On 9/24/04 7:25 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
That's it? One class of first graders seven years ago makes for ability-grouping running rampant throughout the district? Can you at least provide more detail on this "perceived ability" concept? How were these teachers "perceiving" ability? What criteria was being used? > 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. > > When I was a MPS parent during the 1980s (in relation to the children of my > companion of that era), I spent many hours in early elementary classrooms and > saw no evidence of ability-grouping at Longfellow and Marcy Open. Students > received reading instruction together, were engaged in tutorial activities > together, and were not ability-grouped in any way. However, the district had a > pre-IB program that some could get into (all students could apply for, but not > all who wanted to get into the IB program could do so). Hate to break it to you, Doug, but I was placed in the gifted and talented programs at the old Pillsbury Elementary for third and fourth grade and also Holland Elementary for fifth and sixth grade back in the early to mid 1980's. I also spent one summer during my elementary school years in a remedial math program, which I think was after second grade, which was where I learned my lesson about paying attention in class. I think I'm gonna have to side with Dan McGuire's take on this...if there's any grouping going on, it's more likely due to performance than ability. Which makes sense for the reasons Mark Anderson outlined. Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
