Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
This was her second visit -- we went for a tour and info session last year, but they don't offer interviews to Juniors, so that's what we were going back for. Her biggest concern is that the town of Gambier is SO small. The nearest "big" town is Mt Vernon, about five miles away. A lot of these small LACs are in tiny little towns, but this one is small even relative to that. And the school itself is smaller than she really thinks would be ideal -- 1600, when she thinks 2000+ is a better size. And of course it's got Ohio weather. Other than that, it would be the ideal place for her. It's a writer's school, it's the closest highly-selective LAC to home, Greek life is marginal, athletics aren't a big part of social life, the little town and the campus are very pretty, and most important she knows she'd fit in. She'd almost culled it from her final list but then found out a close friend had gone ED and been accepted, and that made her rethink. If she ended up there, I think she'd be very happy, but if she gets into Pomona, Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Emory, Wash U, I think the chances are good she'd choose one of them over Kenyon.
|
I've never been to Gambier, but I am familiar with Mount Vernon. I know someone who teaches at Mount Vernon Nazarene College, and I used to visit him there. You and Jane have been on a lot of campus visits at this point. Do you think she is afraid to commit to a decision? How is she doing emotionally these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
No idea! I got up in the morning and realized I'd pulled a muscle. I used to pull them frequently in my back but haven't had a pull since I started doing core work. This one isn't as bad as the ones I had in the five or ten years before starting doing so much core work, but it was enough to keep me from going to class this morning.
|
I used to get a lot of spontaneous, unexplained muscle pulls, too, along with all sorts of assorted aches and pains I couldn't account for. Isn't it amazing how core strength has so many unanticipated benefits? Is your back feeling better now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
Report: weighed -- up 1.8 to .4 below goal, ack! -- and totally deserved that. When I have a muscle pull, I tend to just hunker down and not move, and I also tend to eat badly, and I did. I didn't realize it was that badly, though. But it could just be water retention -- way too much salt yesterday. But I'm still freaking out, and I'm definitely going to eat very low today and watch the salt.
|
What thoughts run through your mind when you see that your weight is so close to your hard stop? What exactly is it that freaks you out so much? What are you telling yourself would happen if you do happen to exceed that hard stop (which is pretty inevitable at some point)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
Maybe all it took was one of the "older folks <g>" to go, and then others felt they were welcome too?
|
Some additional people were invited, plus word of mouth brought in some more. I would imagine it will get bigger every week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
My son had an IEP, but was very motivated to move from "standards" classes (which prepare kids to take the OGT) into "academic" classes (college prep) and in fact slowly transitioned a class per year from all but one standards level classes his freshman year into all academic his senior year.
|
I would guess that your son is unusual in being able to make that transition so successfully. One of the criticisms about tracking, of course, is that it consigns certain students to a lower level of achievement and precludes certain opportunities later on, simply because the student wasn't at the appropriate level of readiness at the time that the tracks were initially assigned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
BTW, I'd be interested to hear your take on these multiple levels, which seems to be more and more considered a bad thing by many educators and researchers, who seem to be saying that fewer tracks are a net benefit for the overall group. Which I can see, but it makes me wonder. I suspect these tracks serve the high-motivation and high-aptitude groups pretty well because it puts them into a group in which the critical mass are also very motivated, and everyone steps up their game. But obviously it removes these kids' positive influence from the less-motivated/lower aptitude groups, and because the lower-performance groups are a larger absolute number, the aggregate benefit of eliminating tracks is greater.
|
Tracking is definitely beneficial for the high-aptitude kids, except for the few cases in which someone gets put in the "fast track" but is unprepared for it and falls behind. In theory (if not always in practice), tracking is also good for the lowest-aptitude students, because they get put in smaller classes, with more personal attention, with a curriculum that challenges them without overwhelming them, and they are not constantly being compared against higher-achieving students with whom they can not realistically compete. It's the group in the middle, statistically the largest group, whose needs are least likely to be met by tracking, largely because they lose the benefit of having the example of the higher-achieving students to aspire to. And, in their case, many of them COULD realistically benefit from being compared to those who outperform them. But ALL of the benefits of tracking are, of course, predicated on the assumption that aptitude can be accurately measured and therefore tracks can be appropriately assigned, which is often not the case. IQ tests and academic achievement tests of all kinds are far from perfectly reliable and make bad predictions about future achievement in around 40% of cases, on average. There will be both false positives (kids whose test scores suggest they can do work that they actually will not be able to do, resulting in being placed in a track that is too demanding for them) and false negatives (kids whose test scores underestimate their abilities, placing them in tracks that will prevent them from achieving up to their full potential). And IQ scores can vary substantially over time, which is obviously a problem, considering that tracking is based on a "snapshot" taken at one point in time, and once kids get assigned to a lower track, they get further and further behind, making it less and less likely that they will ever be able to move out of that track. But tracking, though far from perfect, is generally better than the old system of letting the gifted kids skip grades, while making the lower-aptitude students repeat grades. Both of those practices are extremely problematic, because cognitive development is not strongly correlated with emotional/social development and is not correlated at all with physical development. So, when you let kids skip grades, they are thrust into social groups they are not at all ready for. (The valedictorian of my college class was 12 years old. I always wondered what her social life was like!) And repeated failure isn't much better when it means that students will be grouped with others who are substantially younger and smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
My kids' high school tried to eliminate the "honors" track a few years ago but caved to pressure from parents of students who weren't performing strongly enough for accelerated or AP classes but wanted more of a challenge than the academic classes provided.
|
It doesn't surprise me at all that the pressure would come from the parents of the students who would have the most to lose if that second track was eliminated. But I think four tracks is pretty unusual. Three is most typical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
For my kids, the multiple levels was beneficial. Michael started out in standards courses but was able to transition to academics and was well-enough prepared for college that he pulled a 3.4 his Freshman year at Muskingum, and Jane was able to take almost all accelerated or AP courses but drop into Honors for math.
|
Your kids are anecdotal evidence to support the theory behind tracking. When it works the way it should, based on an accurate assessment of aptitude, and when the result is a curriculum that is challenging enough to spur students to aim high without overwhelming and frustrating them, everyone benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
Both kids tended to remark that students in the lower-level courses "weren't serious enough," which makes me suspect that the reason untracking benefits the overall group is because each extra level removes the "cream" who otherwise would be in a particular class modelling higher expectations/motivation/performance, which maybe in the aggregate pulls scores upward. I'd be interested to know what the effect is for those top performers -- is there downward movement in -their- scores when they're no longer in a class that's all top performers? There has to be a reason why private/boarding schools, which are almost all high-motivation, high-aptitude students, are so highly regarded by highly-selective colleges. Those schools are nothing BUT a track.
|
Eliminating the tracking, and thereby homogenizing the curriculum while simultaneously diversifying the make-up of the class, has the effect of producing regression to the mean. That is, the performance of the lowest performing students will move UP toward the mean, while the performance of the top-performing students will move DOWN toward the mean. This is obviously not in the best interests of the more capable students, but there is clearly a political undertone here. Tracking smacks of elitism and creates a tiered social system (in your case, a FOUR-class society!) that some people object to. So your elitist, suspicious mind is right on track!! :D I LOL about your comment about lying with statistics. It's just a matter of perspective. Depending on what position you are trying to advance, you either focus on measures of central tendency (measures of "typicality") like the mean, OR you focus on the shape of the distribution as a whole, particularly honing in on the number of individuals who fall in the tails (the extremes) of the curve rather than the center. Both perspectives are "right", and neither of them is lying, except perhaps by omission. :smug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
Oh, I LOVE this! This so explains why when I get invited to a party, I always want to go, and then by the day of the party I'm reluctant. I'd never heard of this before!
|
That is one of my favorite lectures, because everyone instantly identifies with it and can think of examples from their own life. I can't count the number of times I have been excited about something when it was still far off but come to anticipate it with sick dread when the event is on the horizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
I love graphs, examples, and variations. :) So were you still high approach-motivation when it was time to get dressed to go meet him?
|
Yep, even then, my approach motivation outweighed my avoidance motivation. However, that has now changed. :( Right at the moment, I think I am at the true ambivalence point. I am frozen, stuck, confused, and stressed by the feeling of absolute indecision.:?:
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
Oh, definitely. For one thing, thin women need to be concerned about calcium. I think Vitamin D and calcium are interrelated, too -- you need one to absorb the other, I think.
|
Yep, the two are definitely related. So I need that vitamin D, being that I qualify as a "thin woman"!!! :D Seriously, I know that my frame is small and my bones are delicate, so this is a legitimate concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by va1erie
(Post 4195240)
:) Glad I didn't need to call the Marietta cops to go out looking for your body.
|
But good to know you'd have had my back if it became necessary!!