Who is refusing Common Core tests for 3rd-8th graders?

[Ceila]

I was being sarcastic.

Oops, sorry! So hard to read tone here!

 

[EMAW_KSU]

No, they do not. INVESTORS buy the bonds, which in turn, pays the loan...muni bonds are a great piece of a portfolio....

Who do you think pays the bond off?

 

[Allison]

No, they do not. INVESTORS buy the bonds, which in turn, pays the loan...muni bonds are a great piece of a portfolio....

Investors buying the bonds is how a bond issue is funded, not how it is paid back. The institution has to pay back the principal and interest on the bonds to the investors.

 

[jodifla]

There are many things about the Smarter Balance tests with which I strongly disagree. They do NOT test the material we teach the kids in the way we teach them. These tests are heavily language-based, which puts kids with poorer language skills at a disadvantage, and many kids struggle with the language-dependent math answers. In math, giving the answer is often not good enough; you have to explain, in words, how you knew how to subtract, for example, or explain another way to do the problem you already did. I think these tests strive to test too much at one time, and put any child with any kind of reading shortcoming at a disadvantage before they ever sit down at the computer. Being computer-based is also an issue. At my school, we will be taking SB over a six-week period, because as a small, rural k-8 school, we do not have the computer capacity to test all kids efficiently. This will be reasonably disruptive for all classes. Also, manipulating the computer to answer the math questions is not user-friendly, and will frustrate many kids. Our school has been practicing taking these tests since early January and the kids still struggle to "get the computer to do what I want!" I predict at least half of the kids are going to give up and go click, click, click just to be done with the test. We all took standardized tests throughout school… but these tests are nothing like the Iowa tests, NECAPs, etc., that we are remembering.

Having said that, I would NOT opt my child out of the testing. These tests do not effect a child's grade in any class, so no worries about that. I think it's important to teach kids that in real life, we often have to undertake situations that make us uncomfortable- and refusing to do as your boss asks, for example, is not an option. I have been trying to impress on my students that these tests won't effect their grades, but instead will tell us, as a school, how we are doing with our teaching and help us learn to be more effective teachers- how to "teach you better." I reiterate that there is nothing to be stressed over because the test isn't testing the student, it's providing information for the school. These tests are here to stay for probably another 5 years, so it's important for students to learn to take these tests, regardless of their grades. While I disagree with the tests themselves, the mechanics of taking the tests, the level of expectation/knowledge to which the test is designed, and the over-integration of math and language within the tests, there is no way I would opt my child (if she were of an age) out of taking these tests.

I don't see how you can reconcile the fact that you know the tests are completely inappropriate for children with language-based learning issues, but then turn around and say that everyone should just take the tests anyway. Unlike your boss example, children are trapped. THey didn't choose to go to school. And I can't imagine much more damaging educational situation than to force a child to take a test for hours and hours that they don't understand at all, because it's out of their reading level. So they are supposed to be PARCC and Smarter Balanced guinea pigs?

 

[nugov2]

I don't see how you can reconcile the fact that you know the tests are completely inappropriate for children with language-based learning issues, but then turn around and say that everyone should just take the tests anyway. Unlike your boss example, children are trapped. THey didn't choose to go to school. And I can't imagine much more damaging educational situation than to force a child to take a test for hours and hours that they don't understand at all, because it's out of their reading level. So they are supposed to be PARCC and Smarter Balanced guinea pigs?

1. where is the proof that most kids don't/won't understand it? Because some blog tells us so or an anti parcc website tells us so? If that's the case my dd in 4th grade took the practice tests and said "they're easy" so if I write a blog about it will it be proof to the opposite? I also had my 2nd grader do the 3rd grade ELA with no problem, so I guess that is more evidence that they aren't so hard kids don't understand them. I think we have to wait to see results next fall until we can say that the majority doesn't understand them. I will definitely be curious to see how the majority of districts do. I also think if all districts are failing there will be changes made or the test will just be scrapped all together(which I think is more likely if the scores are that bad).

2. Not all schools are scheduling them in such a way that the kids are spending hours and hours testing. Our district has a minimum of 2 days between each test so it is only a little over an hour every couple of days. While there have been a couple of days added vs our previous test, the length is no longer that what we had before and most kids who weren't bothered before won't be bothered by it if they are in an environment that isn't threatening the kids and stressing how they are the end all be all. Some of the kids with test anxiety have it b/c of outside pressures from the people around them.

3. Our kids are always guinea pigs when anything new is introduced. Unless we want nothing to change(not saying that parcc is a good change b/c that isn't my feeling) ever they will have to be guinea pigs. Sometimes it will be for the good and sometimes it won't be, but either way we have to grow and change in education so that will never not be an option. Hopefully in the future it will be a lot more changes for the better.

 

[jodifla]

1. where is the proof that most kids don't/won't understand it? Because some blog tells us so or an anti parcc website tells us so? If that's the case my dd in 4th grade took the practice tests and said "they're easy" so if I write a blog about it will it be proof to the opposite? I also had my 2nd grader do the 3rd grade ELA with no problem, so I guess that is more evidence that they aren't so hard kids don't understand them. I think we have to wait to see results next fall until we can say that the majority doesn't understand them. I will definitely be curious to see how the majority of districts do. I also think if all districts are failing there will be changes made or the test will just be scrapped all together(which I think is more likely if the scores are that bad).

2. Not all schools are scheduling them in such a way that the kids are spending hours and hours testing. Our district has a minimum of 2 days between each test so it is only a little over an hour every couple of days. While there have been a couple of days added vs our previous test, the length is no longer that what we had before and most kids who weren't bothered before won't be bothered by it if they are in an environment that isn't threatening the kids and stressing how they are the end all be all. Some of the kids with test anxiety have it b/c of outside pressures from the people around them.

3. Our kids are always guinea pigs when anything new is introduced. Unless we want nothing to change(not saying that parcc is a good change b/c that isn't my feeling) ever they will have to be guinea pigs. Sometimes it will be for the good and sometimes it won't be, but either way we have to grow and change in education so that will never not be an option. Hopefully in the future it will be a lot more changes for the better.

I didn't say most children, did I? I said children with language-based learning issues -- which leebee admits is a major flaw in the testing. But for some reason thinks these children should go ahead and take anyway.

The test are a major time sink, no matter the district. 10 hours of testing is ridiculous. More than the Bar exam, more than the SAT or ACT. And there's the schoolwide disruption with proctors needed and pulled away from classes, and all the ripple effect, etc. Total idiocy. Our testing window goes on for weeks and weeks as it cycles through 3 grade levels and ELA and Math for almost 1,000 students. Standard testing when I was a kid was a couple of hours. There's no reason it needs to be any longer than that. And at the end, what do we get? Some vague test result and no usable data -- at least for the students and parents.

I'm not interested in my child being a guinea pig. He has enough learning struggles without people testing out their half-baked theories on him and other students in the name of "progress." First we had the horrible NCLB and all its lunacy, and the answer, instead of fixing that, its to elevate the Common Core Standards to a sort of educational 10 Commandments, complete with being chiseled into stone (copyrighted).

My child isn't taking the Smarter Balanced test. I wouldn't waste his time with it when he has real things he could be learning.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

You really don't understand this concept. Once the bonds are funded by investors, they have to be paid back. And how are they often paid back? Tax revenue.

No, he doesn't get it. We could try to explain bond ratings, but why bother?

 

[Ceila]

No, he doesn't get it. We could try to explain bond ratings, but why bother?

You're right - but I'm pretty sure it's "she." The collective wisdom seems to be that her username used to be GolfGal.

 

[undertheradar]

You're right - but I'm pretty sure it's "she." The collective wisdom seems to be that her username used to be GolfGal.

Now that would explain a lot.

 

[undertheradar]

I didn't say most children, did I? I said children with language-based learning issues -- which leebee admits is a major flaw in the testing. But for some reason thinks these children should go ahead and take anyway.

The test are a major time sink, no matter the district. 10 hours of testing is ridiculous. More than the Bar exam, more than the SAT or ACT. And there's the schoolwide disruption with proctors needed and pulled away from classes, and all the ripple effect, etc. Total idiocy. Our testing window goes on for weeks and weeks as it cycles through 3 grade levels and ELA and Math for almost 1,000 students. Standard testing when I was a kid was a couple of hours. There's no reason it needs to be any longer than that. And at the end, what do we get? Some vague test result and no usable data -- at least for the students and parents.

I'm not interested in my child being a guinea pig. He has enough learning struggles without people testing out their half-baked theories on him and other students in the name of "progress." First we had the horrible NCLB and all its lunacy, and the answer, instead of fixing that, its to elevate the Common Core Standards to a sort of educational 10 Commandments, complete with being chiseled into stone (copyrighted).

My child isn't taking the Smarter Balanced test. I wouldn't waste his time with it when he has real things he could be learning.

All of these long winded posts and you still haven't provided a cost effective means for measuring academic growth within all 50 states.

 

[Ceila]

All of these long winded posts and you still haven't provided a cost effective means for measuring academic growth within all 50 states.

I don't quite see eye-to-eye with all of Jodi's views on Common Core or PARCC. However, what you are asking her to provide you does not, IMO, currently exist. Yes, student growth can be measured. There are (relatively) cost effective methods and there are accurate methods, but there aren't methods that are both. Toss in the fact that you also need measurements that aren't tampered with by school and district administrators, and you've added yet another layer to the cost.

Just because someone doesn't have a solution to a problem doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.

 

[undertheradar]

I don't quite see eye-to-eye with all of Jodi's views on Common Core or PARCC. However, what you are asking her to provide you does not, IMO, currently exist. Yes, student growth can be measured. There are (relatively) cost effective methods and there are accurate methods, but there aren't methods that are both. Toss in the fact that you also need measurements that aren't tampered with by school and district administrators, and you've added yet another layer to the cost.

Just because someone doesn't have a solution to a problem doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.

Yet there is this grass roots movement against the current testing. No viable solution to replace the current testing, just an "anti" campaign that employs PR people to organize and cause disruption of education. Perhaps they should devote all of this effort to finding a better testing method since the only thing they are sure of is that the testing corporations are "evil."

 

[Ceila]

Yet there is this grass roots movement against the current testing. No viable solution to replace the current testing, just an "anti" campaign that employs PR people to organize and cause disruption of education. Perhaps they should devote all of this effort to finding a better testing method since the only thing they are sure of is that the testing corporations are "evil."

You have to take priorities into account. The new testing is slated to be used, depending on where you live, as a graduation requirement, for placement into classes, and for teacher evaluation. Since these are happening now or in the near future, stopping that from happening is what people see as a more pressing issue at the moment. That doesn't mean that there isn't interest in finding a better solution, and it doesn't mean that there aren't people working towards that.

 

[Happy Snowman]

You have to take priorities into account. The new testing is slated to be used, depending on where you live, as a graduation requirement, for placement into classes, and for teacher evaluation. Since these are happening now or in the near future, stopping that from happening is what people see as a more pressing issue at the moment. That doesn't mean that there isn't interest in finding a better solution, and it doesn't mean that there aren't people working towards that.

Current testing in many places already is used for graduation requirements, class placement and/or teacher assessment.

 

[Ceila]

Current testing in many places already is used for graduation requirements, class placement and/or teacher assessment.

I think everyone is well aware of that. It's true that the concerns over this specific test are bringing to light concerns that many have had in the past.

 

[Happy Snowman]

I think everyone is well aware of that. It's true that the concerns over this specific test are bringing to light concerns that many have had in the past.

Your last post made it sound like this was going to be a new practice...

 

[leebee]

OK, I'll throw this in here just to stir things up a bit. I've said before that I don't have a problem with setting standards for kids to meet. I think having basic standards is a good thing, so that we know by the end of third grade kids can multiply through the tens, end of 4th they can all do long division and deal with perimeter and area, etc. (NOT saying that these things are/aren't age appropriate, just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion). Right now, many are caught in an educational system that demands kids be able to comprehend too many things at once, sometimes age inappropriate concepts, or demand that they move at a pace that makes it impossible to master necessary skills, but instead grasp them long enough for the end-of-chapter test and then move on. Teachers' hands are tied in many instances, because they are told what to teach, how to teach it, when to teach it, and how to assess student learning, whether it's through programs like Everyday Math or preparing for PARCC/Smarter Balance testing. (And please explain why we educate teachers so highly and insist on continuing education if they are then TOLD how/what they have to teach?) When teachers and students DO start to adjust to new methods of education, the Suits at the Top get all hot and bothered because the current edu-babble trend hasn't produced the stellar scores they demanded, so they come up with a new iteration of "how to make American Education the BEST on EARTH" and everyone starts all over again from square one, trying to figure out how to educate kids.

I think instead of looking forward and trying to come up with yet again another magic solution, we should look backwards and see what has worked and what hasn't. I would support a tracking system, where kids are broken up into groups based on ability, so they can be taught at their levels. I know that we got away from this because of "labeling" but honestly, by Day 2 the kids have pretty much figured out who the smart kids are. Mix them up at grade levels, letting them have math, reading, writing, and spelling with different kids (of the same ability) in each class. By lumping everyone together one classroom for every class, the teacher is teaching to the middle, with the top kids bored much of the time and the lower kids floundering, because the pace is quicker than they can learn- remembering that the kid who is tops in reading could easily be struggling in math. We keep touting "Everyone learns differently" so why don't we teach them differently? If we had a solid set of standards by grade level, teachers would still be working towards accomplishing those goals, but they would be able to teach at a pace and a level where they could keep all the kids involved. If we feel the need to assess them, do one test at the end of the year, not to base a grade upon but to simply look at growth. I know that things like the Iowa tests took a lot of bashing (too socio-economically focused, for example) but honestly, at least the student could read them, understand them, and fill in a bubble for an answer. That is NOT going to happen with this PARCC/SB system, because the test questions demand that kids integrate a variety of skills in one question. Yes, it's nice to think that this is the way we operate in everyday life so this is what kids should be able to do, but I am not convinced that we have ensured that kids have MASTERED the basic skills they need in the first place. I would like to see the first few years of school dedicated to teaching JUST basic skills, so we know the students have mastered the skills we then ask them to apply in the rest of their educational career and life. Even if every kid doesn't go on to college or become a high level executive or doctor, for example, ALL kids in this country should receive the basic education they need to function in everyday life. I look around and think we are failing in this goal in many, many instances.

AND to answer the question of "If you think the tests are worthless why make kids take them," it's because I believe it's important to teach kids to cooperate within a system and be respectful, and that simply refusing situations won't work in real life. We ALL have to do things that we dislike intensely in life, and I therefore don't advocate teaching kids that they can simply pick and choose what they want to do. I think it's more important to teach kids to be strong when faced with scary/threatening situations than to tell them "It's OK, if you don't like it you don't have to do it." I know there are some kids with true test anxiety, but a lot of kids who "suffer" this way really CAN do things that make them uncomfortable… we just need to teach them the skills for managing rather than fold and not teach them to stand up to the adversities that life might throw in their paths.

 

[already]

No offence but where do you work that third graders are proficient at typing? Here they start "computer" class in kindergarten-first grade but typing is not even a class until fourth-fifth grade. That is pretty even across the board here where I live. (I have worked with seven local districts, a total of approximately thirty elementary schools)

While I don't agree with the things that poster has said, it is definitely true that there are third graders that are proficient in typing. Our district is completely tech based. Starting in 1st grade, all final drafts of paragraphs and anything written are done on chromebooks. They also spend time on Typing Pal starting in 1st grade. By the time the students are in 3rd grade, they are very proficient in typing. I volunteer quite a bit, supervising writing groups on their chromebooks, and very, very few third - fifth graders need typing assists. A typing assist is when one of the adults will type a few lines to help them catch up.

I am always amazed at how proficient these youngsters are. Not only do they know the basics of typing, but they are well versed on the ins and outs of Word and Google Docs. They know how to change fonts, size, set paragraphs, and can usually teach me more about how to use them. And I used to teach Word for businesses long ago.

 

[Happy Snowman]

OK, I'll throw this in here just to stir things up a bit. I've said before that I don't have a problem with setting standards for kids to meet. I think having basic standards is a good thing, so that we know by the end of third grade kids can multiply through the tens, end of 4th they can all do long division and deal with perimeter and area, etc. (NOT saying that these things are/aren't age appropriate, just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion). Right now, many are caught in an educational system that demands kids be able to comprehend too many things at once, sometimes age inappropriate concepts, or demand that they move at a pace that makes it impossible to master necessary skills, but instead grasp them long enough for the end-of-chapter test and then move on. Teachers' hands are tied in many instances, because they are told what to teach, how to teach it, when to teach it, and how to assess student learning, whether it's through programs like Everyday Math or preparing for PARCC/Smarter Balance testing. (And please explain why we educate teachers so highly and insist on continuing education if they are then TOLD how/what they have to teach?) When teachers and students DO start to adjust to new methods of education, the Suits at the Top get all hot and bothered because the current edu-babble trend hasn't produced the stellar scores they demanded, so they come up with a new iteration of "how to make American Education the BEST on EARTH" and everyone starts all over again from square one, trying to figure out how to educate kids.

I think instead of looking forward and trying to come up with yet again another magic solution, we should look backwards and see what has worked and what hasn't. I would support a tracking system, where kids are broken up into groups based on ability, so they can be taught at their levels. I know that we got away from this because of "labeling" but honestly, by Day 2 the kids have pretty much figured out who the smart kids are. Mix them up at grade levels, letting them have math, reading, writing, and spelling with different kids (of the same ability) in each class. By lumping everyone together one classroom for every class, the teacher is teaching to the middle, with the top kids bored much of the time and the lower kids floundering, because the pace is quicker than they can learn- remembering that the kid who is tops in reading could easily be struggling in math. We keep touting "Everyone learns differently" so why don't we teach them differently? If we had a solid set of standards by grade level, teachers would still be working towards accomplishing those goals, but they would be able to teach at a pace and a level where they could keep all the kids involved. If we feel the need to assess them, do one test at the end of the year, not to base a grade upon but to simply look at growth. I know that things like the Iowa tests took a lot of bashing (too socio-economically focused, for example) but honestly, at least the student could read them, understand them, and fill in a bubble for an answer. That is NOT going to happen with this PARCC/SB system, because the test questions demand that kids integrate a variety of skills in one question. Yes, it's nice to think that this is the way we operate in everyday life so this is what kids should be able to do, but I am not convinced that we have ensured that kids have MASTERED the basic skills they need in the first place. I would like to see the first few years of school dedicated to teaching JUST basic skills, so we know the students have mastered the skills we then ask them to apply in the rest of their educational career and life. Even if every kid doesn't go on to college or become a high level executive or doctor, for example, ALL kids in this country should receive the basic education they need to function in everyday life. I look around and think we are failing in this goal in many, many instances.

AND to answer the question of "If you think the tests are worthless why make kids take them," it's because I believe it's important to teach kids to cooperate within a system and be respectful, and that simply refusing situations won't work in real life. We ALL have to do things that we dislike intensely in life, and I therefore don't advocate teaching kids that they can simply pick and choose what they want to do. I think it's more important to teach kids to be strong when faced with scary/threatening situations than to tell them "It's OK, if you don't like it you don't have to do it." I know there are some kids with true test anxiety, but a lot of kids who "suffer" this way really CAN do things that make them uncomfortable… we just need to teach them the skills for managing rather than fold and not teach them to stand up to the adversities that life might throw in their paths.

Tracking is a fantastic system, as long as it allows for movement through the different tracks and is subject specific. Some kids might do exceptionally well in math, but not so well in social science, etc. The problem is, parents.....and why it was mostly eliminated in the first place. If someone could devise a way to do blind tracking (so no one really knew which track their child was on LOLOLOL) that would be the best solution. I agree, the kids all know who the top students are and for the most part, they don't care, until parents get involved and make an issue out of why their snowflake isn't in the top track .

Tests are not worthless, they do give a snapshot of where a student sits at that point and time. If the information is used properly, it can be very beneficial. If, for example, 80% of the 3rd grade class scored below proficient in long division, well, then they need to beef up that part of the curriculum. If 100% of the students scored 5's on multiplying 3 numbers, well, then they know they have a pretty good plan in place for that and they can devote more time to developing a better long division curriculum. Also, if a student continually scores below proficient year after year, that is something to investigate--either they didn't try on the test or there is a disconnect somewhere. The school can then help that student become proficient.

Now, if the tests are used to show that school A moved from 23% of the students scored proficient to 25% proficient and they get an award for adequate yearly progress and lose funding because of that compared to a school that went from 98% to 96% and get slapped for not meeting AYP, well, that's not such a good use of testing.

 

[nugov2]

You have to take priorities into account. The new testing is slated to be used, depending on where you live, as a graduation requirement, for placement into classes, and for teacher evaluation. Since these are happening now or in the near future, stopping that from happening is what people see as a more pressing issue at the moment. That doesn't mean that there isn't interest in finding a better solution, and it doesn't mean that there aren't people working towards that.

I think they should be protesting not the test, but that specifics states decision to tie it to graduation. They'd probably have a lot more supporters if done from that angle vs anti testing. The thing is right now the message is so muddled b/c some are against the test, some against what is tied to the test. Being against the test IMO is difficult to protest at this point b/c there is no true measure how students will do until they all take it. Again, like the arguments against CC any issues that people are freaking out about are b/c the school/district/state/teachers/administrators are making poor choices. Scheduling, threatening, not using the paper test and forcing the computer version, teaching to the test have nothing to do with the test. These obscure blogs that list that the test is above grade level cannot be proved until the results after the first year are in...anything else is speculation.

OK, I'll throw this in here just to stir things up a bit. I've said before that I don't have a problem with setting standards for kids to meet. I think having basic standards is a good thing, so that we know by the end of third grade kids can multiply through the tens, end of 4th they can all do long division and deal with perimeter and area, etc. (NOT saying that these things are/aren't age appropriate, just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion). Right now, many are caught in an educational system that demands kids be able to comprehend too many things at once, sometimes age inappropriate concepts, or demand that they move at a pace that makes it impossible to master necessary skills, but instead grasp them long enough for the end-of-chapter test and then move on. Teachers' hands are tied in many instances, because they are told what to teach, how to teach it, when to teach it, and how to assess student learning, whether it's through programs like Everyday Math or preparing for PARCC/Smarter Balance testing. (And please explain why we educate teachers so highly and insist on continuing education if they are then TOLD how/what they have to teach?) When teachers and students DO start to adjust to new methods of education, the Suits at the Top get all hot and bothered because the current edu-babble trend hasn't produced the stellar scores they demanded, so they come up with a new iteration of "how to make American Education the BEST on EARTH" and everyone starts all over again from square one, trying to figure out how to educate kids.
I think instead of looking forward and trying to come up with yet again another magic solution, we should look backwards and see what has worked and what hasn't. I would support a tracking system, where kids are broken up into groups based on ability, so they can be taught at their levels. I know that we got away from this because of "labeling" but honestly, by Day 2 the kids have pretty much figured out who the smart kids are. Mix them up at grade levels, letting them have math, reading, writing, and spelling with different kids (of the same ability) in each class. By lumping everyone together one classroom for every class, the teacher is teaching to the middle, with the top kids bored much of the time and the lower kids floundering, because the pace is quicker than they can learn- remembering that the kid who is tops in reading could easily be struggling in math. We keep touting "Everyone learns differently" so why don't we teach them differently? If we had a solid set of standards by grade level, teachers would still be working towards accomplishing those goals, but they would be able to teach at a pace and a level where they could keep all the kids involved. If we feel the need to assess them, do one test at the end of the year, not to base a grade upon but to simply look at growth. I know that things like the Iowa tests took a lot of bashing (too socio-economically focused, for example) but honestly, at least the student could read them, understand them, and fill in a bubble for an answer. That is NOT going to happen with this PARCC/SB system, because the test questions demand that kids integrate a variety of skills in one question. Yes, it's nice to think that this is the way we operate in everyday life so this is what kids should be able to do, but I am not convinced that we have ensured that kids have MASTERED the basic skills they need in the first place. I would like to see the first few years of school dedicated to teaching JUST basic skills, so we know the students have mastered the skills we then ask them to apply in the rest of their educational career and life. Even if every kid doesn't go on to college or become a high level executive or doctor, for example, ALL kids in this country should receive the basic education they need to function in everyday life. I look around and think we are failing in this goal in many, many instances.

AND to answer the question of "If you think the tests are worthless why make kids take them," it's because I believe it's important to teach kids to cooperate within a system and be respectful, and that simply refusing situations won't work in real life. We ALL have to do things that we dislike intensely in life, and I therefore don't advocate teaching kids that they can simply pick and choose what they want to do. I think it's more important to teach kids to be strong when faced with scary/threatening situations than to tell them "It's OK, if you don't like it you don't have to do it." I know there are some kids with true test anxiety, but a lot of kids who "suffer" this way really CAN do things that make them uncomfortable… we just need to teach them the skills for managing rather than fold and not teach them to stand up to the adversities that life might throw in their paths.

They still track students and separate them into groups based on academic level, it just isn't called that anymore. When I was teaching class lists were divided by the high with the middle and the middle with the low and that is how our district operates. The theory being that when the high and the low are together minimal growth comes for either group and when grouped the other way the low learn from the middle and the middle learn from the high. The thing is if there is no pull out gifted program the high students suffer, so it certainly isn't perfect. In our district they offer some gifted instruction in K-4 and the self contained program begins in 5th grade for gifted. In the district I taught in it began at 3rd grade as a small group pull out and went to self contained in 7th. It also can change every year based on their grades and test results so they are not "stuck" in a track like in the olden day.