After reading the article, I thought back to how schools I had attended grouped its students. In
my middle school, there were three classes. One class was for those who had difficulty focusing but were still capable. Next, was the class I was in that was full of average kids and few above average students. The third and final class, concluded of those who excelled in the previous grades and were the smartest students in the grade. This form of tracking seemed to be working as my classes never felt unappreciated. We always had homework, semi-complicated projects, weekly quizzes, etc. However, the aforementioned students who excelled in the previous years that were placed in higher level courses, had roughly the same workload, yet higher difficulty and a higher standard.
What is important to note, is that the article, and my own personal experience in school, stresses that there is a, “goal of providing high-quality, relevant education to all students.” This ideology seemed to be present in my middle school as classes where an education level that was relevant to the collective intelligence of the class.
The article was very sensical and straightforward, however, there is one aspect of the article that I do not agree with. The aspect of the article that I do not agree with is that, “More over, the nature of these differences suggests that students who are placed in high-ability groups have access to far richer schooling experiences than other students.” This statement implies that students who are not placed in the highest level courses, will not have access to richer schooling experiences. Although, I understand what the author is trying to convey. It is also true that both my brother and myself and many people I know were placed in course levels that were not the bottom of the course load, but were certainly not at the top, and we all were accepted to college on the first attempt. Thus, it is possible that students who are not enrolled in higher level courses can face great difficulty enriching their education, it does not seem to be more often than not as the article suggest.
No comments:
Post a Comment