| Author |
Message |
    
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 715
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:20 pm: |     |
I'm clearing out a lot of old papers and I came across a folder of school district information from years gone by. One thing that caught my eye was a report from a committee that studied grouping practices in the district.
The committee consisted of 15 district staff and administrators from elementary, middle school and high school levels. They studied the issues for more than two years before beginning to formulate recommendations. Here is some of what they found (from my notes on their presentation, as well as a copy of their report):
Findings from research:
1) There is no statistically significant difference in achievement between homogeneously and heterogeneously grouped students.
a) gifted and talented: theorists argue that students of this kind learn better when grouped together; this is attributed to the quality of discourse in the classroom.
b) top/middle/low levels: middle- and low-level students achieve better when heterogeneously grouped, and there is no difference for top-level students.
2) Homogeneous grouping defines students' achievement; they achieve at the level placed.
3) homogeneous grouping results in segregation (racial, socioeconomic)
4) Research shows no statistically significant differences in self-esteem, although it is thought that self-esteem is lower in lower groups.
5) Districts moving to heterogeneous grouping find:
a) need high expectations of all
b) change must be slow
c) can't change grouping patterns alone; have to change educational approaches, instructional materials, etc.
In this district, an independent researcher found:
Current practice: K-5 grouped heterogeneously (except Jefferson had two math levels). Grades 6-12 grouped homogeneously in English, math, social studies, science, foreign language. Basis of grouping either achievement or ability--BUT no consistent agreement as to which it was or should be. Grouping decisions made by (1) teacher, (2) guidance, (3) middle school teams, (4) HS dept. heads. Appeals are to the principal.
Profiles of levels:}
Gender: In the high school, lower levels were predominantly male and level 4 predominantly female across all subjects. MMS was similar but SOMS had more females in the lower level and more males at the top.
Ethnicity: At the HS, there were more minority students in the lower levels. The top level had less than half the minority percentage of the overall student body. The same was true for MMS. There was less racial differential in the top level at SOMS.
Length of time in district: Students in the higher levels tended to be in the district longer. Less than 10% of students entering the district after grade 5 were in the highest level.
Standardized test scores: The highest groups had the highest scores.
Mobility: At the HS, approximately 10% of students move up a level and about the same % move down (except in math, where 5% move up and 15% move down). MMS is similar to the HS while SOMS shows more movement.
Survey of Attutudes: parents and Students
80% of parents surveyed responded, but few had students in low levels. 70% of parents of mid-level students felt that their child had been unfairly labeled.
43% of HS students and 30% of middle school students wanted to move to a higher level. 38% of middle-level students felt unfairly labeled by their placement. Students in lower level classes found their classes more interesting but had lower expectations with respect to grades.
HS teachers said that in lower-level classes they used more question-answer and in-class writing, while in higher-level classes there was more lecturing and discussion. In the middle schools, higher-level classes were more likely to use small-group instruction. Teachers were asked about diversity of ability within classes, and all reported a high level of diversity at all levels, considering it a hindrance to instruction (except for level-5 math classes).
Committee recommendations were as follows:
The district establish a clear, measurable standard of excellence and equity, and develop a means to measure the degree to which this standard is met.
Review curriculum and instructional materials with a view to
highest standards for all
stress on higher-order thinking skills
self-esteem
respect
Grouping recommendation:
K-8 to be heterogeneous
9-12 to be homogeneous by achievement (not "ability") but not tracked. Level to be by student choice, with departments to define the requirements and expected proficiencies of each level. The master schedule to be reorganized to allow increased flexibility. Work to reduce the number of levels and to increase the number of electives that are heterogeneously grouped.
Running out of time to get this down--anyway, this is most of it. At the end there was recognition of the need for staff development, and also recognition that some students have special needs that need to be addressed (but remedial education was recommended to be supplementary rather than replacing regular instruction).
Anybody want to guess what year this report was presented? |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Thanks kathy. My first guess is 1999. My second guess is 1996. This is a total stab in the dark cause I never remember Jefferson having 2 levels of math.
One question from the end with regards to the quote "9-12 to be homogeneous by achievement (not "ability") but not tracked"...once there are homogeneous groups, isn't this basically tracking? now, all you A students go there, B students go there, C students go there, etc |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
I suspect that it was longer ago than that ... not based on any solid facts other than the couple of items mentioned that I don't ever remember hearing about (2 levels of math at Jeff, grouping in middle school foreign language) and I also think that I would recall hearing about such a study so I think it was probably before my first child entered kindergarten (in 1996) although perhaps I didn't pay as close attention the first couple of years. |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 716
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:46 pm: | |
ffof, As it is generally used in this district, "tracking" means being at a single level in all subjects, while with "grouping" a student might be placed in different levels in different subjects. The latter is more difficult to schedule.
Anybody else care to take a stab at the date? |
lizzyr
Citizen
Username: Lizzyr
Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
i'm voting for the 1970s or at the latest the early 1980s. Big clue is the Marshall/Jefferson pairing has been in place for 20+ years. I could be a bit too early, as I think Kathy's kids are in their 20s....so maybe mid/late 1980s |
happyman
Citizen
Username: Happyman
Post Number: 88
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 11:12 pm: | |
I'm going with 1988, (before my time) a prelude to Contract for Choice .... what did I win?
A "Levels Can Work" button!
 |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
I went for the 90's cause I seem to remember a survey we took in regards to race and curriculum when my oldest was at Jefferson. Heck, it's probably 1979
Also, seems to me that we have kids who are level 3 in, for example, math and science, but level 4 for L.A. and history. So is it grouping or tracking....or gracking?! trouping? |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 717
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
You're all around it but nobody got it yet. Clue: Chair of the committee was Assistant Superintendent Everett Kline.
ffof, Kids who are in one level for math and science and another for LA/history are grouped, not tracked. Officially this district does not track. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 593
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
In the year of the homogeneous district?
DWM |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 720
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
The report was issued in February of 1993. Given that they said that they researched for over two years and then spent a few months coming up with recommendations, the committee was probably formed in the fall of 1990.
The thing that most strikes me is that after years of research, they recommended deleveling the middle schools and that went nowhere. As we saw with the much more modest recent proposal re the sixth grade, there will always be parents who are sure that it will be bad for their kid and protest accordingly. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page