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.
Then just don't count the drop outs, that's what has gotten us to this, we actually started to count the kids who used to drop out and punish schools if they do.
Look, there's not one size fits all but, since I taught for 30+ years with both tracking and non-tracking classes, in a school system which allows just about any kid to take AP classes and where Guidance Counselors put non-achievers into advanced classes to see if they'll wake up, I'll take going back to tracking.
There's also a lot more involved. A really fascinating factoid the College Board released a few years ago about SAT scores, and I'd link it if I could find it, is that when SAT scores are broken out by race and socio-economic class that the highest socio-economic class Black students score only a few (around 10 combined) points higher than the White students from the lowest socio-economic class.
You should have seen the emails and releases those of us involved in testing got from them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
This makes sense because in a non tracked system 80% of a teacher's effort goes to the bottom of the class. There are more gains to be made there than there are by working with the top of the class if you just want to look at the average. We need to keep in mind that those top kids are the ones who will lead the country in the future. Favoring someone who probably won't even go to college over them all for the sake of a higher average seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course the bottom does better when we put everyone in the same class because the classes have to be catered to them. We have to push them forward to get the class to go forward.
Gah you guys. After a lifetime of being elitist, I'm trying so very very hard to stop being such an intellectual snob so that my kids don't pick it up from me. You guys are not helping. Of course I agree with you guys when it comes to my kids, and pay through the nose to put them in competitive entry prep school, which is tracking on steroids, but I am really trying to, you know, be a good person or something with it comes to all those other kids.
Which one is better for the country? Raising everyone a little bit, or raising the top by a lot? I don't know. And do I really actually care or am I just trying to care? Do I really for real care about anything other than giving my kids the biggest advantage I can? I'm not sure.
Gah you guys. After a lifetime of being elitist, I'm trying so very very hard to stop being such an intellectual snob so that my kids don't pick it up from me. You guys are not helping. Of course I agree with you guys when it comes to my kids, and pay through the nose to put them in competitive entry prep school, which is tracking on steroids, but I am really trying to, you know, be a good person or something with it comes to all those other kids............
Where exactly will your kids pick up an elitist attitude? And, what's wrong with a bit of that? Up until fairly recently that's who went to college (generally speaking), the smartest and best prepared kids.
Now? Not so much.
I can't find it now (or rather don't want to) but there was a thread recently about someone complaining about tests prospective teachers take to be certified, this was in Texas. The OP was on his/her 5th go around taking the tests and being unable to pass. The OP declared this was a "war on teachers". Along with my opinion that a 5th testing might indicate a different career path I also mentioned that in my 30 years or so I ran into too many teachers without basic knowledge in their subject. That's the reality.
In that 30 years I saw too many kids take the SAT and score sub 700 (combined) on it and still get into college, typically community college, where they spun their wheels for 2 or 3 years taking remedial classes until they finally gave up and were several thousand dollars poorer.
We've gone from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome for many things. You're seeing the results.
Gah you guys. After a lifetime of being elitist, I'm trying so very very hard to stop being such an intellectual snob so that my kids don't pick it up from me. You guys are not helping. Of course I agree with you guys when it comes to my kids, and pay through the nose to put them in competitive entry prep school, which is tracking on steroids, but I am really trying to, you know, be a good person or something with it comes to all those other kids.
Which one is better for the country? Raising everyone a little bit, or raising the top by a lot? I don't know. And do I really actually care or am I just trying to care? Do I really for real care about anything other than giving my kids the biggest advantage I can? I'm not sure.
It's an ongoing process. I've BTDT, as well. You are a good person, or you wouldn't care about these things.
Gah you guys. After a lifetime of being elitist, I'm trying so very very hard to stop being such an intellectual snob so that my kids don't pick it up from me. You guys are not helping. Of course I agree with you guys when it comes to my kids, and pay through the nose to put them in competitive entry prep school, which is tracking on steroids, but I am really trying to, you know, be a good person or something with it comes to all those other kids.
Which one is better for the country? Raising everyone a little bit, or raising the top by a lot? I don't know. And do I really actually care or am I just trying to care? Do I really for real care about anything other than giving my kids the biggest advantage I can? I'm not sure.
If we were raising "everyone" a little this wouldn't be a question. What we are doing is dragging down the top to raise the bottom. The average increases because you can make more gains pulling someone up from the bottom so the losses at the top are more than compensated for, however, our smartest kids are not being educated to the level they could be. They are the ones who will compete with the rest of the world in the future.
Tracking pulls up the top because they can be challenged. It pulls down the bottom because they end up in classes full of kids just like them and the teacher ends up lowering the expectations just to get the kids through the class. In mixed classes we have to push the bottom if anyone is going to be taught anything. The bottom is our Herbie. Herbie is the slow kid. If you figure out how to make Herbie faster the whole group goes faster but no one goes as fast as you could go if you just left Herbie behind. Everyone is tied to Herbie's pace. Most of the effort goes in to getting Herbie to move forward. Little is left for the kids who could have done more and frankly they're tired by the time they do all the things we have to do to get Herbie to move along. My top kids have a concept after reading, a demo and a discussion. My Herbies need some kind of game to play to suck them in and fun activities that get them on their feet. These are just filler activities for the top of the class and they are BORED by the time we finish them.
researchers who have compared gains made by students in different tracks have generally concluded that when ability level, socioeconomic status, and other factors are controlled, high-track assignment accelerates achievement while low-track assignment significantly reduces achievement (Alexander, Cook, & Mc Dill, 1978; Dar & Resh, 1986; Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Gamoran & Mare, 1989; Oakes, 1982; Persell, 1977; Sorensen & Hallinan, 1985). In fact, many researchers and theorists in the sociological tradition maintain that tracking is a principal engine of social inequality in society and that it causes or greatly magnifies differences along lines of class and ethnicity (e.g., Braddock, 1990; Jones, Erickson, & Crowell, 1972;
Schafer & Olexa, 1971; Vanfossen, Jones, & Spade, 1987).
Quote:
One area of research has investigated the quality of instruction offered to students in high- and
low-ability groups, usually concluding that low-ability group classes receive a quality of instruction
that is significantly lower than that received by students in high-track classes (e.g., Evertson, 1982;
Garnoran, 1989; Oakes, 1985; Trimble & Sinclair, 1987). However, it is difficult to compare "quality
of instruction" in high- and low-track classes. For example, teachers typically cover less material in a low-track class (e.g., Oakes, 1985).
Is this an indication of poor quality of instruction or an appropriate pace of instruction? Students in low-track classes are more off-task than those in high-track classes (e.g., Evertson, 1982).
Is this due to the poor behavioral models and low expectations in the low-track classes, or would low achievers be more off-task than high achievers in any grouping arrangement? However, evidence that low-track classes are often taught by less experienced or less qualified teachers or that they manifest other indicators of lower-quality instruction could justify the conclusion that regardless of measurable effects on learning, students in the lower tracks do not receive equal treatment.
Also note:
Quote:
Across the 29 studies listed in Table 1, the effects of ability grouping on student achievement are essentially zero.
So, if tracking does not actually improve the performance of either high or low tracked students, then it would seem that tracking ought to be dismantled.
So, if tracking does not actually improve the performance of either high or low tracked students, then it would seem that tracking ought to be dismantled.
This is totally non PC but there is no equity in ability. Different kids have different abilities. Period. We keep ignoring that fact.
I have no doubt that removing the better abled kids from the classroom hinders those left behind. This is the same effect charter schools have on the kids left in the district. However I am not convinced that we serve our top kids best by using them to pull the other kids up.
I'm watching something rather wonderful this year in one of my physics classes. It's top heavy. As a result I'm letting them run the class. If they want to do an extra experiment we do it. If the discussion goes off on a teachable tangent we go there. I am watching my top kids just bloom. They are engaged, they are learning, they are thinking. My bottom kids are getting exposure to things they never would have thought of but they are not getting the hand holding they're used to. The pacing is ok for the bottom because it's new material that isn't tested that's filling the time for the top. In a typical class what I'd do is have lots of fun activities to suck the bottom in and trick them into engaging. Will my top kids test better? I doubt it. What we're talking about probably isn't on the test but you cannot tell me that they are not learning more than they would have otherwise. Enrichment for the top often involves stuff that never shows up on the tests so you cannot say definitively that tracking doesn't help them. In order to know that you'd have to design tests that include the enrichment material that the upper kids would see in a class to themselves. The conclusion that top kids are not helped by tracking is flawed. However, I agree with the assessment with regard to the bottom kids. That can be seen in the tests because they are being tested on the material they've seen. They lose the better students helping them, learning from watching them and having the focus of the teacher on them because they determine the pacing. The question that needs to be answered here is should we be using our top kids to pull up our bottom kids when doing so denies them an enriched education.
ETA: I'll have to see if I can find it but I read some interesting research on including kids who don't quite make the cut for the top track in the top track. It concluded that they learned more if they were included in with the top kids. Everyone knows the bottom does better in a non tracked class because everyone is focusing on them to move them forward because they are holding up the class. IMO teaching has it's own 80/20 rule. 80% of our effort goes to the bottom 20% of our kids. That's where the most gains can be seen and that average has to keep going up if we don't want to lose our jobs and our funding. IMO a better way to assess the effectiveness of education would be to track each child year over year and take an average of their improvement. We have the data and the computing power to do this.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-07-2016 at 06:57 AM..
I'm watching something rather wonderful this year in one of my physics classes. It's top heavy. As a result I'm letting them run the class. If they want to do an extra experiment we do it. If the discussion goes off on a teachable tangent we go there...
Physics, not physical science, so we're talking older students?
Regarding tracking, don't you guys think that honors and AP classes provide adequate tracking for our more capable HS kids?
Physics, not physical science, so we're talking older students?
Regarding tracking, don't you guys think that honors and AP classes provide adequate tracking for our more capable HS kids?
I'm in Michigan. Physics or chemistry is required for graduation. Here we "raised the bar" by requiring all kids take higher level classes. Algebra II is also required for graduation. Being older isn't the issue. It's ability. My younger students are actually the better performers. They're fast tracked and taking classes earlier than their peers.
WRT AP and tracking: Not really. I teach geometry and physical science. I can tell you that the top is BORED in both classes. I could teach them to greater depth and challenge them if they were by themselves. I can't in a room where half the class is barely keeping up. So we cut material that's not on the state tests and REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT in different ways to pull that bottom up and then cut out the application of what they just learned because we're running out of time. What people don't realize about test results is that the state only cares about the percent passing. Once you reach that passing score scoring higher doesn't impact the school's score. They often report percent highly proficient but that score isn't one the government uses to evaluate teachers and schools. It's the percent proficient. So once a child is proficient there's no bang for your buck. You move on to the next child who isn't proficient.
I'm sure this applies to any math class until you're past the ones that are required for graduation. After that you're only dealing with the top kids. In chemistry I have to dummy it down so the bottom can pass. That doesn't impact the state tests because the material I cut isn't on the test. It's the deeper material the state doesn't care about.
One, while Piaget is theory "based on observations of one man" those observations have been reaffirmed by nearly 100 years of observation by others. Those observations are the why that Math education in the US was set up the way it was.
What Common Core does is shove everything down about two grade levels, so it's not "behind" but ahead. Pre-Algebra is now, under Common Core, being introduced not around 6th/7th grade but 4th and in some school systems 3rd grade.
One, while Piaget is theory "based on observations of one man" those observations have been reaffirmed by nearly 100 years of observation by others. Those observations are the why that Math education in the US was set up the way it was. Which, by the way, is what you described as the ideal progression and is what is outlined in another link I posted a bit later.
What Common Core does is shove everything down about two grade levels, so it's not "behind" but ahead. Pre-Algebra is now, under Common Core, being introduced not around 6th/7th grade but 4th and in some school systems 3rd grade.
The push down is a problem. Far better to teach kids what they are ready to learn to depth. My district is pushing more and more kids ahead in math and often we're finding they are struggling as they enter high school and don't know their math any better than their older peers. They're attaining the same level of mediocrity at a faster pace. We're finding we have to do even more review of algebra in geometry and algebra II which leaves less time for our content.
I don't have a problem with the introduction of algebra concepts in 6th/7th grade. Programs like Singapore math successfully introduce algebra in even earlier grades. Introductions are one thing. Pushing the entire class down is another. That's the trend in my district. Algebra I used to be the entry level math class for high school. Now it's geometry. In just a couple of years it will be Algebra II as we're pushing algebra I to 7th grade and geometry to 8th. I wish I could say kids actually know their math better but they don't. It'll be interesting to see where this stops.
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.
We're finding we have to do even more review of algebra in geometry and algebra II which leaves less time for our content. 
