Also, and I realize this is a separate issue, but I feel like ranting about it anyway -- with the standardized testing, lots of times, it only counts pass/fail rates. So when I was volunteer tutoring in a school in New Orleans (this was a few years before No Child Left Behind, but there was a similar state program), I was working with kids in a fourth grade class. The kids we were assigned to work with were the ones who were reading just below a fourth grade level, the ones who could get up to the fourth grade level with a bit of work. There were also some kids in the class who were reading at somewhere around a first or second grade level, but since the school had limited resources, our efforts had to be focused on the kids who might get up to the "pass" range, not the ones who might improve a whole lot but still be failing.

this was a few years before No Child Left Behind, but there was a similar state program

LATIP/LATEP or something? I remember that. It even required teachers to have a certain amount of flair. Dude. I was at a magnet school. We don't need big glossy posters to memorize the presidents.

LATIP/LATEP or something?

LEAP, I'm pretty sure. Lousiana Educational Assessment Program, maybe? Around 2000 or 2001.

I can't remember if we had to take that or not. I mostly remember the CAT. LATIP/LATEP was something they were using back in my day to judge the teachers. It was horrible and I imagine some of my favorite teachers might not have passed based on stupid stuff.

I should not be around teh humans today. I am in a right foul mood and could be irrational in my actions and/or words.

For instance, thinking one's mother is a bloody cow for no reason other than she's there is not healthy.

LATIP/LATEP was something they were using back in my day to judge the teachers.

No, this was tests for the kids. In fourth grade, then again in eighth, I think, but my group was only working with the fourth graders. (Totally random story from that year: I was working with a kid who was reading a story about Jackie Robinson. Got to something about baseball cards, and he looked confused. I ask if he knew what baseball cards were, and he said no. I, slightly boggled, started to explain. He interrupted and said, "Oh! Like football cards?" Kids these days.)

There's a lot of research that suggests that tracking (different groupings according to performance) is helpful to the high-achieving kids but actually harmful to the middle- and low-achieving kids.

That said, on at least an anecdotal level I feel like grouping should work, if only we can figure out a way to do it without kids feeling like they're in the "dumb" class and therefore shouldn't even bother. The last two years (okay, one-and-a-half) I was in those classes, and boy did those kids know it.

And while differentiation within a heterogenous group is the current watchword (right alongside standardization @@), in practice I have yet to see anyone successfully do it in secondary math. We all agree that it's the goal, but hell if I know how to do it -- and I've observed some darn good teachers who also don't know how.

t /all-of-1.5-years-experience-knowitall

Oh, and Fay? Dressing like that is one of the perks of teaching that age group! Embrace it!

ETA: Mind you, tracking ends up putting kids who are behind in math in the behind-in-English classes as well, just because of scheduling, which is just dumb. So there's that problem too. So maybe the problem is with that kind of grouping, and not so much with within-class groups.

For instance, thinking one's mother is a bloody cow for no reason other than she's there is not healthy.

I think its perfectly reasonable, she's certainly been a bloody cow without you getting annoyed. It all balances out.

Students are tested regularly in multiple areas and are promoted to more challenging course work as their skills improve.

Oh, man. This is totally the dream. And if they've got administrative support for all the assessing and progress-tracking and designing different tracks and all of that? Hallelujah.

What usually happened to me in middle school and early high school was that I'd get annoyed at the teachers for requiring us to do work that I considered "too easy," and so I wouldn't do it. There were some teachers who figured this out, and started giving me more challenging stuff that was designed so that I'd have to do the regular work to be able to do it. Then there were others who refused to let me do anything else until I finished the regular work. (Then there was the algebra teacher who marked me down ten points whenever I did a test in pen rather than pencil -- my mom remembers some arguments with him where she was tempted to ask whether the 40-year-old teacher or the 12-year-old kid was being more immature.)

I had some great teachers. But most of the stuff that I thought made them great, it was clear that they were working outside the system of what they were "supposed" to do, and a lot of it was stuff that I recall the administration specifically telling them not to do.