noreply@blogger.com