Mark Snyder wrote:
<< We've seen Doug Mann make this claim repeatedly, but other than the story

about his kid, I can't really recall anything else he's said in this forum, 
nor did I see anything on his campaign's web site to actually back up this 
theory of his that ability-grouping is occurring so rampantly throughout the
MPS, 
though I remember other parents of MPS students disputing it.  >>


Doug Mann answered:
 [Quote from SW Journal] << David Heistad, the Executive Director of Testing

Evaluation and Student Information for Minneapolis Public Schools, said they

don't uniformly test student IQ levels but do separate students in the 
elementary grades into groups by reading abilities.

"Most teachers in the world, at least in the United States, do some sort of 
reading groups. We certainly wouldn't call that ability grouping, because
those 
reading groups are based on whether students are sounding out the basic 
words... or whether they are really struggling with the basics and don't
have the 
phonemic awareness down," Heistad said.

"Typically, the teacher in first grade will divide [students] into a couple 
groups so each student can work at their own pace. But those groups are very

flexible and teachers assess them throughout the year. That's a big step
from 
ability grouping," he said.>>
http://www.swjournal.com/articles/2002/10/22/export5473.txt

Mark Anderson adds:
I'm glad Mark Snyder brought this up.  I may be one of the parents who
disputed Doug in the past, although I don't remember.

I do think that Doug has greatly over-stated the amount of tracking that
goes on.  Admittedly, my experience is from just one school, Bancroft
Elementary, but it sounds like (below) that Doug's experience of tracking is
also from only one school, in addition to the one quote he has above, and
some vague recommendations of the school district.

At Bancroft, kids are sorted into three classes in fourth and fifth grade
for math and reading, based on ability.  Otherwise, there is no official
tracking at the school.  I have heard that some teachers in the lower grades
break out their kids somewhat for reading, at least to give them different
assignments.  This is based on each teacher's methods, not based on school
policy, although I see the quote above gives them tacit approval for this.
I don't really see how Doug can complain about this.  Should the teachers
assign kids to read books when they don't even know their letters yet?
Should no kids be encouraged to read books because some of their peers can't
do it?

The only other policy that Bancroft seems to have is very anti-tracking.
They try hard to assign kids of differing abilities to each class.  I get
very annoyed at this.  They seem to be trying to make the teacher's job as
difficult as possible, just to be more politically correct.  Doug, you
certainly haven't convinced me that tracking hurts the education process.
It makes no sense to me to teach the same thing to kids with a wide variety
of knowledge -- some kids will have no comprehension of the subject, and to
others it will be redundant.  I think the best way to teach would be for
kids to do their own thing as often as possible, or in small groups with
kids grouped by their level of knowledge.  But Doug would damn all such
schooling as tracking.

I think Atherton suggested not long ago that students should be sorted by
what they know, not by grades, at least in the older years.  I
wholeheartedly agree with that.  I don't think that would work for the
elementary years, but the kids need to be sorted somehow so they can be
taught at the level they're at.  Tracking has disadvantages, but I don't see
a better way.

Doug Mann wrote:
Ability-grouping as Heistad defines it has been illegal since the 1970s. 
Students may not be assigned to separate classrooms for the entire day based
on a 
single test of academic or cognitive ability, but may be assigned to 
classrooms in various subject areas on the basis of assessed ability (what
they can do, 
scores on achievement tests, etc.)  "Ability-grouping" is allowed if the 
groupings are "flexible," which means that students are periodically
reassessed, 
and may be considered "flexible" even if there is absolutely no movement
from 
group to group over the course of a year, even several years, and even if 
ability-grouping practices result in greater differences in
education-related 
outcomes between racial groups. - (Source: Equal Educational Opportunity and

Nondiscrimination for minority students: Federal Enforcement of Title VI in
Ability 
Grouping Practices, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume IV,
A 
Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, September 1999, 
heading: OCR's enforcement activities, subheading: Title VI compliance
standards, 
pages 60-61.)   

Mark Anderson replies:
Doug, I was worried when you said ability grouping was illegal.  But then
your description of the source document contradicted your statement, which I
was glad to see.

Dug Mann:
In the fall of 1997, first grade students at Audubon Elementary school (now 
Lake Harriet) were ability-grouped into separate classrooms for reading 
instruction within 2 weeks after school started, and students in the low and
medium 
ability classrooms were further subdivided in instructional groups according
to 
perceived ability. This part-time tracking was particularly objectionable 
because the rest of the curriculum is reading based. I went to the teachers,
then 
up the chain of command to seek corrective action: to the principal, the 
superintendent, then the board of directors, which sets the policy. The
result: No 
action. Why?

The first grade teachers at Aububon were following the district's policy, as

set forth in the curriculum content standards for English Language Arts, 
reading and writing. I requested and received a copy of every (teachers
edition) 
curriculum content standards booklet for grades K-12. The booklets for K-6 
Language Arts, reading and writing, dated July 1997 recommend assigning
students to 
instructional groups according to ability. Carol Johnson was the head of 
curriculum development for a year prior to leaving the district for the 
superintendent gig in St. Louis Park.

Mark Anderson:
So your experience at Audubon indicates some tracking, and the district
recommended it in some cases.  From what I've seen of kids in the first few
years of school, the kids are at such varied stages, I don't see how you can
teach them together.

Doug Mann:
Also in 1997 the district requested and received a matching grant from the 
state to do testing for gifted programs. The district also mandated gifted 
programming at any school where at least one parent requested that their
child be 
placed in a gifted program, provided that child meets the criteria for 
placement in a gifted program. About half of MN school districts did not
apply for the 
1997 matching grant for gifted testing, which was appropriation specifically

earmarked for gifted education since the early 1980s. In the early 1980s
about 
half of MN school districts did not have gifted and talented programs and
did 
not condone "ability-grouping" as I have used the term.

Mark Anderson:
The gifted programs are pull-outs from the regular classroom.  Is this
tracking?  By the way, it's been my experience that these pull-outs did more
harm than good.  Partly because our son was regularly pulled out of math
instruction, we needed to get him private tutoring after fifth grade to
catch him up.  When they wanted to do the same thing with our daughter, we
refused.

By the way, Mark Snyder, I think you give the voters too much credit when
you suggest that Doug didn't make the cut because of his concern about a
non-existent problem.  I doubt that most of the voters even knew his
opinions.  Looking at the votes for the School Board, it looks to me that
the main criterion for election is Party endorsement.  The top five
vote-getters are or previously were endorsed by the DFL, and the sixth was
endorsed by the Republicans.  And the DFL endorsed have always prevailed in
previous years.  Anyone who wants to be on the School Board needs to suck up
to the delegates at the DFL convention.  There is no other way to get
elected.  I am kind of surprised the Board is as good as it is.  I guess the
DFL delegates aren't as horrible as I imagined.

Mark V Anderson
Bancroft


REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
before continuing it on the list. 
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to