3 ms·

Interesting that GCSE is used as the example (GCSE is the UK exam), when I took my GCSEs (quite a while ago I admit) students were placed into different sets ba

by jiggy2011 12y ago

Interesting that GCSE is used as the example (GCSE is the UK exam), when I took my GCSEs (quite a while ago I admit) students were placed into different sets based on ability. Lower sets took exams covering a smaller amount of material and had a maximum grade of a C. Are students seperated by ability in the US?

krakensden 12y ago
Students are segregated by ability in the US, but in a variety of inconsistent ways. "Tracking," or comprehensive separation by ability, fell out of favor thirty years ago. A lot of this has to do with racial politics, but there's definitely a Lake Wobegon component as well. That said, in individual subjects, there's almost always a regular and an advanced course, and it turns out that the same group of kids are in all of the advanced courses at most schools. Intra-school politics aside, in the US class and geography are tightly linked. Schools are locally controlled, so rich areas will have their own schools populated solely with their children, and poor areas will have their own schools populated solely with their own children. Rich schools have more advanced and AP (it's like American IB, basically. Very rich areas will have IB courses too) courses, poor schools often have trouble meeting state and federal requirements that science be taught. So, since 'rich' and 'academic ability' are tightly linked, whatever the nominal defenses against tracking are, they don't mean anything in practice.
jonah 12y ago
Wow. What is the reasoning behind this? In the US we have two different tests - ACT and SAT - with the latter seen as more rigorous, but many (most?) students take both.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  I think the reasoning is that we should allow less able students more time to understand the material, there isn't much point teaching calculus if someone struggles with basic algebra.
- hga 12y ago
  The relationship between the ACT and SAT may be changing as the latter is watered down. Or at least MIT has found as of late the ACT is a better test for its purposes.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  It used to be that in the Midwest only a few people took the SAT, people looking to get into schools that required/preferred it or people looking to get a scholarship that used the score. The state schools were all fine with the ACT.
- mynewwork 12y ago
  The SAT is in no way more "rigorous" than the ACT. The theoretical difference between ACT and SAT is a slight shift between "achievement" (ACT) vs "potential" (SAT) although the reality is that this is pretty minimal. That is to say, ACT was supposed to slightly more reflect what you had learned in HS, while SAT was slightly closer to something like an IQ test that changed less by HS education. In practice, the only difference between ACT and SAT for decades has been geographic preference. East&West coast schools primarily use SAT and Midwest/Central schools primarily use ACT.

krakensden 12y ago

Students are segregated by ability in the US, but in a variety of inconsistent ways. "Tracking," or comprehensive separation by ability, fell out of favor thirty years ago. A lot of this has to do with racial politics, but there's definitely a Lake Wobegon component as well. That said, in individual subjects, there's almost always a regular and an advanced course, and it turns out that the same group of kids are in all of the advanced courses at most schools. Intra-school politics aside, in the US class and geography are tightly linked. Schools are locally controlled, so rich areas will have their own schools populated solely with their children, and poor areas will have their own schools populated solely with their own children. Rich schools have more advanced and AP (it's like American IB, basically. Very rich areas will have IB courses too) courses, poor schools often have trouble meeting state and federal requirements that science be taught. So, since 'rich' and 'academic ability' are tightly linked, whatever the nominal defenses against tracking are, they don't mean anything in practice.

jonah 12y ago

Wow. What is the reasoning behind this? In the US we have two different tests - ACT and SAT - with the latter seen as more rigorous, but many (most?) students take both.

jiggy2011 12y ago
I think the reasoning is that we should allow less able students more time to understand the material, there isn't much point teaching calculus if someone struggles with basic algebra.
hga 12y ago
The relationship between the ACT and SAT may be changing as the latter is watered down. Or at least MIT has found as of late the ACT is a better test for its purposes.
maxerickson 12y ago
It used to be that in the Midwest only a few people took the SAT, people looking to get into schools that required/preferred it or people looking to get a scholarship that used the score. The state schools were all fine with the ACT.
mynewwork 12y ago
The SAT is in no way more "rigorous" than the ACT. The theoretical difference between ACT and SAT is a slight shift between "achievement" (ACT) vs "potential" (SAT) although the reality is that this is pretty minimal. That is to say, ACT was supposed to slightly more reflect what you had learned in HS, while SAT was slightly closer to something like an IQ test that changed less by HS education. In practice, the only difference between ACT and SAT for decades has been geographic preference. East&West coast schools primarily use SAT and Midwest/Central schools primarily use ACT.