Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this world of globalization, we talk about how our kids can compete effectively with those from other countries...yet we then proceed to handicap them with our current K-12 public education system.
Just my thoughts, but I think your three posts have captured very well the problem with our current system. (won't copy all the quotes to save space)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mingna
...
I think any general policy trying to encompass the education of a general student population, with widely varying educational needs (in the context of education by public school, home is another topic), needs to address how to best educate the "mean" within each broad group (higher ability, average, lower ability), while minimizing neglect of the "extremes" - those at the tail ends. There will always be those who, by sheer innate personality, talents and intellect, be able to succeed academically regardless of any impediments in their way. But I would consider them outliers.
...
Ultimately, the students - of all groups - are left insufficiently fed, and still hungry for more.
The question in my mind is are there really "tails" such as a normal curve or is the curve really multi modal. It might be the tails actually hold larger groups than a normal curve would supply; that there are clusters of groupings. Perhaps lkb with the analytics he has might have an indication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I am not sure what you mean by this or why you think it's true. I am in charge of most of the "big data" at my schools and we are not making "educated guesses" when it comes to placement. Just one example: student scores on the AP physics exam senior year are very strongly correlated with the midterm exam score from their Junior physics midterm (the correlation is not as strong for the final). The r value is over 0.9 and p was less than 0.05. That means it is statistically significantly capable of being a great predictor of how they will do in the more advanced class. And there are other less obvious predictors. One of the best predictors for picking which level of senior thesis they will succeed at is actually their sophomore English grades from the third marking period. This is when they complete heir major research literature paper and it corresponds well to their final grade in their science thesis paper. .
I doubt there are many schools that have that level of analytics on the student population. Or that have the number of offerings (junior physics, senior AP physics, etc) to where the predictive value would there. Though I would suspect self selection would mean that students who do well in junior physics are more likely to take senior AP. And I do agree about the importance of English. Students and STEM teachers are often surprised when I speak to classes that I tell them one of the most important classes is English. Most STEM students tend to neglect English as secondary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
Mingna,
I'm referring back to your last post.
What has happened over the last almost 20 years now since the adoption of NCLB (which I maintain was a good concept but was wrecked by the implementation) is that many school systems spend 80% of their time and resources trying to raise the bottom 20% of students. What made that poisonous is that the increase in those scores, and in small schools one or two kids can wreck your numbers, was how schools and now teachers are evaluated and determined to be successful or not.
....
I very much agree with you on everything you said here.
I doubt there are many schools that have that level of analytics on the student population. Or that have the number of offerings (junior physics, senior AP physics, etc) to where the predictive value would there. Though I would suspect self selection would mean that students who do well in junior physics are more likely to take senior AP. And I do agree about the importance of English. Students and STEM teachers are often surprised when I speak to classes that I tell them one of the most important classes is English. Most STEM students tend to neglect English as secondary.
Given the surge of data driven decision making for the 8 years many districts have incorporated big data in their decision making processes. Many teachers struggle individually with these stats skills as they are not typically part of teacher training programs in the past, but I know multiple districts just in my local area who have admins or others trained specifically to handle data.
As for self-selection, kids in my district, and many in this area, only take AP physics or other related classes by recommendation.
Finally, English, I think it is of note that it was specifically one marking period in sophomore English. It is an over generalization to say English classes are important in STEM. It has been my experience that the majority of English classes and curricula do not teach much that is directly applicable in STEM. For the most part that isn't an issue, but even at our school our students aren't learning any technical writing skills until they get in our classes. For out thesis classes we used to do a cross curricular assessment with the English teachers in our school. Like it or lump it, passive voice/third persion is a skill science students need to learn, at least for the foreseeable future. Our english teachers, through no fault of their own, were constantly telling student to rewrite in the active voice and converting citations to MLA/APA instead of CBE or Chicago. But I do think all students, STEM and otherwise, would do to learn some technical writing skills especially for STEM audiences.
In this world of globalization, we talk about how our kids can compete effectively with those from other countries...yet we then proceed to handicap them with our current K-12 public education system.
I'd give you 10,000 rep points if I could. I could only give you one.
I couldn't agree more. We are competing with other countries that TRACK their star performers yet we insist on giving everyone the same mediocre education.
Call it what you will, there is established research (i.e. Kulik and Kulik) that strongly suggests that ability grouping, including acceleration and enrichment, is generally a preferable classroom arrangement for advanced students than heterogeneous settings. I have a hard time supporting any policy that forces advanced students into a setting that is not in their best interest, which I believe has unfortunately been the trend in recent decades.
What are your thoughts on students who are not of advanced skill?
And I do agree about the importance of English. Students and STEM teachers are often surprised when I speak to classes that I tell them one of the most important classes is English. Most STEM students tend to neglect English as secondary.
This is my experience also.
Which, ultimately, on a personal level, is fine with me, as it's resulted in me getting paid to write things others can't. So, good deal for me.
On a non-self-interested level, I feel that minimizing of literacy and writing skills that is prevalent in some camps is awfully foolhardy.
What are your thoughts on students who are not of advanced skill?
Tracking by abilities. Starting at the elementary level, where the foundations of learning are laid (especially in math).
If we brought back tracking by abilities level starting in elementary school, both the average group and the power ability group would also benefit, if the curricula is designed to maximize each group's learning potential. Because the mean for each group's learning potential threshold will differ, their particular curriculum will be able to be tailored more specifically to their needs, rather than this bits and bobs, here and there, learning the kids of all groups subjected to in a mixed-ability, heterogeneous class room. Entry and exit from each group can be kept fluid to adjust to each kids learning development by end of year testing and assessment. This would capture late bloomers or incorrectly tracked kids, and allow for maximizing the benefit to cost ratio.
As far as providing kids with secondary, life skills learning opportunities, kids can be mixed during activities such as recess, lunch and clubs. As I and many other parents have observed, kids will befriend whoever they want, regardless of our input, other than acting as their play date scheduling secretaries and chauffeurs. Some of my kids' closest friends are kids they never had classes with, and now some who don't even attend the same school. They all vary in academic abilities level, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, etc.
One example of secondary life skills, independent of tracking, during my elementary school years stands out: The 5th graders were given an opportunity of acting as crossing guards of the day for the little kindergartners, whose day ended around noon. Kids volunteered and selection varied daily to provide access for all who wanted it. This provided the older 'big kids' with a sense of responsibility for the care of the 'little kids', while simultaneously imbuing the 5th grader with a sense of pride and duty for being given such a grown up responsibility, as well as becoming a contributing member of their society. I remember leaving mid-way through social studies to don the crossing guard vest, then walking the pack of 'babies' for what seemed like a very long distance, before lowering the flag so that they can all cross. I felt so important. Pretty neat experience and one I think wish my kids had the chance to experience.
Call it what you will, there is established research (i.e. Kulik and Kulik) that strongly suggests that ability grouping, including acceleration and enrichment, is generally a preferable classroom arrangement for advanced students than heterogeneous settings. I have a hard time supporting any policy that forces advanced students into a setting that is not in their best interest, which I believe has unfortunately been the trend in recent decades.
It was called 'enrichment' in my elementary school. I believe it covered both kids that would be labeled today 'G/T' as well as the high ability kids (those who would have just missed the standardized test score criteria). I think if one had to group kids into 3 broad groups due to budgeting constraints, it was a good arrangement/compromise that allowed for both groups to best learn in a class room setting.
What are your thoughts on students who are not of advanced skill?
Not directed at me but I am going to butt in.
All kids of all abilities deserve programs that not only meet their needs but their interests too. The state I live in has over 600 school districts, some in tiny, tiny towns. I would like to see county wide programs, for kids of all abilities can enter themed programs of all types; performing arts, communications, stem, the trades (which need to stop being treated as a stigma), language immersion, traditional college prep, and hopefully many others. Sharing services make it economically feasible, and kids who have a say in which program they choose have more buy in and less disenfranchisement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of my kids' closest friends are kids they never had classes with, and now some who don't even attend the same school. They all vary in academic abilities level, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, etc.
