Is this typical (tracking)?

[sbgrace]

I found out that our elementary school "tracks" kids. I did some google and maybe it is called ability grouping. They are placed in one of three groups--gifted/talented (which is a full class of the top students not actually gifted), a remedial class, or two other classes that I'm not sure are considered same level or differing. They remain in those groups through elementary school and one friend told me that she found children were quite exclusive about only associating within their class and if she had more children she wouldn't allow them to be placed in the gifted talented group (which from her perspective looked down on the other groups).

In years past the tracking began in third grade but this year they began testing kids before kindergarten and placing them in the classes at that point. So at kindergarten you will begin to be tracked and will likely remain in your group through fifth grade. I was told that the "top" class is fixed and you can never join that one late (even if you move in the system) but the other might be more flexible. The moms I was talking to (3 moms with present or former elementary age kids) all had kids in the top group so weren't as aware of the other groups.

It made me feel sick. Is this typical? Maybe my perspective is off. I was stunned.

[ChristaN]

I don't think that such formal tracking is that typical if only b/c fully encapsulated gifted classed don't exist to that extent in most schools. I agree with you that the GT classes are often full of a lot of high achievers and not necessarily gifted kids and that some of them do lend toward allowing the kids and/or their parents to feel superior.

Our experience has been that, up until sometime around 3rd-4th grade, kids are placed in ability (truly achievement) groups for math and reading either within their classrooms or cross grouped btwn the various classes of that grade within one school. These groups are rather maliable and a child's placement can change from one year to the next or even within a single grade if his/her achievement level changes. After 3rd grade, they often do id kids as gifted, but again often do not offer a full-time gifted only class. These kids are usually pulled out for an hour a day maybe to go to a GT class that may consist of math or reading enrichment or critical thinking. The rest of the day, they are in the same class as everyone else and certainly don't seem to associate solely with other kids in the TAG programming, in my experience.

I believe that the kids who aren't "ided" for the TAG programming continue on with a model similar to what happened in the earlier elementary years -- grouping for various subjects within the classroom. My eldest is currently a middle schooler (6th grade) and I'd say that there is a more rigid tracking taking place by that point. If you aren't in the accelerated math, for instance, in 6th grade, it is going to be harder to get into accelerated math in the following years.

[eepster]

I don't know how typical what you describe is, except to say that I've never heard of anything quite like it before. Many schools do have abilty grouping, and the better ones (IMO better) do it on a subject by subject basis.

The part that really seems odd, and bothers me is that if a child doesn't get into the G/T program when starting K that they are forever excluded. This system would exclude many youngsters based on things that aren't indicitive of ability. A child many have a great potential, but simply preform poorly at the begining of K b/c they came from an underprivleged background and have not been exposed to books and such, they are right at the age cut off and the youngest in the class which is more significant in K than 3rd grade, do to maturity they simply do not try very hard on the test, etc.

I don't know what it's like where you live, so I can't say for sure, but if I felt cynical enough about the school district, I might suspect that the exam before entering K was delibertly set up to exclude underprivledged children, so that the wealthier town folk didn't have to be concerned that their kids were going to school with the riffraff. I live near a town with a large working class to poor population, and a small but very very wealthy population, that have done all kinds of things to try to set up seperate schooling .

[mommyoftwo]

I have to admit that I absolutely wish that our school would do more tracking. I was a teacher in a past life and used to be against it but now, as I watch my children especially my 2nd grade daughter, bored in school because the work is way too easy, I see that tracking is a useful tool. I wanted to believe that teachers could differentiate within the same classroom but it just isn't happening.

Now they have given us the option of moving her up a grade for reading and math but she doesn't want to do it. She is too nervous about being around a whole class of older children.

The teachers have started ability grouping within the classroom but it may not prove to be enough.

And yes, the children already seem to know which group they are in-kids are smart. But the kids who need extra help are getting it and the kids who need more (AIG) will be getting their needs met.

[Twocoolboys]

I would inquire about it at the school. In my experience, a group of moms may not always have the most accurate information. Honestly, it sounds kind of farfetched to me, especially the part about not allowing kids moving into the system into the higher achieving group.

That said, I am all for tracking. As a mom of a kid who desperately needs academic enrichment, I want him in a class with other kids that are as curious and in need of enrichment as he is. Our school tracks, but it is much more flexible than what you describe. While my ds has had many of the same kids in his class year to year, all of the higher performing kids are not all in the same class every year. They do have a pull out enrichment group for math and reading that the kids he has been tracked with are all in together.

[CarrieMF]

They don't do that here at all. They are placed in ability groups in their classes for reading & now they're doing it with math too. As their abilities change they change groups throughout the year.

the exclusion of playing with kids in your class & not kids in the other class is quite common up until Grade 3. It's like the kids don't realize they can play with kids in other classes.lol Though it sounds like it may be worse in the school there & that the administration is teaching kids about the class system & enforcing it.

[annethcz]

That sounds quite similar to school *I* attended when I was an elementary school student in the 1980s. The big difference was that the tracks weren't fixed. If a child need extra challenges, he/she could be bumped up into a more advanced class, and if a child needed more help, he/she could be placed in a more remedial class. For the most part, although I went to large, suburban schools, I took classes with the same kids for my entire public school career. The advanced 2nd graders were also the kids who ended up in the honors and AP classes in high school.

My kids' school doesn't do anything like this, mostly because it's a tiny school. They do group by ability for language arts and math classes. There is a part of me that wishes my kids had more opportunities to be challenged, like I did when I went to school. What has happened is that instead of being placed in an advanced class, my DD has been moved up a grade in some of her classes because she was so bored in her grade level classes.

[Mizelenius]

That is shocking. The school must have some amazing assessment system (I say this sarcastically) to be able to have fixed tracks starting at KG. How DO they determine who is going to be in which track? I'd hurry on down to the principal's office and ask for this in writing.

As for differentiated learning . . .I'm all for it as long as there are also mixed groupings. HOWEVER, I think ongoing assessments (using a wide variety of tools) are ESSENTIAL. While I am not in love with DD's school, I do appreciate how they do math . . .the students take a pre-test, are placed in groups, but they are given a pre-test with every math unit (so it isn't even fixed for a semester), and may switch groups depending on the results. It seems like they are really trying to accommodate the needs of the students that way.

mommyoftwo, my DD left the room last year (in KG) with 2 first graders who weren't having their LA needs met in the regular classroom. Eventually she went to 1st grade for math. She had great experiences. If you don't want to grade, leaving the room for a few classes can be a good compromise. Maybe offer to let your DD do a trial run?

[ChristaN]

sbgrace, I just wanted to say that I am sorry if your original question is getting side-tracked and turned into a discussion of how certain kids do benefit from tracking. I don't know that you wanted to hear from a bunch of parents whose children are tracked into the GT classes.

The research that I have read does indicate that homogeneous grouping for gifted children is a better fit academically than a mixed-ability classroom, but I have yet to see such a system well implemented where I live and there are so few children who truly qualify as gifted that it is unlikely that any school could pull together enough of them to fill the types of classes you are describing.

It also hurts as a parent to see your child condescended to by other children who are placed in a class where they are led to believe that they are better. I would like to see an appropriate education for all children without the labels, the stigmas, and the competition to have your child be in the top grouping (not your child in particular -- the generic "you"). I hope that the way this discussion has gone has not been too unsupportive.

[sbgrace]

Originally Posted by ChristaN

The research that I have read does indicate that homogeneous grouping for gifted children is a better fit academically than a mixed-ability classroom, but I have yet to see such a system well implemented where I live and there are so few children who truly qualify as gifted that it is unlikely that any school could pull together enough of them to fill the types of classes you are describing.

Can you give me a link to that? I don't think it matters much in trying to think about our school system in a more positive way than I am right now because clearly there aren't 28 to 30 truly gifted kids in each class. But I'm still interested in what you found. All I could find research wise was from Robert E. Slavin and it indicated that grouping by ability for all instruction didn't improve achievement but pull out grouping for math and reading did.

The issue I have is I'm trying to think broadly. I have no idea what group my kids would end up in. I'm a former teacher and it seems like all my teacher friends have kids in the top group. This makes me suspect that at least part of the grouping is based on expectations those assessing have based on family education/socioeconomic level-a thought which make me ill.

But I wouldn't feel the least bit ok about doing something harmful to other kids even if it works out favorably for my own. I don't get that thinking at all. And we know students often reach the expectations of their teachers whether those expectations are favorable or unfavorable and whether accurate or not. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/fi...herexpect.html That thought makes me quite sad for the "lower" classes.

Anyway, I didn't find anything at all favorable about whole class ability grouping in the research I looked at so I'm interested in what you found.

[pranamama]

I would move. The poor children in the lower groups will not be expected to do well and will be give less by the education system and be less likely to attend college, based on some arbitrary decision made in kindergarten.

[ChristaN]

Originally Posted by sbgrace

Can you give me a link to that? I don't think it matters much in trying to think about our school system in a more positive way than I am right now because clearly there aren't 28 to 30 truly gifted kids in each class.

I'm at work , but I'll dig something up for you later when I'm not! It may be later today or so. I do agree with you that I don't want to help my child at the expense of other children, but I also don't want to harm my child in the interests of others. I am, overall, frustrated with the state of education and I don't know what the solution is.

Gifted, in a psychometric sense, is usually considered the 98th percentile -- 1 in 50. I do believe that kids who are outliers on a bell curve need something different in terms of their education -- whether they be in the 2nd percentile or the 98th. You could get 28 or 30 gifted kids together for a class if you drew from all of the schools in the district and made one school the "magnet" where these kids went. However, if you have a gifted class of 28-30 in a standard, regular elementary, it sounds more like they are placing the top 25% or so in this class and in terms of "top" I don't know if they are using achievement, IQ (I doubt this as it would be very expensive to test all of these kids), or what.

Such programs do often wind up identifying priviledged, higher SES kids rather than kids who are divergent in their thinking and would not thrive in a standard classroom.

[ChristaN]

I was able to find something quickly while still on my lunch break, although I didn't read all of the links -- http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/grouping.htm

I believe that the one I read previously was some variant of Karen Roger's article, which is about the sixth link down on that page. Tell me if you see some big holes in the stuff posted there !

eta: (and, hopefully, not offending you as a former teacher!) I, too, have noticed that teachers' kids often end up being ided as gifted. I am fairly skeptical of this and see it more as children who've had academic exposure in their homes and are thus achieving somewhat above grade level. I don't believe that teachers, as a group, are statistically of higher intelligence than the general population and there is good data out there to support the theory that brain wiring is heritable. If you have a group that is wired, on avg, about the same as the rest of the population, there's no reason that their children would, on avg, be totally different than their parents. I'd love it if most teachers were gifted individuals as I imagine that would benefit all of our children, but I doubt it.

[cchrissyy]

that sounds really suprising just because it sounds like you'd need several classrooms per grade... is it a huge school? my public school kindergardener is in a class of 20 and there are just 2 classes per grade. It would be pretty stunning if they divided classes by ability- I know for a fact they balance based on other issues- make sure one class doesn't end up with all the parent volunteers, all the girls, all the behavior problems, etc.

[eepster]

Originally Posted by cchrissyy

I know for a fact they balance based on other issues- make sure one class doesn't end up with all the parent volunteers, all the girls, all the behavior problems, etc.

I see how they can do it for gender, but how do they know ahead of time who parents are going to volunteer and who will have behavior issues?

[supervee]

I don't think this is typical, if for no other reason than most districts don't start tracking until 3rd grade.

In our district, you can be identified AIG (gifted) at any grade, at any time. Retesting can occur once every 365 days. Grades K-2 seem to have a diversity of levels, and in Grades 3-5, everyone gets differentiation for math/language arts but homeroom is still with a diverse group of levels (for things like social studies and the specials of art/music/PE etc.).

[cchrissyy]

Eepster, they switch the kids around and rotate teachers for the first few days of K to try to get a personality balance and identify other variables to know about. at the same time, the parents have their chance to voice any special needs any preexisting friendships and put in their availability to volunteer in-class. You could pre-assign kids fairly by gender and birthday, but you'd never know until you meet them who's an english language learner, who doesn't know their numbers yet, who's an advanced reader, who bounces off the walls.

they call this "balanced beginnings" and it really works, though of course it makes parents and kids anxious not to know for sure what room/teacher/classmates it will be -the school handles it well and the kids do rotate with their small groups and everybody ends up knowing both K classrooms and K teachers. It's such a small school community that the 2 classes do a lot together and the kids do need the familiarity with both teachers and sets of kids. My boy is prone to anxiety and needs to know what to expect at all times, and thankfully he didn't have a problem with this - he knew he was in the red group just like kids X Y and Z and friday the red group was in room 6 with Mrs H.

Plus, some kids, like my boy, come to mainstream K with a boatload of paperwork and legal accommodations for their already identified special needs. So the more obvious cases of behavior or learning problems might already be known before K starts, though of course more will turn up as time goes on.

[Bekka]

I think "permanent tracking" would be bad, I think "ability grouping" lets the teachers focus on individuals' needs more and people get less overwhelmed or bored. But I agree with a PP, there needs to be a good evaluation system in place and it needs to be flexible and kids moveable from one group to another. Someone could struggle or come late to reading and in 4th grade "suddenly" excel with comprehension and need the "advanced" group for conceptual challenge.

Our school divides the classes into groups for reading and math, sometimes between classrooms and sometimes small groups within the classroom. It is easier for social studies and science for the child to work at their own level while everyone appreciates the research or the discussion or whatever (I think).

[sbgrace]

ChristaN, thank you for that link! I certainly believe that a truly gifted child is in need of specific instruction techniques. I'm going to have to look a little closer to see what methods she used but based on what I've read I've no doubt that there are positive effects in ability for those students.

Of course these kids aren't gifted. Our elementary serves the town. There are about 150 students per grade and those are split into five classes. The "gifted and talented" class is 28 to 30 kids. So...the top percent of achievers by whatever measure they use (accerated reader points is one I know) not truly gifted.

To clarify in this case the kids are placed in those classes in third grade and at that point there is no moving into the "top" class. Next year they will start in 2nd grade. They began this year grouping by ability in kindergarten for the first time but, I assume, the groupings of kids entering this year are technically flexible until 2nd grade. In practice if they change groups much I have my doubts because I think teacher perception of ability is a huge factor in what students actually accomplish.

I'm really put off by this whole concept. I am especially concerned about the effect on student learning (due to teacher expectations) of the kids not in the top group. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cus...accno=EJ451469

Recent research suggests that ability grouping and tracking do not increase overall achievement in schools but promote inequality. High-track teachers are more enthusiastic and spend more time preparing lessons, whereas low-track teachers spend more time on behavior management and less on instruction.

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-927/grouping.htm

In his review, Slavin examines evidence on the achievement effects of five comprehensive ability grouping plans in elementary schools. His review draws conclusions about the effectiveness of the following grouping plans: ability grouped class assignment, regrouping for reading or mathematics, the Joplin Plan, nongraded plans, and within-class ability grouping.

Nothing I'm finding shows any benefit at all over-all let alone in particular for those kids not in the high high track. I'm a bit surprised there isn't more net benefit for the high track kids (not talking gifted here). But even if there were as a former teacher who loves kids (of all stripes academically), a mom, a citizen...this makes me ill. What I can do about it here is nothing I'm sure but at least I'm glad to know that what is happening here isn't widespread.

Schools have problems don't they?

[lightheart]

I moved midway into 5th grade and started a public school that I would continue on through graduation. I'm not for certain how the classes were really divided up for 5th and before and I'm thinking it wasn't based on scores because I remember some kids I was in class with then not being in my classes on through the other grades. I know in 6th grade we were divided into homerooms based on our standarized test scores. There was a high score group of kids that took band and a high score group that did not take band. The powers that be who decided on that system basically decided the education and fate of all the kids from that point on. It wasn't that someone couldn't move up to the higher class, it would of been very difficult and a student would of needed to really understand the material.. all the material, not just math or english, but knew all the subjects well on their own or to of been tutored in all the subjects to be moved ahead during mid year because assignments were tougher in the aspect that how quickly the chapters were worked through and at some point would of been 1/3 or 1/2 way through with the books before the other classes. Acheivement tests came around again at the end of the year and again the high test scores were placed together (again with the band seperation) 6th, 7th and 8th this happened.... Once we hit high school and was able to choose our own path on what classes we were to take things leveled out slightly... but not really because here you have a whole group of kids who had already taken pre algebra and algebra in middle school... and a whole group who had taken regular math, the regular math kids they couldn't take geometry or alg 2 because they hadn't had the preq. to take them.... so basially I guess what I'm getting at is a test that the kids took during the last part of their 5th grade in school decided on the classes that they were to be taking in 9th to 12th. THAT IS NOT RIGHT!!!!!

So it's starting out at an even lower grade.... not good.

edited to add... my hubby, a different state and a decade earlier, they did the same thing with grouping the kids....