"Although everyone may not get high scores, students can learn far more in detracked classes with challenging and interesting curricula than they can when they are isolated in the low-track class, with low expecations." (page 68)
The detracking successes in this chapter were shown in middle and high schools where schools got rid of the lowest track first, then accelerated all students gradually.
Questions to think about:
- How does tracking, or detracking, fit into an elementary school?
- How does detracking support equity?
- Do you agree that students will learn more in detracked classes even if they are not getting high scores?
- What supports would our school and our teachers need in order to detrack?
Choose 1-2 questions to respond to, or explain how your heart reacted when you read about detracking.
I think that at Hopkins and at elementary school level we track students by subject. At Hopkins math is one subject we track students in by placing students in advanced math classes. Is this right or wrong is the question. I think it is ok to do this if we base the opportunity to access these classes on flexible guidelines that are more inclusive rather than exclusive. For example, not relying just on strick guidelines such as students have to attain a particular score on CMAS testing. But rather more flexible guidelines for those students who appear to need more challenges through performance in the general math class.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying with more inclusiveness for math acceleration, but if we accelerate more kids, would it be better to just deepen the instruction in the grade-level classrooms and extend the learning for all? What flexible guidelines would you like to see?
DeleteMy initial thought was that systematic tracking doesn’t happen as often in elementary school, but it does appear to be a bigger issue in middle and high schools. I found it interesting that the parallel was made between detracking and desegregation. In the statement, “The tracking system resulted in separate and unequal educational experiences for students” (60). It begs the question: was it the tracking system as a whole that was wrong or the way it was structured and implemented on certain groups? I guess it would depend on the lens you are looking through. On one hand, many elementary schools track for math and even for literacy based on the premise that by not providing accelerated material and exposure to higher concepts then we could just as equally hinder their ability to keep growing and being challenged. On the other hand, when considering the whole child, I agree that tracking would undoubtedly hinder student opportunities to develop their growth mindset and cause a deeper disparity in the lower-tracked students to the more challenged upper-tracked students. I liked the ideas the principal, Larry Vanderwater, conveyed when he chose to detrack the students at his middle school. “The importance of developing the social and emotional needs of middle school children...that grades 6 through 8 were the time to open up opportunities and help students believe in their capacity to learn, not the time to close the door to high expectations, while labeling some young learners as less capable than others” (61). Preach on Larry!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, providing opportunities for acceleration and support rather than implementing an entire tracked system would be the most equitable avenue to go. I do think a barrier to equity in schools, especially high schools, could be the appropriate amount of resources and training to support student needs in fully detracked systems. It is one thing to state a need for these things and it is another to actually receive it. I agree with all of the “lessons learned” topics and I thought it was good they mentioned that once a low-track is eliminated it it cannot simply be absorbed immediately into high-tracked classes. It seems to be an arduous, but important process. I am happy to see that schools have seen sustained success by detracking and allowing all students the opportunities to be challenged and grow, rather than stay stagnant (or worse) decline in their engagement and abilities.
As I read this chapter my mind was swirling with questions and wonderings. I truly believe that students, with the right support and encouragement, will rise to meet the expectations we set. So in that sense I believe that detracking is the best possible way to approach teaching. As with any change or new direction I have questions:
ReplyDelete1. How do we keep detracking from becoming more of the trickle down approach? I have watched over the years as what was expected in 1st grade is now expected in Kindergarten and so forth. When I read the section about all the eight-graders completing the high school course it made me stop and think, is that developmentally appropriate? Do we need middle schoolers to take high school classes? How can we create challenge and rigor without just making things harder or moving curriculum down? Receiving professional development around the subject of teaching gifted/talented would really help me make appropriate challenges.
2. I would love to know more about the social-emotional well-being of the kids who have gone through detracking. I would expect that their confidence would increase as they take on more challenge and find success, but I wonder if there are any negative effects. We hear so much about high schoolers struggling with anxiety and stress due to unrealistic expectations...does putting all students into classes that are "honors" create additional stress, or are there other variables (social media, etc.) at play. I would love to see data on that.
3. I agree that all students will learn if put into detracked classes; if they have the additional support they need. I think the key is to ease into the process and make sure appropriate collaboration is happening to make sure all needs are met. As I was reading my thoughts went to doing a trial DRI cycle where I keep all my kids and we read the same book, but work on individualized skills within that text. Kids in the word recognition stage would do word work around the text while others would work on vocabulary or deeper level comprehension. The great thing about reading the same book (like in Shared Reading) is that we could all do the comprehension together and learn from each others' thoughts and analysis.
4. For Hopkins I believe we have some tracking only because once a student enters accelerated math they are generally kept there. I feel good that we are fine-tuning our process to help determine which kids are really ready for the grade skip so that we are not accelerating to create intervention groups. As I read I wondered about eliminating acceleration - would that be a good thing or bad? Would it be allowed at the district level? Would it impact our funding or our G/T numbers? It is difficult to think about big change without thinking of all the other consequences that should NOT impact our decisions about great teaching, but do.
You bring up great points and questions, Libby! I, too, had similar wonderings about #1 and #4.
DeleteI love all the swirling going on in your mind, Libby! I have mixed feelings on math acceleration - to accelerate or not to accelerate, that is the question. (hahahaha)
DeleteI strongly believe that for some students with incredible mathematical minds, that it would be a disservice to not accelerate them. It would take away some opportunities down the road for them, possibly not allowing them to get as far in their high school/college prep math classes as kids who were accelerated.
Some elementary students who are currently accelerated might be able to have their needs met in a grade level classroom/not be accelerated IF all of our teachers, K-5, were provided with the tools and training needed to differentiate further, raise the bar higher for all. It would be more work for our teachers, and we would need everyone, K-5, on board. I am unclear on what "the district" stance would be, we aligned the process when the district adopted Bridges. As to how each school follows that plan, is another question.
Regarding funding, all the elementary schools currently fund their own GT position at .5, no district funds are provided. As far as the number of GT students identified, that would not necessarily be impacted. Just because a student is identified GT, doesn't mean a "GT Teacher" has to be their teacher, but their academic needs DO have to be met.
My very first year of teaching, my school in Boston experimented with grouping the two 4th grade classes based off math ability, due to the incredibly diverse needs of the group. Their thinking, I believe (these discussions and decisions happened before I got there), was to provide extra skill support for the class that needed it and extra enrichment for the other class who would pick everything up quicker. It was a big failure that only lasted one year: the “lower” class lacked peer models and exposure to rigorous math talk, and got further and further behind in the pacing of the curriculum. Behavior issues arose, as well as self-awareness of if they were in the “good at math” or “bad at math” class.
ReplyDeleteWhile the middle and high school in Ch. 3 cut the easier, low-track courses, I feel that Hopkins doesn’t truly have this kind of model (probably also because we’re such a small elementary). I value that at Hopkins, even while a handful of students might be advanced to the next grade for math, each math class still has a wide range of levels and opportunity for intervention and enrichment. Reading about South Side Middle School’s and High School’s experiences, it was exciting to hear that “low achieving students were more successful in heterogeneously grouped classes with a more demanding curriculum” (p.62). This reminds me of conversations we’ve had regarding our students who are way below grade level in reading or math and the importance of them being included in the classroom for shared reading, math instruction, etc. to get exposure to the content. It is difficult to see them still scoring poorly on assessments, but important to remember that they will learn more together with us than in isolation outside of the main classroom. I do feel like we keep conversation open throughout the year to try to achieve a balance with that, because it does seem to be a struggle to find sometimes. (I’m thinking about some kids in my room to whom the 4th grade math content is pretty inaccessible - we continue to talk and tweak our schedule for the 60 min math block to try to make it effective for them to learn and grow, and these schedules, interventions, and models have shifted over the year as the content gets harder and harder.)
I’m still struggling with: 1) how to give kids the challenge and enrichment they need without creating a culture of superiority attitudes like: “Well, I’m in 5th grade math” or “I’m in Mrs. Stagner’s DRI group.” and 2) what to do for a student who’s been “tracked” into an accelerated math class, but isn’t achieving, performing, or mastering the content? (We have limited options, it seems, other than put them in a small pre/reteaching or intervention group within the math room.) I can also see how the parent community might have concerns about detacking, so the importance of conversation, communication, etc. would be more essential than ever.
How does tracking, or detracking, fit into an elementary school?
ReplyDelete-We feel that tracking should not fit into elementary school but it seems like we do this to a certain extent with math grade skipping as well as the level of expectation that is continually pushed on students. We agree with Libby W. saying that the expectations that were once for 2nd grade are now for 1st grade.
How does detracking support equity?
-As Brittany quoted, in the statement, “The tracking system resulted in separate and unequal educational experiences for students” (60) we discussed our own experiences and realized that indeed it does give very unequal opportunities for learning. Kids in remedial classes don't have the same opportunities for learning. All kids know who is on the "track" and who is in the remedial classes-and that impacts student opinions and judgements of others.
Do you agree that students will learn more in detracked classes even if they are not getting high scores?
-Would a "C" in an honors class be considered equal to an "A" or a "B" in a detracked class? We don't know....If kids are in detracked classes, there has to be a high level of differentiation and expectations for all kids. There has to be a high level of professional development. There needs to be a challenging high level of interest and curriculum .
What supports would our school and our teachers need in order to detrack?
-We would need to have professional development, more co-teaching (we are thinking GT and SPED support) time to plan, rigor, and other things-all challenges that need to be prioritized.
You all have great thoughts about this chapter. I Have been pondering and trying to reconcile the ideas of detracking and differentiation. How do you do both successfully?
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to our discussion.
Separately, the situation described in the text included lots of intervention since they had every other day support classes.
This was posted by Mary Gizzie.
DeleteI also am intrigued by the idea of detracking and differentiation, it would have to be a school-wide decision that would drastically change how we do things. This idea could also have district-wide implications, for example, if Hopkins was the only elementary school not accelerating kids in math. Once the students would arrive at middle school, they would be a year or more behind other students in curriculum, for those who were accelerated in math.
Delete