A continuation of the discussion initiated under the thread: Re: [Mpls] Mpls school cuts... follow the money
I have no problem with instructional grouping designed to help kids with similar deficits in a particular skill or subject area get caught up. But these types of instructional groupings should TEMPORARY groupings that close and not widen the academic performance gap between students. The type of instructional grouping that is done in the Minneapolis public schools generally has the effect of widening the gap between students. What happens in Minneapolis is that by the time they get to high school the more advanced students are in college preparatory curriculum programs that are quite similar to programs for the general student population in other school districts. The curriculum for most of the MPS students is simply being dumbed-down. The alternative which I recommend is a one track system used by many of Minnesota's school districts in the elementary grades, where instruction is based on a college-bound curriculum and individualized educational planning. Some Minnesota school districts have college bound curriculum tracks in high school for the general student population as well. I think that ability-grouping is not a good solution to the problem of more advanced learners getting bored in a regular classroom. Dividing the classroom into instructional groups based on a teacher's assessment of the students' reading abilities, for example, necessarily involves some differentiation of the curriculum. At the very least some students will be covering more ground when it come to acquiring critical knowledge and skills. One of the drawbacks to in-class ability-grouping as described above is that it forces the teacher to focus more time on direct instruction, and less time doing active observation and troubleshooting, which is the basis of an individualized assessment and planning process. Students at all skill / ability-levels get shortchanged in some respects because of the cookie cutter approach to teaching that in-class ability-grouping inspires. Putting students into separate classes in reading and other subject areas on the basis of perceived ability is an alternative to in-class ability-grouping, at least for the more advanced students. Organizations that advocate for "academically gifted and talented" students generally recommend an emphasis on individualized assessment and planning, which I believe to be the most effective way to educate students who are not designated as "gifted and talented." The 1997 teachers edition curriculum guide for reading instruction recommends in-class ability grouping, and that is currently what most teachers do in classes for the district's less gifted students, or so I have been told been told by some MPS principals and teachers. I object to putting students into separate classrooms according to perceived ability because there is really no point to doing so if the curriculum is essentially the same, e.g., college bound. -Doug Mann http://educationright.tripod.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
