If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
Banty wrote in :
[snip] Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple fact that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who start out in the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are likely to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are always going to be some people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake Woebegon, where all children are above average! I think accurate groupings will change in membership because kids mature at different rates, especially in the younger grades. If they're pinned in an ability group, while it isn't as bad as tracking where all their classmates and eventually friends are from the lower track, reinforcing their standing, it's still a matter of outside perceptions limiting the child's progress. [snip] The other factor in the youngest classes is that the 'real' age range is much greater in the youngest classes. For instance my youngest was 5yo and two weeks at the start of the year, and oldest children in her class were 5yo and 51 weeks. This is the same percentage age range as comparing 13yos to 15.5yos. So even if the nearly 6yo was slightly below average for their age, and the just 5yo slightly above average, the nearly 6yo should be 'more able' then the just 5yo, and would be in a more advanced group. -- Penny Gaines UK mum to three |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
I think accurate groupings will change in membership because kids mature at
different rates, especially in the younger grades. I *did* say "like to remain in the lower group." Meaning that some kids will move up as they catch on/mature, but others will remain where they are due to inborn abilities. And yes, of course the groups should be flexible,and should allow for/encourage the kids to move up (or down, if necessary) as their needs change. Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail reply.) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
In article , Penny Gaines says...
Banty wrote in : [snip] Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple fact that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who start out in the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are likely to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are always going to be some people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake Woebegon, where all children are above average! I think accurate groupings will change in membership because kids mature at different rates, especially in the younger grades. If they're pinned in an ability group, while it isn't as bad as tracking where all their classmates and eventually friends are from the lower track, reinforcing their standing, it's still a matter of outside perceptions limiting the child's progress. [snip] The other factor in the youngest classes is that the 'real' age range is much greater in the youngest classes. For instance my youngest was 5yo and two weeks at the start of the year, and oldest children in her class were 5yo and 51 weeks. This is the same percentage age range as comparing 13yos to 15.5yos. So even if the nearly 6yo was slightly below average for their age, and the just 5yo slightly above average, the nearly 6yo should be 'more able' then the just 5yo, and would be in a more advanced group. Around here, when it was considered smart to redshirt kids, especially boys, the upper age range would extend at least a year. At the end of second grade my son was recommended to repeat the grade. (I didn't allow it, and he's done fine.) One of the reasons given - he's 'young'. He has an early October birthday, which is nearly two months before the cutoff date. One would think that would place him well within the age range of the class, if toward the younger end just by happenstance of where the cutoff date is set. But many kids in his class were up to 18 months older. Banty |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
In article ,
Penny Gaines wrote: The other factor in the youngest classes is that the 'real' age range is much greater in the youngest classes. For instance my youngest was 5yo and two weeks at the start of the year, and oldest children in her class were 5yo and 51 weeks. This is the same percentage age range as comparing 13yos to 15.5yos. Around here the age range is even greater. Some of the 5yo and 2weeks kids start on time, while others are held back by their parents (often at the suggestion of preschool teachers) and start K at 6yo and 2 weeks, or 6yo and 2 months, or even 6yo and 6 months.... some kids turn 7 in their K year here! --Robyn |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
Naomi Pardue wrote:
It can be challenging to implement, though, and some schools that claim mobility don't really evidence much in reality ;-) Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple fact that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who start out in the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are likely to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are *always* going to be some people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake Woebegon, where all children are above average! Agreed, but I think it is far from uncommon for children, especially in grade school, to hit their stride at different ages, causing children who have fine ability to appear behind at times and then to zoom ahead when they get their act together *and* are given the opportunity. So while I wouldn't expect to see most children moving among groups, I would expect to see *some* movement, and in some programs you don't see that. Also, it's easy to see *why* you don't see mobility in some programs. If the groups are not carefully coordinated, it becomes *impossible* to move kids without a lot of difficulty (because they will have missed out on the skills previously taught to the more advanced group). We ran into that problem last year. The system in use at our school is *supposed* to support mobility among groups, and usually it does, but we ran into a particular teacher who caused the system to break down. Obviously, you can always run into someone in a good system who's mucking up the works, but my point is that retaining that mobility requires constant vigilance and commitment, or you will very shortly end up with a system that effective *has* no mobility. (As the mother of a child who IS 'above average' in most school subjects, I'd be pretty peeved if she were forced to study at a level targeted to meet the needs of her slowest-learning peers. (And my personal experience with classes that are NOT 'ability grouped' is that they DO end up being targeted to the slowest kids, not even the 'average' kids, because the teachers don't want to leave too many kids too hopelessly behind.) She'd be bored senseless. ) Sure, and having a couple of kids above average myself, I totally see your point. On the other hand, if you were the parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be to the detriment of your child that relegated her to less skilled and engaging teachers, that removed from her examples of of higher achieving students so that she adjusted her concept of "normal" or "acceptable" downward further than her abilities warranted, and that made it difficult for her to move up if and when she rose to the challenge. While I do believe in ability grouping, at least when done in certain ways, all of these are common weaknesses in the system even when implemented with the best motives. One has to be *very* careful, or it becomes a real problem for all but the high achieving students. Best wishes, Ericka |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
In article , Ericka Kammerer says...
Naomi Pardue wrote: It can be challenging to implement, though, and some schools that claim mobility don't really evidence much in reality ;-) Though, is that the fault of the program, or perhaps due to the simple fact that the groupings are accurate to begin with? (That the kids who start out in the 'low' groups are the kids who have the lower abilities, and so are likely to remain in the lower groups? I mean, there are *always* going to be some people on the extremes of any leaning curve. We don't live in Lake Woebegon, where all children are above average! Agreed, but I think it is far from uncommon for children, especially in grade school, to hit their stride at different ages, causing children who have fine ability to appear behind at times and then to zoom ahead when they get their act together *and* are given the opportunity. So while I wouldn't expect to see most children moving among groups, I would expect to see *some* movement, and in some programs you don't see that. Also, it's easy to see *why* you don't see mobility in some programs. If the groups are not carefully coordinated, it becomes *impossible* to move kids without a lot of difficulty (because they will have missed out on the skills previously taught to the more advanced group). We ran into that problem last year. The system in use at our school is *supposed* to support mobility among groups, and usually it does, but we ran into a particular teacher who caused the system to break down. Obviously, you can always run into someone in a good system who's mucking up the works, but my point is that retaining that mobility requires constant vigilance and commitment, or you will very shortly end up with a system that effective *has* no mobility. (As the mother of a child who IS 'above average' in most school subjects, I'd be pretty peeved if she were forced to study at a level targeted to meet the needs of her slowest-learning peers. (And my personal experience with classes that are NOT 'ability grouped' is that they DO end up being targeted to the slowest kids, not even the 'average' kids, because the teachers don't want to leave too many kids too hopelessly behind.) She'd be bored senseless. ) Sure, and having a couple of kids above average myself, I totally see your point. On the other hand, if you were the parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be to the detriment of your child that relegated her to less skilled and engaging teachers, that removed from her examples of of higher achieving students so that she adjusted her concept of "normal" or "acceptable" downward further than her abilities warranted, and that made it difficult for her to move up if and when she rose to the challenge. While I do believe in ability grouping, at least when done in certain ways, all of these are common weaknesses in the system even when implemented with the best motives. One has to be *very* careful, or it becomes a real problem for all but the high achieving students. Best wishes, Ericka Right. In my son's case, as it was, he had at least one teacher lobbying to slow down his education permanently when he was in his younger years. If reading groups weren't as fluid as they were in his school, it would have been worse to have the ability groups than to have no groups at all. He could have been relagated down permanently due to circumstances of age of entry, prevailing practices of other parents concerning age of entry, his particular development pattern, and the class assignment lottery. Banty |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
I *did* say "like to remain in the lower group."
Aarghh... that should have been "likely" to remain... I've always been below average in typing ability... Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail reply.) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
On the other hand, if you were the
parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be to the detriment of your child Oh, absolutely. What we want is a system that best meets the needs of all the children. This kinda goes back to our discussion of school PE classes. There are plenty of examples out there are bad schools and teachers, and schools that do these things badly. But, there are also examples of schools and teachers that do it well. So, since we know that it is possible to do it well, ideally we should try to do it well so that everyone can benefit. But -- if it isn't possible to do it well in a particular school, I think it is human nature for each of us to seek to get the best for ourselves and OUR families; and if an imperfect style of 'ability grouping' means that my gifted child gets what she needs while being detrimental to someone else's less gifted child -- I'm gunna be selfish and say that my child deserves to get what will benefit her, and another mother's child will have to struggle on as best he can! (Having said that, I think that the ability grouping in Shaina's school IS flexible and works very well. The kids spend most of their time in mixed group classes with kids of all abilities, and are only ability-grouped for math and reading. In fact, nobody even bothered to tell us that Shaina was in a gifted program until last year, and we didn't get anything in writing about it until this year, though she's been in it since, I think, 2nd or 3rd grade. Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail reply.) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
In article ,
Naomi Pardue wrote: On the other hand, if you were the parent of an average or below average kid, you'd be pretty peeved if the school was using a system demonstrated to be to the detriment of your child Oh, absolutely. What we want is a system that best meets the needs of all the children. The problem is, I'm not sure such a system exists (or has been implemented widely enough to be studied). Pretty much every educational strategy I've ever seen studied has advantages for some students, but disadvantages for others. If the "best practice" for average and lower achievers is to be in classes/groups with higher achieving kids, but that is disadvantageous for the higher achieving kids, someone loses. You'd need some kind of system where every child gets to play mentor some of the time and mentee at other times, but that's difficult to arrange! (From my children's experience, I've seen well-implemented multiage groupings do this pretty well -- any given kid will likely only be at the very top or very bottom of the pack for at most one year of ideally at least 3 years in the group, but I don't know that there is good research to back up my anecdotal observations.) --Robyn |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Ability grouping
Hi - The research I recall seeing (quite some time ago, now) suggests that ability grouping is a distant second-best to small classes. If you have small classes, about 14-16 kids, most teachers can successfully handle a variety of abilities, providing an appropriate education to all. Not a panacaea, but certainly worth thinking about, --Beth Kevles http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bright 2nd grader & school truancy / part-time home-school? | Vicki | General | 215 | November 1st 03 09:07 PM |