A.  Looking at this on a binary, true or false, basis:
 
Claim 1:  I think that whether kids will moderate their behavior in mixed
grouping depends on a "tipping point" analysis--thus the relative sizes of the
groups.
 
Claim 2:  I think that whether less able kids learn more when grouped with more
able kids depends on effective differentiation (as George says), but also on the
effectiveness of homogeneous grouping of less able kids.  Research is mixed. 
There's alot of question about teacher expectations and "the good
stuff"--curriculum and instructional practices.
 
Claim 3:  I think that whether more able kids learn less when grouped with less
able kids depends on effective differentiation (as George says), but also on the
effectiveness of homogeneous grouping of more able kids.  I think research
supports homogeneous grouping.  MCPS supports homogeneous grouping (of magnet
kids).
 
B.  Of course, it's not binary:  there are trade offs.  We need to look at the
strength of the correlations as to each claim:  as to Claim 1--the correlation
between reduced dysfunction and grouping.  Then we need to compare the
correlations as to each claim.  Then we need to see whether we could do
something else (to reduce dysfunction, for example) that would not have the same
deleterious consequences to able kids.
 
I bugs me that MCEF seems to think that the primary solution to the problems of
lesser ability kids is heterogeneous grouping (well prepared kids learn less),
without addressing core SES problems (though they may be addressed by the
Kennedy cluster project) or other potential educational solutions--teacher
training, the good stuff for on-level kids.
 
C.  A part of the question has to do with effective differentiation, as George
says.  But I do not agree with his formulation.  The question is not, or not
primarily, "whether or not effective differentiation and support CAN alter the
outcomes."  This question should be "whether or not WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS
TO BELIEVE THAT differentiation and support WILL alter the outcomes." 
 
Many of us, including me, have seen purported differentiation fail.  Special ed
has seen purported differentiation fail.  We know that MCPS does not train.  I
don't believe that Carver has any commitment to high ability local school kids
(especially in the red zone).  I don't think that we have a substantial basis to
believe that differentiation will support good outcomes.  I sure wouldn't advise
anybody to bet his/her kid's education on MCPS differentiation. 
 
So, if there's about a 5% likelihood that differentiation will bring good
outcomes, that pretty well decides how the trade offs and alternative
programming should be effected.

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, George Vlasits <gvlasits@...> wrote:


From: George Vlasits <gvlasits@...>
Subject: Re: [GTAletters] Who needs instruction the most, and the LEAST?
To: GTAletters@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 9:48 AM








Reply is to both Alan and Cathy,

I think we can probably agree that evidence supports claim #1 and I
definitely agree with Cathy's claim #4. I also believe that the issues
involved in claims #2 and #3 depend on the implementation of heterogeneous
classes (the devil is in the details). Without effective differentiation and
support, claim #2 is probably false and claim #3 is definitely true. So, in
my mind, the issue comes down to whether or not effective differentiation
and support can alter the outcomes.

I also agree that we face an ethical (and social, I would add) dilemma (and
one that the original supporters of NCLB tried, unsuccessfully, to address):
far, far too many students, a substantial number of them poor and/or
minorities, are not getting an adequate, much less an excellent, education
in the public schools. And I don't doubt that there are some trade-offs that
will be necessary to change this situation. But I agree that the one
definitely unacceptable trade-off would be to deny the more prepared and
tractable a challenging education. It's unacceptable for three reasons: 1)
all students are entitled to the best education possible (ethical reason);
2) if the more prepared students are not challenged, they will become
disruptive (practical reason); 3) if students are not being served by the
public schools, parent's who can afford it will put their children in
private schools, which will reduce the support for financing public schools
(economic reason).

George

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Alan G Isaac <aisaac@american. edu> wrote:

>
>
> By his gentle persistence, George is managing to
> push this conversation towards a challenging
> ethical discussion. I'm going to try to make
> this more explicit.
>
> What if the following three claims are true?
> 1. Kids with behavioral difficulties will moderate
> their dysfunctional behaviors when grouped with
> more tractable peers.
> 2. Kids who enter school less prepared and who
> continue to get less support at home and in their
> communities will learn more if grouped with more
> prepared peers.
> 3. Kids who are both tractable and very prepared
> will learn less when grouped with less tractable
> or less prepared kids?
>
> *If* these three claims are true, society faces some
> trade-offs. Of course few conditions are binary:
> tractable/intractab le and prepared/less- prepared are crude
> and misleading categories, and a child's tractability
> depends on the teacher as well as the child, etc. But we
> could still initiate a conversation based on the broad
> notion that there is a conflict between the goals of most
> effectively educating different groups of children. That
> is, we can ask if some should be educated below their
> potential and desire so that others can get closer to their
> potential and desires.
>
> I am not claiming the above are true claims: there is some
> evidence for 1. and substantial evidence for 3., but
> I believe the evidence is against 2. George clearly believes
> in 2. and wants to dispute 3. That is, as an empirical
> matter, George wants to dispute that heterogeneous grouping
> will be costly for the most prepared. (He grants that it
> will slow their acceleration but suggests without citing any
> studies that it will deepen their understanding. )
> Accumulating evidence seems to speak strongly against
> George's hopes on this, so he really needs to cite more of
> the best, most recent literature in order to make this at
> all plausible. (It may be that George has in mind only the
> earliest grades (?), but even then, it is silly to teach the
> alphabet to kids who are already reading.)
>
> I think George wants to believe 3. is false because he
> believes 2. is true and sees that if 3. is also true there
> is a real problem of trade-offs. But even if both 2. and 3.
> were true, I think George would say in this case, the public
> school system should help the least prepared even if it
> substantially costs the most prepared.
>
> I claim such a proposal is impracticable. If the public
> schools do not provide an appropriate challenges in
> a non-disruptive setting to the most prepared students, they
> will leave for private schools.
>
> Fortunately, against George's view of the evidence, I also
> claim that the evidence is that heterogeneous grouping
> benefits all students, not just the most prepared. I am not
> willing to denigrate "remediation" the way George does,
> because (as the MCPS reading program has demonstrated)
> remediation is exactly what is needed for the least prepared
> kids. It is their only real hope of becoming more prepared.
>
> Alan Isaac
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]