Let me give you a hypothetical:

You sign on to a different teaching method, which eliminates removing the children from their classrooms to teach the "gifteds" (hate that word) or other special programs. Instead, you create a classroom where the children are stratified into their abilities and they break out into smaller groups to learn at their respective paces. Intellectual caste system, for lack of a better phrase. Other districts do it with great success - sound familiar?

How big of a classroom do you think you now need for your 20 kids split into 4 or 5 groups? Larger than what you have? Is your school classroom now obsolete? Don't you need more space at the elementary level to do this? Isn't it rather noisy? Do you need to hire a consultant to conduct a space utilization study to implement your new method after you begin the program? Don't you have to reduce classroom population?

Larger question. Is this what they had in mind with the Super-sized Hadley? Change the "pull out" teaching method to a "stay in", thereby causing a space crunch? Then it's an "I told you so. We do have space problems." Don't you necessarily need more room in the classroom itself to conduct this teaching method?

Discuss amongst yourselves. More reports from the retreat front to come.

Oh. You didn't know there was a retreat for Board Members to discuss goals and programs? Not surprising. You didn't know about the sidewalk sale either.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ronkas,

Was it 5 or 6 years ago when the new D41 classroom strategy buzzword was "differentiating"? They all went off to summer educational seminars in North Carolina (I think) to get on board. This plan sounds an awful lot like that. It didn't work in all the classrooms because not all of the teachers were equally motivated or prepared to perform and create coursework for all the different levels of abilities the children possess. There truly are many levels - kids just out of ESL or ELL to the 7th graders taking honors math with juniors at West.

If this is different, I'd like to know how.

Ron's post is referring (I presume) to a portion of our meeting yesterday in which we talked about the concept of "tracking" vs. instructional differentiation (I hope I'm remembering the term right) of subgroups within a class.

Definition of terms is important and my personal (Note: other Board Members and Administration staff's definitions may differ) definition of "tracking" is that you would have whole classrooms differentiated from one another by ability (i.e. all the "smart" kids are in one class together). In differentiation, you have a classroom of kids of all levels and then, within certain learning blocks, you would set up small groups based on ability in that particular subject.

I think if you Google search those two terms, you'll find a wealth of info. I would as always be interested to hear what people think is the best model. Dr. Riebock discussed some of her feelings and I'd encourage folks to talk with her about her philosophy in this area. My (kid's) firsthand experience is limited to Kindergarten and 1st Grade. I know that my child has been "differentiated" into reading groups. Tracking is not, to my knowledge, in place at the K-5's. I can't speak to all of Hadley's subjects.

The "tracking" discussion yesterday, if I remember correctly, grew tangentially out of a discussion about the literacy curriculum (as per the goals of the two-year plan). The question posed by a Board member is if we should be "tracking" for certain subjects and at what grade level that would or should begin. It wasn't an agenda item and I would classify the discussion as more informative than action-oriented. That is to say, I'm aware of no movement to change what we're doing right now in regards "tracking" vs. differentiation.

But please discuss or email me with any thoughts or questions. For an explanation of the District's current model, I'd direct you to Dr. Riebock.

Bob-

I am not opposed to tracking but you can run into problems when you have too many kids in one ability level and this makes the numbers in classes uneven or when a student makes a jump academically and they are then in the wrong group or when a student - possibly a student who moves in is placed in the wrong group. I am a product of tracking everyone knew which class was the smart class and which was not so smart, but the kids all know that anyway in the mixed groupings we typically see now. Students who are higher should be in larger groups because if they are that high they should not require as much teacher attention, and students who are below grade level probably should be in smaller classes in order for them to get more attention from the teacher. I am not so sure that parents would be pleased with the uneven class sizes if this happened. I often wondered why D41 did not do more with the bright students. Both of my children are bright in fact where I work their test scores would earn them a spot in the gifted program, but in d41 there are many bright kids and the program is more selective than in other districts. Often I had to fight for just one novel study a year at my childs reading level. At Hadley there should be more sections of Algebra for 8th graders- now I feel some kids who could be in algebra are not in that track because there are not enough sections.

I think that most districts like heterogeneous groups- some high students, some average students and some lower students in every class. This arrangement allows for students to change levels when they need extra help in an area or when things click for them and they are ready for a bigger challenge. The brighter kids are often not fully challenged and the below average kids often ride on the coat tails of the "smarter" students.

If you would like to talk about this sometime give me a call- Amy and ohma have my number.

I'm torn on the issue. One problem with lumping the "high achievers" in a group and "low achievers" in another is that ability may vary widely by subject area. Until late elementary or even junior high, there isn't much switching for different subjects. Therefore, you could have a kid who blows his peers out of the water in math but is a really poor reader...that's concerning if the kid gets left out of the "high" group because of his reading.

Differentiation is the right way to go but it does require a lot of training for staff. It can be done though even by less experienced teachers. So, I guess I'd look to keep it kind of like it is but offer more advanced opportunities for pullouts for a larger number of students. If kids can get into the gifted program in one district, they should be able to get into the gifted program in another. (Mrs. speech's example) I think the cutoff a few years ago was 125...I found out in 5th grade that my daughter missed gifted reading by one point. What a shame! At the same time, I guess it's all worked out fine. She's taking honors English, social studies and science in high school so not being qualified as "gifted" isn't ultimately a problem. She's learned a lot and is excited about high school.

Two of my kids have been in classes where the teacher "differentiated" and have been pulled out for the "gifted" program. We feel that the "gifted" program in elementary school isn't all that it is cracked up to be. They miss valuable instruction time from the classroom teacher on the very subject they are being pulled out to enhance. We went as far as to pull him from the program and were very happy with the results of his classroom teacher. Differentiation is the way to go.

Again, the experience depends on the teacher. My child, who is not qualified as gifted but managed to get all 5s in 6th grade, actually complained about having to "wait" for other kids to catch up when in elementary school. Much time was spent after exams reviewing the material they'd already been tested on for the kids who performed poorly. Kids who did well just sat and waited while the material they had already grasped was gone over for others - yet another time.

Having said that, he also had teachers who were very good at making certain everyone was learning at their own pace - slower or faster.

Personally, I think tracking is the way to go, this way the smart kids aren't forced to learn at a slower pace. Really no different than sports. I mean are you gonna bench the 1st stringers so the kids who don't practice or just ain't got it have a chance to catch up during the game? Not trying to be funny here, but you might run into a problem with the diversity police. In the long run, it's not going to work, too many pompous people in GE who will not be able to accept the fact that their kid isn't in the gifted class.

By the way, where was the retreat held? Remind me to tell you a story one day about a friend, who was on a school board in Western Springs and who ran a campaign to push through a referendum. After it passed the board, along with their families spent the weekend attending a retreat (all expense paid) in downtown Chicago. Never understood why the tax payers had to pay for hotel when its less than 17 miles away. Nice

It's good to get people's opinions. As I mentioned, my experience has only been in the first couple of years of K-5. I can't imagine "tracking" at that age. I could see it as advantageous later in their career.

Bitterboy, in what grade do you think "tracking" perhaps should begin?

Bitterboy,
If you support tracking, how would you decide on which track a kid belongs? What if he/she is a superior reader but struggles in Math? Do they switch classes for every subject? Also, if this doesn't start until junior high, you have to make sure that there are all tracks available on every team.

I'm hesitant to support the idea of tracking...I would say that high schools should be able to do a little more for kids who can't necessarily cut the tradition academic track but are still talented and capable in their own way. It would be nice to see a more "hands on" track...actually tracking based on learning style would be more acceptable to me that straight up IQ or other "litmus test".

Amy-
To track by learning styles would be great. There are 6th graders who are bragging that they are on the smartest team- and if you were smart you would be on that team. It might be that the gifted kids are on that team- but gifted is not equal to or the be all and end all of "smart". I explained to my kid that that was not true but even if it were and those students were indeed the smartest academically or interms or ability on some test/s, obviously their social IQ is lacking and it is much better to be a regular smart kid with good social skills.

You are right Amy, it's not easy. I'm not sure at what age this should begin. Your point is an excellent one; how do you accomodate someone who excels in one subject, but does poorly in another? I would think these kids would have to excel in most every subject. But then what do you do with the child who is really awesome in just one? It could be one big mess. Also,I am not for spending any more $. I repeat, "NOT". I have to think more about this. I'm not an educator so any input you get from me, should be given it's proper weight, except for when it comes to spending more money.

Spending more $ through another referendum that is.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
I would think these kids would have to excel in most every subject.

Cartainly there are a decent number of kids who find most any academic demand within their reach. But if we ignore the kids who have real strengths because they also have real weaknesses, we are missing the boat. That's what is wrong with our system already. Plus, I think you will find it very common for a child to have at least one area of true strength while other areas may be quite weak. Heck, to qualify LD, a student must have average to above average IQ with specific problem areas. So, by definition for years, people disregarded the "special ed" kids because people thought (incorrectly) that it just meant slow...not true.

The sytem in general needs serious overhaul but I'd love to see some more work done around learnging styles. For example, one of my kids is extremely visual and remembers EVERYTHING while the other is very auditory and struggles more with memory even though the problem solving ability is fantastic. It's all really very facinating!

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Let me give you a hypothetical:

You sign on to a different teaching method, which eliminates removing the children from their classrooms to teach the "gifteds" (hate that word) or other special programs. Instead, you create a classroom where the children are stratified into their abilities and they break out into smaller groups to learn at their respective paces. Intellectual caste system, for lack of a better phrase. Other districts do it with great success - sound familiar?

How big of a classroom do you think you now need for your 20 kids split into 4 or 5 groups? Larger than what you have? Is your school classroom now obsolete? Don't you need more space at the elementary level to do this? Isn't it rather noisy? Do you need to hire a consultant to conduct a space utilization study to implement your new method after you begin the program? Don't you have to reduce classroom population?

Larger question. Is this what they had in mind with the Super-sized Hadley? Change the "pull out" teaching method to a "stay in", thereby causing a space crunch? Then it's an "I told you so. We do have space problems." Don't you necessarily need more room in the classroom itself to conduct this teaching method?

I reprint this post from August because I just read a front page article in the schoolpropagandaweek tabloid that appears on my driveway every week. It seems that, due to the requirements of the literacy program in our grade schools, our children are having to split their groups into the hallway.

And we still have 600 kids in portables! Now what do you do? In the logic challenged world of District 41, we put more portables at........Hadley!

Why do we have a communications director? Other than to send numerous emails. I just got one telling me I could meet a consultant on October 10.

Here's the article:

SchoolWeek: How many Students Are Too Many?

Some comments:

From reading the article, one can claim only that there is one classroom that spills out into the hallways at Ben Franklin. All of our five kids that have gone through Franklin (including the youngest of the lot, who is now in fifth grade there) have had that teacher who now uses the hallway for a literacy group. One of our kids even had the luck to have that teacher two years in a row. So we know him, and can tell everyone that if your child lands in this teacher's classroom (or his hallway), you are fortunate because he is good. As a matter of fact, he is better in the hallway than most others are inside a classroom, and I would recommend him if he were teaching in a taxi cab; the kids who spend small group time in the hall aren't necessarily suffering and possibly like it for its uniqueness. Not to slam other teachers, just to praise this one.

Let me say this also, that I had two reasons to vote against the referendum: first and foremost that it contained not one bit of relief for special education needs in either Franklin or at Hadley, and if you have ever been told that services cannot be provided because we don't have the resources or we don't have the money for that, and if you have ever been told that the number of interventions are limited to four because our experience is that no one ever needs more than that even before you have discussed the specific needs of your own child, you know what I mean, no one deserves $40 million to tell me that, I should have to say no more; secondly that continued tax raises over time have the net effect of chasing people out of their homes, and if you are one those still here who have been in your home for a while and can truthfully say I could not afford to buy my own home at today's prices and given today's tax rates then you, too, know what I mean.

And let me also say this, that the distribution, including the 'test market', for the Schools Weekly publication tends to ignore those of us who are less well-to-do and so fails to provide a needed public service that our governmental institutions also fail to provide - that is that no one makes any real attempt to include those who aren't already participating. Just my two cents.

And so having qualified everything with the above, I have to say that this article is online and is worth a read.

This from the article:

“Nobody is clamoring for us to get rid of our portables...’’ said district spokeswoman Julie Worthen.

I find this comment very interesting, given all of the referendum "fact sheets" that were cranked out by the district that contained arguments against portables. And did Julie not see the GrowingD41 You Tube video with the pictures of portables juxtaposed to the banners asking "Is this Glen Ellyn style?"

I'm trying to see where we have too many kids in classrooms from the October enrollment report. (This information is readily available on the web site to the public.) So what if some classes exceed the guidelines many are under the guidelines and have been for some time. I believe that the study quoted mentions that achievement is not impacted by class sizes until there are levels of 15 and under or 30 and above. So is 15 the new target size?

We don't get the newspaper either, John. I can't say that I feel like I'm missing anything.

Sorry John and Ohma: You already know that I live on Roosevelt Road area. No copper gutters here.

I also wish that they would make this comment a little more clear, "with over 600 kids in portable classrooms".

This stinks of some of the same scare tactics used throughout the referendum campaign. Are there "over 600 kids" in portable classrooms on a full time instructional basis throughout the day? NO. Are there unused portable classroom spaces throughout the day at the various schools? YES.

If another portable is placed at Hadley for the literacy program, will all four classrooms be utilized throughout the entire school day? No.

The average person looking at this "informative" newspaper would read horror into that statement and feel something should be done. I don't have many problems with the rest of the article, but that continued misconception is really troublesome to me. I wish, for all the page space and depth they go into with these articles, that they would be more clear with there banner statements.

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Sorry John and Ohma: You already know that I live on Roosevelt Road area. No copper gutters here.

Another shot across the bow?