[sgslo]

One of several examples mentioned in the proposal:

> Burris, Heubert & Levin (2006) followed students through middle schools in the district of New York. In the first three years, the students were in regular or advanced classes, in the following three years all students took the same mathematics classes comprised of advanced content. In their longitudinal study the researchers found that when all students learned together the students achieved more, took more advanced courses in high school, and passed state exams a year earlier, with achievement advantages across the achievement range, including the highest achievers (Burris, Heubert & Levin, 2006).

[MikeUt]

If having no advanced courses is best for everyone, as that study claims, then there's no need to think about those questions you raised, is there? There's no dilemma, since both gifted and ordinary students are best served by the same kind of program.

[dragonwriter]

> If having no advanced courses is best for everyone, as that study claims, then there's no need to think about those questions you raised, is there?

You are correct, and that’s probably why the intro to the framework, while it mentions equity concerns on this issue, breezes past them fairly quickly and spends a lot more focus on the evidence of more universal problems with the existing tracking approach.

The framework’s position is not “tracking is segregation that enables serving more able (or white and asian) students better” but “tracking is segregation that is a pedagogical disservice to students across tracks”.