Not saying this is right or wrong, but where I went to school - starting in junior high - there were about 24 classes in each grade (7th, 8th and 9th). 2,000+ students in the school. Each class had a letter (7A through 7W, for example). Classes were tiered in terms of students' achievement/ability. 7A through 7F were comprised of students of high achievement/ability, for example. 7S through 7X, in that system, were comprised of low achievers.

 

I was in classes 7C, 8B and 9A. Draw your own conclusions.

 

In that system, each student receives pretty much "equal attention and resources". However, the grouping of students into classes in such a manner obviously brings up other issues.

The kids at the top deserve extra attention, also. So do the kids in the middle.

 

When you do it for everyone, it is no longer extra attention. It is a longer teaching day and part of the curriculum.

When you do it for everyone, it is no longer extra attention. It is a longer teaching day and part of the curriculum.

 

I agree on the longer teaching day. Welcome to my life, as I chose it.

 

It does not make it part of the curriculum. It makes it a way to reinforce the curriculum or to exceed it. Not all kids need/get the same thing, but they can all have "extra" attention.

Maybe the state should stop tracking students by any subdivision to eliminate the potential for any hurt feelings, in any form or manner.

This is terrible.

 

Given the opening paragragh it would not be surprizing if an outside function came in and called out the school for not addressing problems that should be obvious with some monitoring.

 

The rest of the letter looks like an 'action plan' to address the outside finding.

 

Auditor: "What are you doing for your high risk, low performing student groups?"

Response: "What are high risk student groups? Oh, those high risk areas. We will develop a comprehensive, documented action plan."

Auditor: "Okay, show it to me tomorrow and your can pass your audit."

 

The letter is so insensitive and sterile and non-individualized something like above seems like it may have driven it.

This is terrible.

 

Given the opening paragragh it would not be surprizing if an outside function came in and called out the school for not addressing problems that should be obvious with some monitoring.

 

The rest of the letter looks like an 'action plan' to address the outside finding.

 

Auditor: "What are you doing for your high risk, low performing student groups?"

Response: "What are high risk student groups? Oh, those high risk areas. We will develop a comprehensive, documented action plan."

Auditor: "Okay, show it to me tomorrow and your can pass your audit."

 

The letter is so insensitive and sterile and non-individualized something like above seems like it may have driven it.

 

The sad thing is that is pretty much half the plan. Make it look good on paper first. Now, admittedly, if the "gap" doesn't narrow, schools lose points in their overall score.

I find Mcpapa's post interesting. When I went to school, the class you were assigned to was determined by your grades. The more advanced kids were in one class and the less academic were in another. Every year that was subject to change. In high school, the smarter kids could take more advanced classes. I dont feel like this was a bad thing. Now all classes are supposed to be balanced. Does this encourage mediocrity ?

 

Guess that is another thread.

I find Mcpapa's post interesting. When I went to school, the class you were assigned to was determined by your grades. The more advanced kids were in one class and the less academic were in another. Every year that was subject to change. In high school, the smarter kids could take more advanced classes. I dont feel like this was a bad thing. Now all classes are supposed to be balanced. Does this encourage mediocrity ?Guess that is another thread.

 

Yes, but that is what everyone wants. Everyone should be equal, have the same oppurtunities and make the same amount of money in given job. Our education system (in which I am apart of) wants everyone to be equal so we can all feel good about ourselves.

Adults should know better.

 

No matter how ridiculous the state testing accountability system is, these school administrators should know better than this.

 

Not saying I disagree with you guys, but could this be a reflection of the administrators throwing their hands in the air in disgust because of the state education department's continuous hammering that "our African American students MUST do better"? I could easily see this as the administrators saying, "You want us to focus on making the African Americans do better? We'll focus on the African Americans doing better...."

I find Mcpapa's post interesting. When I went to school, the class you were assigned to was determined by your grades. The more advanced kids were in one class and the less academic were in another. Every year that was subject to change. In high school, the smarter kids could take more advanced classes. I dont feel like this was a bad thing. Now all classes are supposed to be balanced. Does this encourage mediocrity ?

 

Guess that is another thread.

 

There are still advanced classes. Figuring out how to get more gap kids to prepare for, qualify for, and successfully complete these advanced classes without being insensitive or doing a racial profile... That's what schools have been charged to do.

 

It is insane. The people making these laws are so far removed from the classroom it is asinine.

How does this compare to the Woodford Co. letter? In the Tampa Bay Times, 12-21-12, the State Board of Education has a proposal to boast academic achievement.

"The plan set out interim goals for achievement for students, but set lower goals for African-American students ......" .

 

The governor and the public does not support the plan, saying it sends the wrong message.