True about the age tracking, 'Neato. Good point. That's just publicly accepted tracking.

I like how you think!

Well actually, I'm pretty sure I picked that up from another post around here too. I'm really not all that original!

The tracking that I participated in, and yes... that was in the '70... ... allowed the gifted kids to go into greater depth and tackle more challenging problems. For example, our writing assignments were held to a different standard than the regular class. But we still had a year of Biology while the other kids were having a year of Biology. We were just getting college prep Biology, I guess. So we didn't really ever get ahead. We did take a year of calculus and a year of physics senior year that the average kids didn't take.

It was also allowed that a non-gifted kid could take up to two gifted classes per year if they were recommended by a teacher. So if you were advanced in math, but were not in the gifted tracking, you could still take the gifted math.

1) Maybe they started tracking at a later age, middle school, so that kids could switch in and out of classes each 60 minutes, and not stay with the same group of kids all day if necessary. In middle school, a kid also has a semester of American History or Algebra 1... so the content is self-contained, so to speak. You don't have to worry about another teacher picking up where the first teacher left off.
2) I believe that they allowed anyone to take the assessment test, which I think was the ACT, for entrance to the gifted program each fall, for as many times as they wanted to try. So it was not necessarily based on one test on one day.

Not too bad a system. It labeled the top 20 kids as gifted, but it did not distinguish between the other 100 kids or so as being average or below average. There was never a group of kids that were labeled as "dumb". I serious wished my son's school had tracking. It is like having a small gifted school imbedded in the public school system.

Good point, squirt, about teacher bonuses. Teachers didn't have to worry about that back in the good ole ancient days. Teachers were just paid for showing up and teaching.

Starting to ramble, so it must be time to shut off the computer for the night.
<zonk>

I believe that the latest research indicates that tracking only benefits the students at the highest level. In simplest terms that would mean self-contained gifted classrooms, but I believe the latest recommendation is to mix the classrooms with the GT & average kids then high achievers & average/low students. Interestingly, by taking the highest level students out of the regular classroom the high achieving students below them experienced more opportunities for leadership growth and had improved self-esteem.

Last year we had some parents recommend doing a pilot program at one of our schools in which students would be sorted GT/ave and HA/ave/low. The principal decided to sort them using the traditional tracking method. I haven't heard how things turned out.

I personally do not think it is beneficial for slow learners to be in class with the gifted students because the slow learners become discouraged. When my dd was in preschool I had another parent tell me that her son cried at night because he felt that he would never be able to read like dd.

I still have not figured out why it is socially acceptable to separate the advanced students into honors and pre-AP/AP classes in jr. & sr. high but it is unacceptable to separate them in elementary school.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

I was told that the higher class would explore subjects much more in depth and the top of the top kids would also have pull out for advanced math and language a few times a week.

This seems to be the result of spending the better part of last year complaining [nicely] to upper admin that DS10 craves like minded peers. We've spent 6 years running clubs and activities to gather the brightest little hot-shots together. Now, I want the school to step up and DO something, anything.

I met with the Super, Prin & TAG Reps last week where they offered the aforementioned plan. Hey, at least it's something. Time will tell.

I don't think from your perspective it can be a bad thing RP, but you might want to hide a bit from Parent #25 just in case, .

It did spark a very interesting discussion! Summer, while I agree with your last paragraph, I live in fear of even our limited middle school groupings disappearing when our admins start asking the question.

For us, at the moment...it's a moot point, as we have one more year of regular random placements and then on to middle school. And we have a fabulous GT teacher on our side, who has assured me that both kids are currently placed with other GT kids.

As you say "at least it's something".

My most immediate (long term) concern is the big push for "algebra for all". It's being implemented to some extent already, in that no kid leaves our high school without some level of algebra, but I fear heterogeneous groupings of that back in 8th before long, and I think that would be a huge mistake. Only 2-3 more years though until that's no longer MY concern...

[quote=Dottie]I don't think from your perspective it can be a bad thing RP, but you might want to hide a bit from Parent #25 just in case, .

Yes, for the top kid [my DS] I think it'll be great. HOWEVER, I dread running into certain pushy parents who will demand that their little angel [#75] be included. The angel in question becomes a HUGE disruption in class when he doesn't get what's going on. Then he targets the smart kids for "not being cool" [being smart or talented in any way is not cool]. Then the Intervention Specialist gets called into class to handle this kid...[unsuccessfully]. This was our life last year. <sigh>

There's a link on my profile to videos of DS playing guitar at various venues with adults. We just put one up from this past Wednesday night, actually. DS was teased so much last year by the kid above that DS stopped playing guitar completely for several months. Broke my heart. He's back on track now but that was a very sad time last year. We just let him work his way back to music. I think it's too much a part of him for him to completely let go.

Wow RPM, he's amazing!!! I watched a few other videos as well. VERY cute kid, and of course the guitar playing is incredible.

What a shame about "#75" though, I live in fear of DS hitting that kind of antagonization. FWIW, with just very minimal grouping, DD13 sees virtually none of that, although the "top kid" is still above and beyond. She experiences nothing but a very healthy form of competition for GOOD grades though, that's been a nice transition from the more carefree "status quo" days of elementary.

Lest any lurkers have concerns for her ability to cope in the "real world", her special subjects are still heterogeneously grouped, .

I'm definitely interested to see how this turns out. I have reservations. From my reading on grouping/tracking, this doesn't sound like the optimal plan. It is good to get the top of the top segregated in self-contained classes. Then the top in their class (maybe that's your 130-140 group). After that, group heterogeneously. The high achievers will rise to the top now that the top of the top is gone. Perhaps you need a class for the lowest kids who would likely have LD issues and need special attention and accommodations. That leaves a good chunk in the middle.

Then there are other questions. What if parent questions placement? Is there a method in place such as portfolio review? What if the child is a poor tester? HOw often will they test? Can a teacher over-ride a test score and recommend class placement?

What test will they be using? Achievement tests? Nonverbal tests such as Naglieri or CoGAT? I think the issue w/ tracking in the past is that with achievement tests, you can get culture bias so you're classes will end up culturally-segregated which most often ends up being segregated by race. If your district is racially homogeneous then you won't have that problem. Then it might be based on economics. If your district is more economically homogeneous then that won't be a problem. I think I read in "Re-forming Gifted Education" that low-SES kids will be hurt on achievement tests for example, by not knowing that a schooner is a type of boat.


What about kids that are 2-4yrs advanced in math but more average in other areas such that they test in the middle of the pack? Will that kid have to suffer through grade level math? What about kids that are 2e?

I think a better system would be subject-based grouping. Have all subjects taught at the same time. Let kids move from teacher to teacher based on where they are in that subject. Kids are tested more than once per year and grouping is fluid.

This will definitely be an interesting experiment and I look forward to reading about how it goes.

Dazey definitely has some pertinent questions and thoughts, and some great ideas for a "long term" plan, but I think in RPM's case, she should just kick back and enjoy the benefits it will provide for her child, and let #'s 25 on out worry about the rest, .

I fought the grouping battle as part of a "GT improvement" committee, and while it certainly has merit, it had no foreseeable (that looks weird, I hope it's right) resolution in my kids' elementary life spans, so I'm currently about making the best of what we do have for MY kids.

Interesting discussion though without that personal aspect!