Firstly, (or should I say lastly?) I would say that I’ve never written in a genre like this before, which is a bit weird. It sorta brings out a cut-throat side of me, which may or may not be a good thing. I definitely think this genre lends itself to a critical pedagogy, and I can see using it in a classroom so students will learn how to look at the way different writers and politicians present their sides of an issue.
I also learned about Google Reader through this assignment (oh my goodness, I almost put “threw” right there!), which was eye-opening. I started out using the reader just to find articles on tracking, but now it also has a couple of my favorite blogs, too. It’s actually a pretty cool application, and will probably come in handy for future research projects and the like (not to mention getting day-to-day information).
My main topic for this blog was tracking in high schools. I was able to look at the issue from different sides and got input from scientific sources as well as educational sources (okay, I hope they all were educational, but you know what I mean!). I think that in the nation today, tracking already gets a pretty bad rap. People are more eager to move away from tracking and find alternative ways of meetings students’ needs, but there are still problems out there, to be sure. We definitely need more teachers with the dedication and innovation needed to deal with students of multiple capabilities in the same classroom…it just takes a little more work.
All in all, this first blogging experience of mine was pretty cool. I don’t know whether I’ll keep on with blogging myself, but I am glad I learned about the RSS function and I’ll probably be using Google Reader for awhile. Blogging is an interesting genre which brings out a unique type of writer, and I’d be interested to see what future students might do with it.
I LOVE giving my posts titles that don’t say anything, don’t you?
Seriously, though, researchers from Britain, the U.S., and Canada performed a study determining that a child’s behavior in Kindergarten is not as reliable a predictor of future schooling success as more academic factors.
The study looked at “three key elements of school readiness–school-entry academic, attention, and socioemotional skills.” Until I glossed over the study, I had no idea that such a thing as socioemotional skill, and I definitely wouldn’t have thought anything could possibly compete with academics for predicting future academic achievement. Oh well, nobody’s perfect.
Says Debra Viadero of Education Week:
“All other factors being equal, the study found, the most important predictors of later academic success are the math and early reading skills that children bring with them when they start school.”
Well, yeah. I could have come up with that on a much cheaper budget. The study’s results are somewhat telling, though. The school system’s critics often bash educators for content vacuity in the classroom, claiming that curricula demand attentiveness and good behavior over mastery of concepts or knowledge of material. This study combats that idea: if grade school performance was based on attention span and behavior, wouldn’t those factors outweigh math and readings skills in kindergarten? Round 1 to the education system!
On a different note, how does this study fit into tracking? Well, I suspect that, in some ways, advocates of tracking could use this information to their advantage. If math and reading proficiency in kindergarten is already an indicator of future scholastic ability, surely the same would be true (even more so) at the beginning of, say, high school. However, if you consider the bias people have against children with behavioral or socioemotional, this study might have a different meaning. Many people–some teachers included–often believe that a child with attention difficulties would not be successful in a high-level class. Another problem is that teachers might become biased against kids who act up, making it harder for teachers to look at those students’ academic skills objectively. This study suggests that such factors are virtually irrelevant, and have little importance in a child’s academic ability.
Well, it’s an interesting study, anyway, and impressive, at a whopping 18 page length. If I may, let me excuse myself to read into the study some more. Thank you.
Viadera article here. (may require registration week to view)
Duncan, et al. study here.
December 2nd, 2007 by imgrundc in Tracking · 2 Comments
Our blog article today heralds (haha! “herald!”) from a local news source in Wisconsin.
The articles’ title drew me in because it had the word “Starbuck” in it. Two ideas popped into my head: “Typo!” and “What the heck is Starbucks doing in my “high school tracking” search results?”
Apparently, there’s a middle school named “Starbuck” in Racine, Wisconsin. Who knew? Anyway, they just received an award for being an “exemplary” middle school because of their improvements on math test scores. Cool stuff, I guess. This award is targeted specifically at middle schools as opposed to elementary or high schools.
You’re probably wondering exactly how this has anything to do with tracking. Well, it doesn’t have much to do with tracking, except that when Starbuck began receiving low math scores, they decided to make some changes. The called one of their strategies “grouping students by their ability.” “It seems to have made a difference,” says the article.
An extremely scientific correlational study has caused me to believe that when my auditory or visual organs receive the wording “grouping students by their ability” the stimulus activates the region of my brain labeled “tracking.” Not only that, but whenever I read “grouping students by their ability” I automatically think “tracking.”
Hmmm…a tracking program yielding positive results? How is this accomplished? Unfortunately, the article doesn’t report much more on the new teaching strategies at Starbuck Middle School. The cynical part of me wants to believe that Starbuck’s (haha…”Starbuck’s”) “ability-based-grouping” is different from the conventional tracking that I’ve grown to know and love. Perhaps teachers simply give out different assignments to different students in the same class? Or perhaps they have “math circles” within a class and not necessarily separate levels (e.g. “Advanced 6th Grade Math vs. Remedial 6th Grade Math”). Or maybe the “evil” practice of tracking works well in response to the “evil” practice of standardized testing. Like attracts like and whatnot. Both are possibilities.
There is another option: perhaps this school and these students, like all middle schools and students, are unique. It is likely that a practice which is so reprehensible in one or most schools might work in another. Possible? Sure, why not? I could deal with that. There is something to say about being pragmatic and open-minded about teaching strategies, so it’s likely that even blanket statements like “tracking is ineffective” are sometimes wrong.
So we have multiple responses here. Of course, each side of an issue tends to have supporting examples (otherwise it really shouldn’t be an issue), so maybe this is a fluke and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. It really depends on how you view the tracking issue: if you see tracking as an immoral practice, then no success tales should/would change your view; if you see tracking as simply an ineffective teaching strategy, stories such as this one should bear some weight. I hate to be a moral relativist, but I’ll allow you to make your own decision here.
Also, this post is heavily dependent on my response as opposed to the article. For more information, see my citation:
“Starbuck recognized as exemplary middle school.”
The Journal Times.
December 1, 2007.
By Paul Sloth.
Here, again, we face multiple opinions on tracking, but in a new and improved light: gifted and talented programs. On November 20, 2007, the Board of Education of Bartlesville, Oklahoma discussed just such a plan.
Rusty Barnett championed the program, saying
“If gifted children, like all children, need a classroom experience targeted to their ability level, how shall we provide that for them?…Grouping programs, like what we’re talking about, are the best way to meet the needs of the gifted student and it doesn’t have a negative effect on the regular classroom student. And finally, it’s not tracking, it’s not like the old days.”
Well, Mr. Barnett, who exactly ever said that all children need a classroom experience targeted to their ability level? Mr. Barnett, could you please give some evidence to support your claims before begging the question? I’m not sure exactly what Rusty means by “targeted to their ability level,” but it sounds questionable to me. Surely there must be a way of allowing children specialized learning without disconnecting them from other children’s experiences. How relevant is a child’s learning, anyways, if it’s isolated from the child’s own peers’ instruction and experience?
Furthermore, Mr. Barnett, where do you get the idea that separating gifted students doesn’t negatively effect “the regular classroom student”? I would suspect that learning with more intelligent people would better the learning…and this is not an unfounded suspicion: I form my speculations from elementary-, secondary-, and college-classrooms. Also, how, exactly, does this grouping differ from your stilted, old-fashioned tracking system? You really need to put some backing into your claims, Mr. Barnett. I see no evidence that you have evidence for anything you said here.
There were a few voices against the program. One was Lori Watkins, a Bartlesville teacher, who spoke out, arguing:
“Your sadly misplaced idea of creating an exclusionary classroom for our gifted children is way behind times…We do not think it is right, let alone necessary, to push these children into advanced levels beyond their developmental readiness and one big factor of readiness is age.”
Hmmm….I’m not sure that this is the response I’d like to hear, Ms. Watkins. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that the proposed programs smacks of exclusion and educational isolation and elitism, I’m with you there 100%. However, Ms. Watkins, what’s all this about pushing children into advanced levels beyond their developmental readiness? Honestly, if you can convince me that pushing children into advanced levels is a bad thing, then I’m all for tracking! If we don’t want our students pushed, I say construct different school buildings for the gifted, the regular, and the remedial! Goodness. Ms. Watkins, I don’t understand your motives at all. Are you so set against tracking that you’d put a halt to pushing the “gifted children”? “Developmental Readiness” my…whatever…what does that mean, anyway? I’m surprised Mr. Barnett didn’t use those terms against his “regular classroom student.”
Poor Mr. Barnett and Ms. Watkins. I’m afraid they’ve met the wrath of a tired, over-Thanksgivinged undergrad approaching the end of the semester. Thank you for listening to my de-stressing session, and thank you, Mr. Barnett and Ms. Watkins, for being such thoughtful punching bags.
Full article here.
“School board hears from public on gifted and talented classes”
By Jessica Miller
October 23rd, 2007 by imgrundc in Tracking · 2 Comments
Nashuatelegraph.com asked each a few candidates for a local educational position to answer five questions focusing on issues having to do with school board activity and educational philosophy. Obviously, this is a very pertinent topic for me and my role as a future educator. What concerned me the most regarding tracking was Question 4:
“Leveling, or grouping students by ability, is a practice that is used in the middle schools and high schools. Recently, a state department of education review team raised concerns about the high percentage of special education students placed in the lower level classes. What is your philosophy regarding homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping?”
Different candidates, obviously enough, posed different answers:
Robert Hallowell: “The state review cited many concerns about the implementation of special education programs. The concern around leveling was that no specific criteria could be found for why special education students were placed in lower level classes, not that the leveling was necessarily incorrect. I believe that grouping students, by skill level and/or how they learn (auditory, visual, etc.) is both appropriate and effective. A teacher can explain a concept more readily to students that are learning at the same pace. The key, however, is to track student’s progress annually, to set equal increases in expectations for each level and to allow students to move between levels based on their performance. Heterogeneous classes in some areas (humanities and electives for example) are useful for social awareness and encouraging dialogue between students.”
Well, Mr. Hallowell, how wonderful for our social awareness! Shall, we, then, create a social awareness class where heterogeneous grouping is most “useful”? Surely that sort of grouping isn’t “appropriate and effective” in core subjects, so what sort of class does support heterogeneous grouping? I think, Mr. Hallowell, that there are more uses for mixed grouping than you’re aware of.
Another candidate made a similarly murky answer.
Rick Dowd: “ I think the question first begs a definition of these two groupings so that the public may understand the question. Homogeneous grouping groups students of similar educational capability together for learning and heterogeneous grouping mixes students of all levels in the same classroom. This is a very controversial subject and people on both sides of the question have articles and data to try and prove their point. We have recently moved to a Middle School concept here in Nashua which has once again raises the question here in this District. Should Middle Schools be more like elementary schools with regards to grouping, which are heterogeneously grouped? Or should they be more like the current high school configuration where there are levels by capability? Currently there is more or less a homogeneous grouping at the Middle Schools but we have just recently made the shift and full implementation of the Middle School concept has not been completed. We will have to hear from both sides of the question and in the end, each board member will have to decide which direction they wish to go in. I await that debate.”
Dear candidates, could you please answer the question? Mr. Dowd certainly puts his finger on it: we need to address the issue, grow some backbone, and make changes. Please, candidates, show me some progress!
Full article here.
An almost-recent study reported by ScienceDaily.com provided a different view into the somewhat-popular tracking system in school. It was different not in that it supported tracking (unlike many of my sources) but that it came from a foreign source: England.
Jo Boaler of Professor of Education at the University of Sussex studied various students in mixed-ability grouping and segregated-ability grouping (that’s my own term, by the way), including 700 American students. Her results were not too surprising to me, except that she praised the American school system and chastised the English system, saying,
“In England we use more ability grouping than possibly any other country in the world, and children are put into groups at a very young age. It is no coincidence that our society also has high levels of anti-social behaviour and indiscipline. Children who are put into low sets in school quickly learn to view themselves as unsuccessful and develop anti-school values that lead into general anti-social behaviour.”
Huh, I would not have expected her to focus so much on social behaviour (oops! British spelling…it’s contagious), but I guess that would make sense. True it is that an honors class would “behave” better than a “regular” class, but why? Could it be that the lower-placed classes are full of students who know that they’re expected to do poorly? Could it be that they are under-challenged and bored to tears? Possibly, but let’s not tarry on novel, impractical, or possibly improbably possibilities.
“Many parents support ability grouping because they think it is advantageous for high attaining children, but my recent study of a new system of grouping in the US showed that the system benefited students at high and low levels and the high attaining students were the most advantaged by the mixed ability grouping, because they had opportunities to learn work in greater depth.”
Well, there does seem to be that gap between parents with high-achieving children and parents who just don’t care. I wonder whether it ever happens that a parent pioneers ability-based grouping and then watches her child “fail” the placement test and receive placement in a lower-level class? It’s possible, and would be a bit funny, but I doubt it. Whether it’s because parents truly know their children’s abilities (possible….) OR because children’s placement has more to do with birthright than anything else. Again, I’m getting too suggestive.
How great it is, then, that we Americans are not alone in this tracking problem! No, the problem is even more widespread than that. Hooray for spreading the misery.
Full article here.
Science Daily
Adapted from materials provided by University of Sussex.
On Friday October 5, 2007 the Michigan Council of Teachers of English met in Lansing to give and hear lectures on and discuss different strategies, successes, and failures in English classrooms across the state and nation. Kathleen Blake Yancey kicked off the somewhat early morning with a slideshow keynote address on literacy in the 21st century. After the keynote, participants split into various breakout sessions.
I attended two sessions apart from the keynote: “Hanging on by your Fingernails until you gain a Toehold: Advice for Future Teachers from New Teachers” by Jill VanAntwerp was my first. She spoke primarily to future English teachers on the positives and negatives of beginning the teaching career. The second session I attended was “Why Rubrics Don’t Work for Me: Reclaiming Subjectivity in writing Assessment” by Maja Wilson.
Maja Wilson’s presentation left the strongest impression on me (<–this may or may not be because I was more awake for it). She talked about how rubric help neither student nor teacher when it comes to assessment. Her presentation included examples from actual assignments, all of which supported her belief that the most you can do when assessing a paper is to tell how the paper affects you as you read it–Novel idea! Honestly, though, her views were very new to me, and I won’t lie: I’m still a bit skeptical. But that’s okay. While I probably won’t go as far as she does and do away with grading papers altogether (that’s right…she doesn’t give letter “grades;” she assesses), she did make me excited to try some of her practices out and maybe marry the idea of grading with her idea of subjective assessment.
At the end of Maja Wilson’s presentation, she opened the floor up for questions (all in all, she seems pretty revolutionary, but, yes, she still ended the session just like everybody else). One question that struck me pertained to fields that required more objective assessment. The man mentioned airplane pilots and doctors: people who needed to be measured against a more rigid ruler. To be honest, I forget exactly where the question turned, but it got me thinking. I’m studying to become a high school English and Math teacher. I wondered whether some of Ms. Wilson’s methods could apply to my Math classroom? Math lends itself to rubrics and right vs. wrong answers, but her concept of reading students’ work–not so much for what’s on the paper but for the process that formed what’s on the paper–could easily be applied almost anywhere. As a Math teacher, what’s more important: getting the right answer or knowing how to manipulate numbers effectively to reach a helpful function/number? Math students need to understand how the numbers and variables come to act in certain ways, and if I can see how they get their answers, I can see where their thought process is. Aha! That’s why my teachers always added that awful caveat: SHOW ALL WORK! I guess they had a point.
I would like to draw your attention to the right hand of the page under the word “Links.” Look at that beautiful blogroll! I just finished it, and good riddance, I say! I wouldn’t give the blogroll’s compilation process a 10 on the fun scale (far from it), but I did notice some pretty cool-looking sites while plugging in different URL links. Tyler made a post which had his three comments for ENG 310 highlighted. I hadn’t read the requirements for the assignment, but I will follow Tyler’s lead anyway:
1st comment
2nd comment
3rd comment
Well, I hope that worked (a couple of my comments were “awaiting moderation).
Anyway, it’s getting late, so I should start thinking of shutting down my computer. ‘Til I post again!
September 24th, 2007 by imgrundc in Tracking · No Comments
A recent news release issued by Vanderbilt University suggests that it is possible to predict the career path of an individual as early as the age of 13. Science Daily did a report on this finding, and although it doesn’t directly relate to ability-based tracking in the educational world, there is a very strong link. Also, these findings can have very strong repercussions when dealing with high school tracking (and I will say “high school,” because we’re looking at age 13 here).
David Lubinski, who is a professor of psychology at Vanderbilt, explains that:
“differences in creative potential among highly gifted youth can be identified at age 13, offering opportunities for educators and policymakers to develop programs to cultivate these individuals based on their unique strengths and abilities.”
He is referring specifically to an SAT administered to gifted 13-year-olds which predicted accurately many of the children’s future career choices. To me, the concept of directing an adolescent’s career path based on a test administered so early in his life is very dangerous. It leads straight into the concept of tracking. When I give it a second thought, though, I can see some positive points. I can definitely see that knowing that a child is gifted in certain areas can help educators to understand how to teach him. Teachers would know to challenge certain students even more in their strong areas, giving those students the opportunity to excel. Plus, since this research shows that students who excelled in certain areas eventually found careers in those areas, we can assume that those subjects were enjoyable to those gifted in those areas. Surely if we challenged gifted students in their gifted subject area we’d make education more enjoyable to them.
But there is a catch: the article goes on with a litany of the accomplishments of these gifted students:
“They earned a total of 817 patents and published 93 books. Of the 18 participants who later earned tenure-track positions in math/science fields at top-50 U.S. universities, their average age 13 SAT-M score was 697, and the lowest score among them was 580, a score greater than over 60 percent of all students who take the SAT.”
This is wonderful for those individuals, but what about 13-year-olds who DON’T score well on this early SAT? It strikes me that if schools use this test to set gifted students on the right track, they may just as easily use this test to put lower scoring students in a remedial track, and the whole problems that come with tracking follow. This test supposedly works for students heavily gifted in one area, but it would be so much more beneficial if it could also find the strong points of less gifted children. Then their teachers, too, could benefit from knowing where these children excel.
This study does offer some helpful information, but unless used wisely, it could do far more harm than good. I think that if these tests could find the strong points of all 13-year-olds across the board, then it would be worth a whole lot more.
Science Daily, September 8, 2007
“Future Career Path of Gifted Youth Can Be Predicted By Age 13 By SAT”
Full article here
