Hard “no’s” from my perspective:
Teacher accountability. Outside of the education field, is it reasonable to hold a hiring manager accountable for their group’s performance if they aren’t allowed to interview candidates? Teachers must work with whatever is sent their way, and I’ve never met a teacher that isn’t stellar at their job.
Vouchers. Public schools have the most resources to handle special needs kids, and can’t have these funds siphoned away.
When I made that post I was replying to the general sentiment I had observed in the thread to that point which had skewed more broadly than the narrow discussion of the article and to me seemed to be about the needs of the many verse the needs of the few (broadly). The point I was making is that our bias is to make sure our kids have the best experience possible, and that making the “average” kids experience better should not come at the expense of their kid.
This is normal and natural, and I don’t fault people for that, but it’s also a different calculus than what a school district or society at large should decide (maybe).
My understanding is that the theory the administrators of the two schools in question are operating under is that the current system helps honors students at the expense of kids left behind or something – so there are two things to discuss, is that theory accurate, and if it is, which kids do you favor?
I’m not sure they even suggested that. I believe that they feel that the students who aren’t ready for the honors classes are disadvantaged relative to those who are, so they want no one to be able to take the honors classes. Again, they have the resources to offer both versions of the classes and they don’t have to favor one group over another.
Yes, there are many heart-breaking cases in public schools. I am just not sure we can or should expect the schools to address them. Other than supplying education and perhaps free meals while there, the schools arent set up to address the socio-economic needs of families in crisis.
In order to continue giving a level of education that parents see as not acceptable we need to make sure they cannot leave, so we can continue that unacceptable level of education.
Only in America 
Right, but I think the reason they are getting rid of the honors classes is because it creates the perception among those who aren’t slotted that they can’t get there, and their needs are best served by getting rid of English honors for those two grades. Right?
And those opposed to this move believe that it is taking away opportunities for those who would have been in the honors class.
So, the dynamic being presented is that we either help those who need more help or those who are exceling. I’m not saying that is correct, but that is the dynamic I observed. And I expounded on that.
The article mentions that at Culver City anyone could opt into the honors class; it wasn’t based on teacher recommendation, grades, test scores, etc.
There will always be perceptions that some students are more advanced than others, not just for those two grades, but later in high school and in college. How are we going to eliminate those perceptions permanently (other than by teaching to the lowest denominator permanently)?
Well, it’s not controversial that some students are more advanced than others, meaning that they are farther along an academic path. For example, students in Calculus are more advanced than those in Precalculus, and students in French 3 are more advanced than those in French 2. This kind of “advanced” doesn’t have the same value judgement attached as honors vs non-honors, though.
One way of doing much more is the Community Schools Model. I used to be the medical director for a school-based clinic at a Community School.
This isn’t really accurate. One deleted post suggested that we should get rid of the non-honors students. More to your point, a number of posters (including you) have offered charter schools such as BASIS schools as an alternative approach, but the approach at those schools seems to be to not only get rid non-advanced courses, but also to get rid of or keep out the students who might benefit from them.
I’m not sure what exactly you mean here, but I am pretty sure it isn’t what they are trying to accomplish. Single tracking the classes for 9 and 10 allows for more diverse classes and keeps the door open (literally and figuratively) for more kids to take Honors/AP courses as 11/12 grades. The existing course was also redesigned to increase the rigor as compared to the old lower track, with built-in flexibility to provide extra help to those who struggle and extra opportunities for those who want.
It looks to me like they have adopted the approach of the top privates in the area. These schools generally get a large influx of new students in 9th grade, and many of the new kids aren’t nearly as well prepared in English as the kids who are already there, but the new kids aren’t stuck in lower level courses, they are folded in with the existing students in the regular courses and given individual help if they need it. One English track for everyone with individualization within the course itself. Then after 10th they pursue APs or Honors options.
College often offer essentially the same classes of a subject at a number of different levels, for students with differing levels of abilities in that subject. Aren’t they making “the same value judgement”? Should they not offer multiple versions of these classes then?
Can you give examples? I am not seeing a lot of tracks designed for students with differing abilities at the colleges my son is looking at. I do see plenty of different tracks (in, for example, math or physics), but they seem to be distinguished more by what they cover. For example, there might be a proof-heavy math class aimed at math majors, vs. a more applied math class covering similar topics but aimed at engineering majors.
I‘ve seen some comments here implying that these schools are not offering sufficient options for advanced students. Those claims seem to ignore the actual offerings at the school.
I’ll link to the Culver City HS catalog and list of AP/honors classes below. Pretty robust.
Catalog:
Advanced courses:
HONORS (H)
Algebra II Honors
Biology Honors: The Living Earth (Biology)
Honors Chemistry of the Earth System (Chemistry)
Geometry Honors
Honors Physics of the Universe (Physics)
Precalculus Honors
ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP)
AP African American Studies
AP Biology
AP Calculus AB/BC
AP Chemistry
AP Computer Science A
AP Computer Science Principles
AP English Language and Composition
AP English Literature and Composition
AP Environmental Science
AP European History
AP French IV Language and Culture
AP Japanese V Language and Culture
AP Macroeconomics
AP Physics C: Mechanics
AP Spanish IV Language and Culture
AP Spanish V Literature and Culture
AP Statistics
AP Studio Art
AP US Government and Politics
AP US History
AP World History
Harvard math department, for example, offers the following multivariable calculus courses: Math 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 55 (plus AM 22 from the Applied Math department), targeting different students. A large public university like UCLA probably offers as many (or more) courses of the same subject.
Stanford the same
I don’t understand since I am not from the area. Why do parents send their kids to the private schools? I would think there is a strong negative (less diversity). What is the positive if the tracking is the same?
Sure, and the High Schools in question also offer multiple levels and pathways in math and other subjects.
Harvard and most other colleges do not offer more than one level of freshman composition/writing IIRC, similar to the approach taken by these High Schools.
That’s incorrect. Many colleges offer different versions of the same freshman English reading/writing courses. For example, UCLA offers English 4W and English 4HW (the honors version of the same course).
Any school will offer plenty of different math classes, but this doesn’t mean they are designed primarily for students with different abilities.
Students enter with different goals (that is, they may be studying math, physical sciences, engineering, social sciences, etc). They might have different interests (how much do they enjoy abstract math?). Students also enter with varying levels of preparation (how advanced are they in math already?) and varying desires for acceleration and work load.
Since you mentioned Harvard, I looked through Harvard’s overview here https://www.math.harvard.edu/media/Math-course-information-for-first-year-students.pdf
I see plenty of tracks for different goals and levels of preparation. Courses are available for students who need math for various majors, as well as “students who have a particular interest in and enjoyment of abstract mathematics.” Students will also have different placement test scores, reflecting their preparation and comfort level with math. Finally, different math tracks are available depending on how much of a work load the student is looking for (“Math 25 differs from Math 22 by virtue of the work load in Mathematics 25 being significantly more than in Math 22”).
I particularly liked this quote:
The placement test does not distinguish between the courses in the Math 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 55 and AM 22 column. What a student placed in that column takes depends partly on the student’s interests and partly on how much time the student wishes to spend on mathematics this year.
These are the specific courses that you mentioned, but it sounds like Harvard is classifying these based on the student’s goals, rather than ability.
Now, this is not to say that I don’t believe students HAVE differing levels of ability! Some students are just very good at math compared to others, and they may have an easier time in any of these math classes. But acknowledging individual differences in ability is a different thing than separating classes by ability. It may instead be sufficient to separate classes by student goals, student preparation, and desired workload / acceleration.