<p>I’m with everyone who votes for the homogeneous groups. Both daughters were in gifted programs, and through both of them going to public schools in 3 different states, there was only one teacher I can remember who honestly was adept at differentiated education. She was the first teacher who stopped my younger daughter from daydreaming through class and really gave her a wake-up call to work to her potential.</p>
<p>Heterogenous vs homogenous classes</p>
<p>When I was growing up we had homogenous glasses to the point of the gifted program being a 4-5-6th grade combo with the same 10 or so kids per grade per year, so a small social group. In middle school & HS most classes were also honors track or not, so there was some sort of ability grouping.</p>
<p>When my kids went to elementary school it was all heterogenous and I feel sorry for the teacher who has to address super gifted Susie, IQ 150, and Down’s Symdrome Sarah, in the same full inclusion classroom. What actually happened is that Susie was a fast runner as well as a fast learner and Sarah tended to run away- they were paired at a table so that Susie would catch Sarah when she went running out of the classroom; in the meantime, the poor teacher was working on math & reading at the middle level in the class, not truly addressing the needs of Susie or Sarah.</p>
<p>BY the time another of my Ds hit K-1-2, two teachers had gamed the system, they team taught everything and did math & reading groups, one taking the lower end and the other the higher end learners, because that was more effective.</p>
<p>My Ds small HS had what seems to me to be a very effective system- they had about 4-6 courses per grade per subject, so all 5-6 math classes were ability grouped, it was “integrated math” not the algebra one year, geometry another year typical program. All the kids are learning the same book at different levels of ability and different levels of extra-curricular opportunities brought in. The same with English and science and languages. Changes up and down were not at all uncommon, it was not honors or nothing. We knew many kids who were gifted in English, but not in math or vice-versa and all were accommodated. To make things more interesting EVERY ONE took the same final, so a kid in the advanced class had a more difficult course, but would likely ace the final and a kid in the lowest class may have gone in with a higher grade, but the final grade would be fair as every one would have had English 10 or Math 10 on their transcript. No ranking issues here at all, especially since grades were tracked by the exact percentage not the letter grade</p>
<p>In social studies every one was heterogeneously grouped, thus not all classes were “elitist” there was a very mixed group in the socials courses. So, not every course was separated, once you were assigned to a level of ability grouping it was not forever, you could be moved up or down as needed; All in all it addressed every one’s needs pretty well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe this to be true also. My experience with my own children is that the teaching is geared to the lowest level. It isn’t until high school with AP classes that students in our area find themselves in academically homogenous classes. We have lots of money spent for ESL and remediation, but very little to none spent on gifted or average students. I too think that students ought to be placed according to their strengths, interests and work ethic—not just based on some test score.</p>
<p>The other problem (at least at high school level) that I see is that the public school system here has made class requirements for everyone so that they could meet college entrance requirements (for our state system). The problem is that many kids have no desire for college or any intention of going. The required course load is such that these students can’t get vocational training like in the past which actually would prepare them for employment—guess it’s not seen as politically correct or something to let students decided on that route.</p>
<p>“So, not every course was separated, once you were assigned to a level of ability grouping it was not forever, you could be moved up or down as needed;”</p>
<p>^That’s exactly what worked in the public elementary school of my youth. Keep in mind, though, that this was a different world educationally.
(1) better discipline in most classrooms;
(2) much fewer extremes of abilities on the low end, as well as clinical problems not being mainstreamed (clinical psychological, social problems, etc.)</p>
<p>There was a base homogeneity, or limited range, as well as far more homogeneity in language familiarity than today. (EFL vs. ESL or ELL)</p>
<p>Now try to see it from the student’s perspective. In the heterogeneous classroom, when the kids are put into groups at tables, they always put the smart kid with the less capable students so “he can help them and bring up the grade of the other kids in their group project”. How fair is that for the smart kid? He ends up doing all of the work and getting a lower grade than if he had been in a group with peers on his academic level. Yet, the slower kids reap the benefits of his work. Thank goodness for AP classes with a more homogeneous population. The regular classes with the heterogeneous student end up teaching to the least common denominator (english as a second language kids, special ed inclusion kids with IEP’s, etc.). Do you know how annoying it is for the academically advanced kids to sit there and listen to the teacher repeat things over and over again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, my S looked at it differently. Not from the perspective of fairness but of results. He did not mind doing 3/4 of the work. He learned a lot from doing it. The other 3 kids did not.</p>
<p>Astrophysicsmom, are you for homogeneous groups (as in tracking students by overall ability) or clusters (ability in different subjects)?</p>
<p>It just doesn’t make sense to throw a mishmash of kids of varying ability and commitment together in a class and try to teach them the same material. Why not group them in a more efficient and logical way-- so that each teacher can focus on a specific group of kids and their needs–and so that everyone is being taught at their level?</p>
<p>Usually it’s the gifted kids that miss out. Intelligence is, after all, distributed on a curve, and usually the majority of the class is mediocre and there are a few kids on top and a few on the bottom (but usually those would be in special ed). </p>
<p>That’s why honors, AP, and gifted classes are so rewarding, when done well.</p>
<p>“Usually it’s the gifted kids that miss out.”</p>
<p>Yep. In my region, the reason for the mishmash is partly political, partly economic. (Can you spell c-h-e-a-p?) “Mainstreaming” began as a well-intentioned effort to absorb <em>physically</em> disabled students into the regular classroom – to fully normalize students who had a normal brain & a compromised body. And a physically disabled but highly functioning, independent student should be able to assimilate if he or she wants that, & the class & teacher should be able to accommodate that student.</p>
<p>Fast forward over 20+years, and what you get now are highly <em>dysfunctional</em> non-physically disabled students – highly emotionally compromised students who are not being treated. The classroom is their clinic, the teacher their unlicensed “doctor.” Combine those additions with ELL and ESL students who are similarly not being given additional, separated attention, with socially malfunctioning students with situations also not being addressed (crime, truancy, acting out, what have you), combine with prolonged illiteracy —> those environments are serving no one, but lots of districts & agencies are fooling themselves while ripping off both students & taxpayers, in my not very humble opinion.</p>
<p>In heterogeneous classes teachers have to teach to the lowest common denominator, so “no child is left behind”. For advanced student sitting through these classes day after day is like pulling teeth without anesthetic.</p>
<p>I think generalized “tracking” is a bad idea for the reasons listed in in post #2. But students need to be taught at their ability level, so for each specific class there should be a segregation by ability.</p>
<p>epiphany, I did not realise you were my neighbour :D</p>