Teacher Criticisms...(rant)
Options
Replies
-
i technically "get summers off," but usually only about 3 weeks, because the rest of my summer is spent on IEPs for new students, researching the newest discoveries in Autism, modifying curriculum from the general education students so my mainstreamed students can have access to materials, preparing my classroom for the students, and applying for grants so I can get new things for my classroom...
summers are technically off, but we do a ton of work to get ready for august!
You wouldn't have to do any of that if they had ability grouping. Have you ever asked yourself why they don't. Well, there really is no good reason. It is a teacher union gimmick to creater more jobs, nothing more.
Spoken like someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I'm sorry this whole "union is a gimmick " thing is getting old. Teachers have an extremely difficult job, it tiring and rewarding at the same time. They take the crap and abuse from parents day in and day out because they love what they do and they take care of your children!
As said above they do have time off during the summer but they spend so much time preparing lesson plans and planning for the new year that it's definitely not 2 months off of partying. Instead of criticizing teachers you should be supporting them!
First of all, they don't, and never have taken care of MY children, because we pulled our son our of public school after 5 weeks, and homeschooled him. My daughter has never been in grade school or high school. I do not want to go through my family history yet again, but suffice it to say that my son is 19 and in his first year of law school, and my daughter, age 16, has earned her associates degree and is going to be a junior in college next fall.
And I don't buy that summers off are used to prepare for school. No more than my weekends are used to prepare for my next week of work. Yeah, all professionals take work home, but not all of them get the summers off.
i work with an insanely different population from most of the teachers on here. with moderate to severely handicapped students (non verbal/autistic/behavior intervention)... my district mainstreams EVERY student, and legally I HAVE to have them reaching IEP goals from general education classrooms... so for my 12 students I have to coordinate with the general ed benchmark binder, find how everything works with my CAPA binder, and manipulate the materials so my students can reach their IEP goals (which are legally binding (activists are frightening)) while mainstreamed for more than 50.9% of the day. Like i said, i take 3 weeks off- party, have fun, travel, do my thing, but after july 4th it gives me 6 weeks to plan for the rest of the year. ability grouping is a thing of the past... FAPE, free and public education, equal access to everything. I am in california, maybe it's different where you are?
Honestly, I don't know any of the acronyms you used, but they sound like a lot of bureaucratic bull crap. Why do they need to mainstream these children who sound like they need individual care rather than being in a classroom where "normal" kids will laugh at them and make fun of them? Do you as a teacher find that mainstreaming is worth anything? If so, why? If not, why not?
Bytheway, it does sound like you have enough work to do to keep your summers full.
california just requires all students to have equal access to education. for special education that means as much mainstreaming as possible (i work in a very $$ district with lots of suing so EVERYTHING is by the books.) I work with severely autistic students, and honestly most of them "look normal" and before we started mainstreaming kids were wondering what their problems were. For our most severely impacted students (with tantrums or self injurious behaviors) they spend more time in "my classroom" and less time in the general education classes focusing on behavior interventions.
As far as if I find mainstreaming worth anything? YES! I now teach high school, but our district mainstreams as early as elementary school. My students have decreased behaviors, more personal relationships (autism/relationships don't really work out) and a greater sense of connection to their community. As far as the general ed population, they have a much greater tolerance for differences and the bullying has stopped because they have been taught disability awareness and know how Autism or a severe disability can impact a student. I am not saying mainstreaming is for everyone, but the students that can get by being mainstreamed not only are benefited, but benefit those around them by teaching tolerance and differences making them more educated by many of the 40 year old walking around that thing I'm babying my students while holding their hands on community walks because if I don't they will run away
aaah i love my job, full of surprises! 0 -
I am a teacher and would gladly take the pay of a babysitter!
Let's say that I charge $3/hour/kid. I have 27 kids in my class:
$3 x 27 = $81/hour
I am SCHEDULED to work from 8:45 - 4:15 (though I am usually at school before 8 and leave around 5):
$81 x 7 (taking out my lunch - 30 min.) = $567/day
I work 36 weeks per year, and that does account for summer break and other days off:
$567 x 5 days/week = $2835 x 36 weeks/year = $102,060/year
Now, I also have a MA in education, but I won't charge extra for my extra knowledge of how to better serve your children.
I make less than $40,000/year. So, PLEASE let me charge babysitter rates! I would love that!
This argument is only slightly more valid than the Stay-at-home Mom that adds up the salaries of a Chauffeer, Daycare Provider, Chef and Event Planner and argues for the same pay.0 -
Ability grouping works. Period. I know because I have been a student in an ability grouped school.
nope. your experience at your school in your community doesn't prove what works for everyone in all places. i could just as easily say to you, 'multi-ability grouping works. period. i know because i have been a student in a multi-ability school.' this game is smoke and mirrors.
also, if your age is correct on your profile, you were a student primarily in the 50's, graduating in the early 60's (my mom is class of '65). from what i can gather, parents basically expected students to listen to their teachers, not the other way around like a lot of them do now.If you want to see the results of public school education look at some of the debates on different boards. (I am not referring to this board, which for the most part is the best debated board on this discussion group. You can actually have an interchange of ideas.) On some boards if you disagree with someone, they immediately call you a "racist," and start swearing at you. They have no knowledge of history. They have know knowledge of how to tell a good study from a bad study. They are frankly stupid people with no real eduation who think they know everything.
this kind of mindlessness is probably more attributed to how they were raised by their parents. if a child's parents place no value on education, that child will most likely follow suit. again, a social problem that rests outside of the education debate. it's definitely tied to education, but as i said earlier, the government can't start mandating 'parent renewal credits', so it's just another struggle to overcome in the classroom.0 -
You know, Chanstriste, I really do like you, but you just don't get it. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. If you don't uproot the system, you are PROMOTING DYSFUNCTIONALITY. The system is broken. It's like you're in a hospital but there is no medicine or electricity. You ain't gunna cure anyone that way.
i like you too, veg. and i agree with you - the system doesn't work like it should. i probably get that a lot better than you even, since i've actually worked in it. but it works well enough that roughly 69% of public school seniors ended up in college last year, and that's not too shabby considering the many hurdles that teachers and students alike have to overcome.
i don't agree with you spouting that we should all just abandon ship, which is what you basically seem to be preaching. start a mutiny. sacrifice our jobs for the cause and all that because if we really cared, we would be willing to do so. it sounds like you are a great academic on the subject, but you haven't been on the inside of all this, so your perception is a hill beside this mountain that needs to be moved somehow.
the only actual suggestion you have made is ability grouping, which may or may not work. but teachers can't make those decisions themselves. we get the roster that is handed to us. that's just the nature of the beast.
as for your experiences with one teacher at one school in one community - that's enough to do what you will with your own children, but it's hardly enough to denounce or deny the many good experiences that students and parents have had with their public school systems.
Ability grouping works. Period. I know because I have been a student in an ability grouped school. Ability grouping, however, does not favor any particular group, but treats all equally. That is one of the reasons the Teacher Union hates it. It goes against their liberal political agenda. Ability grouping would take the bright kids and separate them from the non-bright, and that is intollerable for those with a political agenda.
The idea of multi-ability classes is that the bright kids can be used as a role model for the the non-bright. Wonderful. However, I just don't feel like having my kids used as teaching tools. I send them to school with the naive expectation that they will actually learn, and not be utilized. Bright kids have a right to an education too. We realized that, and that is why we pulled our kids out of public school early on, and why we are very happy we did so.
If you want to see the results of public school education look at some of the debates on different boards. (I am not referring to this board, which for the most part is the best debated board on this discussion group. You can actually have an interchange of ideas.) On some boards if you disagree with someone, they immediately call you a "racist," and start swearing at you. They have no knowledge of history. They have know knowledge of how to tell a good study from a bad study. They are frankly stupid people with no real eduation who think they know everything.
Yes, I also think I know everything (! - beat you to it!) but I put my money where my mouth is. I raised my own kids the way I think they should be raised, and so far, at least, it has worked fine. I really have fears for the fate of America when our school system is turning out drones who can't think, who know nothing and who are arrogant. We really need a revolution in eduation.
We get your point - UNIONS ARE THE DEVIL. Unions are everything that is wrong with education. However, we have heterogenous grouping and we have no unions. We also have a lot of really bad things going on (cheating scandal, low performing schools, poor performing teachers). So, it's not just the unions that create these issues. I do agree with you that politics need to stay out of education and we could actually get something done. (I know shocking I agreed with something you said).
Well, yes, ability grouping works to a certain extent, but one of the best ways to learn a subject is to have to teach it to someone else. If a student can teach someone else a subject and that person understands the subject, both students benefit from that situation. Also, how do you put the students in groups, test scores, motivation, IQ......I see all of those as flawed ways to track a student that prevents movement to either a higher or lower group (I've previously posted my experience with ability grouping - in most cases in the past it has been used to keep minorities, both racial and economic, from being placed on a college track).
We use differentiated instruction within a heterogenous classroom (I believe you previous stated that you have never heard of this idea - but you know I have a reading comprehension problem). The students are placed into "flexible" groups that move based on their current level of knowledge. I think that allowing for movement up or down in an ability group is important. Not every high kid is good at everything and it is a great thing to see a student who is struggling "get" something that the "highly" intellegent student doesn't understand. Traditional tracking doesn't work that way. Once a student is placed on a track, they can't get out of it. I think your experience with one teacher almost 20 years ago does is not enough to condemn an entire practice. There are a lot of bad teachers out there. I actually really like having a group that is not all the same. Sometimes it is difficult because there is too much of a disparity between the top and the bottom, but most of the time it is great.
BTW - I think I figured out that my reading comprehension problem has to do with the way you post. I looked back at several of your posts and sometimes I can't figure out whether it is something that you typed or your response to the comment of another. Sometimes you respond in the quotes box, sometimes you don't. It's a little confusing especially since the threads are so long.0 -
i technically "get summers off," but usually only about 3 weeks, because the rest of my summer is spent on IEPs for new students, researching the newest discoveries in Autism, modifying curriculum from the general education students so my mainstreamed students can have access to materials, preparing my classroom for the students, and applying for grants so I can get new things for my classroom...
summers are technically off, but we do a ton of work to get ready for august!
You wouldn't have to do any of that if they had ability grouping. Have you ever asked yourself why they don't. Well, there really is no good reason. It is a teacher union gimmick to creater more jobs, nothing more.
Spoken like someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I'm sorry this whole "union is a gimmick " thing is getting old. Teachers have an extremely difficult job, it tiring and rewarding at the same time. They take the crap and abuse from parents day in and day out because they love what they do and they take care of your children!
As said above they do have time off during the summer but they spend so much time preparing lesson plans and planning for the new year that it's definitely not 2 months off of partying. Instead of criticizing teachers you should be supporting them!
First of all, they don't, and never have taken care of MY children, because we pulled our son our of public school after 5 weeks, and homeschooled him. My daughter has never been in grade school or high school. I do not want to go through my family history yet again, but suffice it to say that my son is 19 and in his first year of law school, and my daughter, age 16, has earned her associates degree and is going to be a junior in college next fall.
And I don't buy that summers off are used to prepare for school. No more than my weekends are used to prepare for my next week of work. Yeah, all professionals take work home, but not all of them get the summers off.
i work with an insanely different population from most of the teachers on here. with moderate to severely handicapped students (non verbal/autistic/behavior intervention)... my district mainstreams EVERY student, and legally I HAVE to have them reaching IEP goals from general education classrooms... so for my 12 students I have to coordinate with the general ed benchmark binder, find how everything works with my CAPA binder, and manipulate the materials so my students can reach their IEP goals (which are legally binding (activists are frightening)) while mainstreamed for more than 50.9% of the day. Like i said, i take 3 weeks off- party, have fun, travel, do my thing, but after july 4th it gives me 6 weeks to plan for the rest of the year. ability grouping is a thing of the past... FAPE, free and public education, equal access to everything. I am in california, maybe it's different where you are?
Honestly, I don't know any of the acronyms you used, but they sound like a lot of bureaucratic bull crap. Why do they need to mainstream these children who sound like they need individual care rather than being in a classroom where "normal" kids will laugh at them and make fun of them? Do you as a teacher find that mainstreaming is worth anything? If so, why? If not, why not?
Bytheway, it does sound like you have enough work to do to keep your summers full.
california just requires all students to have equal access to education. for special education that means as much mainstreaming as possible (i work in a very $$ district with lots of suing so EVERYTHING is by the books.) I work with severely autistic students, and honestly most of them "look normal" and before we started mainstreaming kids were wondering what their problems were. For our most severely impacted students (with tantrums or self injurious behaviors) they spend more time in "my classroom" and less time in the general education classes focusing on behavior interventions.
As far as if I find mainstreaming worth anything? YES! I now teach high school, but our district mainstreams as early as elementary school. My students have decreased behaviors, more personal relationships (autism/relationships don't really work out) and a greater sense of connection to their community. As far as the general ed population, they have a much greater tolerance for differences and the bullying has stopped because they have been taught disability awareness and know how Autism or a severe disability can impact a student. I am not saying mainstreaming is for everyone, but the students that can get by being mainstreamed not only are benefited, but benefit those around them by teaching tolerance and differences making them more educated by many of the 40 year old walking around that thing I'm babying my students while holding their hands on community walks because if I don't they will run away aaah i love my job, full of surprises!
Interesting. Yet the media is full of cases of suicide by bullying. My experience is that kids are little terrorists at least through the end of middle school. High school, as I knew it was full of cliques.
Okay, but given that there may be social benefits to some populations, are there detriments to others? My impression from VAST experience with my own kids in public school - all 5 weeks of it - was that in mixed ability groups the brighter kids are disadvantaged. I firmly believe that based on what I have read, what I know from others I have talked to (I am listed as a resource on Connecticut's homeschooling network.) and from other sources.
Other than developing empathy, what other benefits does mixed ability grouping give to brighter kids?0 -
i technically "get summers off," but usually only about 3 weeks, because the rest of my summer is spent on IEPs for new students, researching the newest discoveries in Autism, modifying curriculum from the general education students so my mainstreamed students can have access to materials, preparing my classroom for the students, and applying for grants so I can get new things for my classroom...
summers are technically off, but we do a ton of work to get ready for august!
You wouldn't have to do any of that if they had ability grouping. Have you ever asked yourself why they don't. Well, there really is no good reason. It is a teacher union gimmick to creater more jobs, nothing more.
Spoken like someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I'm sorry this whole "union is a gimmick " thing is getting old. Teachers have an extremely difficult job, it tiring and rewarding at the same time. They take the crap and abuse from parents day in and day out because they love what they do and they take care of your children!
As said above they do have time off during the summer but they spend so much time preparing lesson plans and planning for the new year that it's definitely not 2 months off of partying. Instead of criticizing teachers you should be supporting them!
First of all, they don't, and never have taken care of MY children, because we pulled our son our of public school after 5 weeks, and homeschooled him. My daughter has never been in grade school or high school. I do not want to go through my family history yet again, but suffice it to say that my son is 19 and in his first year of law school, and my daughter, age 16, has earned her associates degree and is going to be a junior in college next fall.
And I don't buy that summers off are used to prepare for school. No more than my weekends are used to prepare for my next week of work. Yeah, all professionals take work home, but not all of them get the summers off.
i work with an insanely different population from most of the teachers on here. with moderate to severely handicapped students (non verbal/autistic/behavior intervention)... my district mainstreams EVERY student, and legally I HAVE to have them reaching IEP goals from general education classrooms... so for my 12 students I have to coordinate with the general ed benchmark binder, find how everything works with my CAPA binder, and manipulate the materials so my students can reach their IEP goals (which are legally binding (activists are frightening)) while mainstreamed for more than 50.9% of the day. Like i said, i take 3 weeks off- party, have fun, travel, do my thing, but after july 4th it gives me 6 weeks to plan for the rest of the year. ability grouping is a thing of the past... FAPE, free and public education, equal access to everything. I am in california, maybe it's different where you are?
Honestly, I don't know any of the acronyms you used, but they sound like a lot of bureaucratic bull crap. Why do they need to mainstream these children who sound like they need individual care rather than being in a classroom where "normal" kids will laugh at them and make fun of them? Do you as a teacher find that mainstreaming is worth anything? If so, why? If not, why not?
Bytheway, it does sound like you have enough work to do to keep your summers full.
IMO, mainstreaming is important for all students. Learning how to work with people who may not be as intellegent as you is an important life skill that cannot be diminished. Students grow up to be adults that have to work with people on all different levels (inlcuding those that have severe disabilities).
I think it's amazing to watch a general education student have positive interactions with a child that has severe disabilities. I think those "normal" kids need to learn some empathy and compassion for others. I have been a teacher for a while now and I have to say that the "abnormal" (if we're using those labels) are some of my favorite students. I have a bigger problem with the "normal" kids that act like idiots.0 -
Ability grouping works. Period. I know because I have been a student in an ability grouped school.
nope. your experience at your school in your community doesn't prove what works for everyone in all places. i could just as easily say to you, 'multi-ability grouping works. period. i know because i have been a student in a multi-ability school.' this game is smoke and mirrors.
*****************************
Chanstriste, (Esq-ce c'est "chanson triste?") you would be right if I relied exclusively on my own experience for this conclusion. However, I gave you a list of some books, all written within the last 5 or 10 years and all saying the same thing. This is a MAJOR topic of discussion among critics of public schooling as well as organizations promoting gifted education. It is also FIERCELY resisted by the teacher unions which by itself gives it legitimacy.
*****************************
also, if your age is correct on your profile, you were a student primarily in the 50's, graduating in the early 60's (my mom is class of '65). from what i can gather, parents basically expected students to listen to their teachers, not the other way around like a lot of them do now.
******************************
Yup. I'm older than dirt. I graduated from High School in 1961 and from College in 1965. And yes, in those days you took your life in your hands sassing a teacher. If the teacher didn't beat the crap out of you, your parents would.
******************************If you want to see the results of public school education look at some of the debates on different boards. (I am not referring to this board, which for the most part is the best debated board on this discussion group. You can actually have an interchange of ideas.) On some boards if you disagree with someone, they immediately call you a "racist," and start swearing at you. They have no knowledge of history. They have know knowledge of how to tell a good study from a bad study. They are frankly stupid people with no real eduation who think they know everything.
this kind of mindlessness is probably more attributed to how they were raised by their parents. if a child's parents place no value on education, that child will most likely follow suit. again, a social problem that rests outside of the education debate. it's definitely tied to education, but as i said earlier, the government can't start mandating 'parent renewal credits', so it's just another struggle to overcome in the classroom.
**********************************
Okay but the reality is very simple:
Children must learn discipline from somewhere
Teachers are not nannies.
There are other agencies that are supposed to take care of these types of problems (social service agencies)
Disruptive kids destroy the classroom not only for themselves, but also for everyone else. It ain't fair.
*************************************0 -
i technically "get summers off," but usually only about 3 weeks, because the rest of my summer is spent on IEPs for new students, researching the newest discoveries in Autism, modifying curriculum from the general education students so my mainstreamed students can have access to materials, preparing my classroom for the students, and applying for grants so I can get new things for my classroom...
summers are technically off, but we do a ton of work to get ready for august!
You wouldn't have to do any of that if they had ability grouping. Have you ever asked yourself why they don't. Well, there really is no good reason. It is a teacher union gimmick to creater more jobs, nothing more.
Spoken like someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I'm sorry this whole "union is a gimmick " thing is getting old. Teachers have an extremely difficult job, it tiring and rewarding at the same time. They take the crap and abuse from parents day in and day out because they love what they do and they take care of your children!
As said above they do have time off during the summer but they spend so much time preparing lesson plans and planning for the new year that it's definitely not 2 months off of partying. Instead of criticizing teachers you should be supporting them!
First of all, they don't, and never have taken care of MY children, because we pulled our son our of public school after 5 weeks, and homeschooled him. My daughter has never been in grade school or high school. I do not want to go through my family history yet again, but suffice it to say that my son is 19 and in his first year of law school, and my daughter, age 16, has earned her associates degree and is going to be a junior in college next fall.
And I don't buy that summers off are used to prepare for school. No more than my weekends are used to prepare for my next week of work. Yeah, all professionals take work home, but not all of them get the summers off.
i work with an insanely different population from most of the teachers on here. with moderate to severely handicapped students (non verbal/autistic/behavior intervention)... my district mainstreams EVERY student, and legally I HAVE to have them reaching IEP goals from general education classrooms... so for my 12 students I have to coordinate with the general ed benchmark binder, find how everything works with my CAPA binder, and manipulate the materials so my students can reach their IEP goals (which are legally binding (activists are frightening)) while mainstreamed for more than 50.9% of the day. Like i said, i take 3 weeks off- party, have fun, travel, do my thing, but after july 4th it gives me 6 weeks to plan for the rest of the year. ability grouping is a thing of the past... FAPE, free and public education, equal access to everything. I am in california, maybe it's different where you are?
Honestly, I don't know any of the acronyms you used, but they sound like a lot of bureaucratic bull crap. Why do they need to mainstream these children who sound like they need individual care rather than being in a classroom where "normal" kids will laugh at them and make fun of them? Do you as a teacher find that mainstreaming is worth anything? If so, why? If not, why not?
Bytheway, it does sound like you have enough work to do to keep your summers full.
IMO, mainstreaming is important for all students. Learning how to work with people who may not be as intellegent as you is an important life skill that cannot be diminished. Students grow up to be adults that have to work with people on all different levels (inlcuding those that have severe disabilities).
I think it's amazing to watch a general education student have positive interactions with a child that has severe disabilities. I think those "normal" kids need to learn some empathy and compassion for others. I have been a teacher for a while now and I have to say that the "abnormal" (if we're using those labels) are some of my favorite students. I have a bigger problem with the "normal" kids that act like idiots.
All well and good, but the purpose of education is supposed to be learning, not social engineering. I think most people, bright and stupid have empathy for disabled kids. Most, I say not all. And I suspect that the brighter the kid is, the more empathy he would have. (Just my feeling, not based on anything.)
My question is, "For brighter than average students, what LEARNING advantages or disadvantages are there from mainstreaming." I am talking about subject matter learning, not empathy.
Bear in mind that in a country where all public schools do mainstreaming, America finished twenty something in the last Third International Math and Science test. Other countries do not do mainstreaming, because they cannot afford to - too wasteful of scarce resources, and even some third world countries beat the pants off of us in math and science.0 -
I don't think that mainstreaming is why our country is failing in Math and Science. I've actually had several kids with autism that are mathematical geniuses. I think the bigger issue there is the lack of focus on Math and Science in the public schools. Schools here always focus on reading. For example, our reading block is 180 minutes every day. Math is 90 minutes. Science is only allocated 30 minutes. You also have to look at how the other countries are educating their children. Many of those kids go to school on Saturdays (which would be blasphemy if we suggested that here). The students are in school for 10 - 12 hours a day and if you are late they lock the doors and don't let you in. We are too lax in our rules to compete with other countries. Sure mainstreaming can have a little bit to do with that fact, but there are bigger issues than just that. Mainstreaming is required if it is the least restrictive environment where a child can learn. Congress did that with IDEA. It's not done to help the general population. We don't have complete mainstreaming. Our kids with severe disabilities have a self-contained classroom with a teacher and they are mainstreamed for non-academic subjects like Music, Art, PE and only for academic subjects if they are at or above grade level.
Our county pushes mainstreaming because it's allowed under the law and it actually saves money because they only have to have one special education teacher for more kids than the law would allow in one special needs classroom. For example, if you can only have 10 kids in a special education classroom but you have 20 kids total put them into a bunch of different classrooms and have 1 floating special ed teacher check on them. It cuts the number of teachers needed in half.0 -
IMO, mainstreaming is important for all students. Learning how to work with people who may not be as intellegent as you is an important life skill that cannot be diminished. Students grow up to be adults that have to work with people on all different levels (inlcuding those that have severe disabilities).
I think it's amazing to watch a general education student have positive interactions with a child that has severe disabilities. I think those "normal" kids need to learn some empathy and compassion for others. I have been a teacher for a while now and I have to say that the "abnormal" (if we're using those labels) are some of my favorite students. I have a bigger problem with the "normal" kids that act like idiots.
The problem I see is that kids who are just as 'abnormal', but at the other end of the scale, are being forgotten about in an attempt to treat everyone 'equally'. For the seriously intelligent child, the typical 'mainstream' class is an agony of boredom and frustration. I agree that empathy and 'getting on with others who are different' are important, but I'm not convinced that this laudable intention should be allowed, consistently, to trump teaching kids at the appropriate level for them, regardless of their age or 'peer group'. Nor can I support the use of more able students as personal tutors, within a mainstream class, for kids who are struggling. Yes, teaching something means you understand it well, but how utterly unfair to the intellectually-gifted child to hold him or her back in this way from progressing at the rate that is possible for his or her brain. There is also a great risk inherent in exposing both children involved to the frustration and demoralisation of trying to teach something to a 'peer' whose intellectual gifts are no match for one's own, or the humiliation of realising that your classmate is so far ahead of you that you are unlikely ever to catch up.
Please forgive my use of inverted commas instead of quotation marks - my keyboard is missing the number 2 key!
It's a contentious opinion, but in the UK, I think the most damaging thing that has been done to education in the last century is the abolition of grammar schools - academically-selective, state-funded schools, from which many working- and lower-middle-class children made their way to University, often as the first in their family to complete High School, let alone attend an institution of higher learning. The current lumping-together of gifted, average and behind-the-pace intellects in schools serves no-one well.0 -
IMO, mainstreaming is important for all students. Learning how to work with people who may not be as intellegent as you is an important life skill that cannot be diminished. Students grow up to be adults that have to work with people on all different levels (inlcuding those that have severe disabilities).
I think it's amazing to watch a general education student have positive interactions with a child that has severe disabilities. I think those "normal" kids need to learn some empathy and compassion for others. I have been a teacher for a while now and I have to say that the "abnormal" (if we're using those labels) are some of my favorite students. I have a bigger problem with the "normal" kids that act like idiots.
The problem I see is that kids who are just as 'abnormal', but at the other end of the scale, are being forgotten about in an attempt to treat everyone 'equally'. For the seriously intelligent child, the typical 'mainstream' class is an agony of boredom and frustration. I agree that empathy and 'getting on with others who are different' are important, but I'm not convinced that this laudable intention should be allowed, consistently, to trump teaching kids at the appropriate level for them, regardless of their age or 'peer group'. Nor can I support the use of more able students as personal tutors, within a mainstream class, for kids who are struggling. Yes, teaching something means you understand it well, but how utterly unfair to the intellectually-gifted child to hold him or her back in this way from progressing at the rate that is possible for his or her brain. There is also a great risk inherent in exposing both children involved to the frustration and demoralisation of trying to teach something to a 'peer' whose intellectual gifts are no match for one's own, or the humiliation of realising that your classmate is so far ahead of you that you are unlikely ever to catch up.
Well, our "gifted" children have their own classes which is also special education. Being "gifted" and being smart a two different things.0 -
Sorry, this is a sociatal problem We have become too lazy to work in unison to educate our children. When this country began, most children knew more than a high school student by the time they were 5.i just saw on another post the mention of teachers 'snivelling' for more money when they are not getting results. this kind of thing burns just burns me up.
i can't stand it when people who have never stuck a toe in the education field go on about how teachers are lazy, get paid for nothing in the summer, and are only babysitting anyways, so how hard can it really be?
then you have the people who want to run education like a business, and if you don't get the results, you don't get the pay. if education was a business, teachers could fire and hire the students based on their performance. but no. we don't get that option.
we teach *everyone*, no matter what. even if they only show up to school once a week. even if their parents cuss us out on the phone and tell us that *their* child is *our* problem when they are at school. even if a student consistently refuses to lift a finger because they just do not care. and we are still held accountable for a student's testing scores even if they were expelled from school for 150 days out of 180.
there are always going to be teachers who drop the ball and don't do their part, but the majority of us never give up on those students who have already given up on themselves. we keep hoping that one day they might open their book, write something down and learn something.
boo to people that criticize the general educator populace without ever having taught. if you haven't stood in front of a class of 20 to 30 students and taught, you really have no idea.
We expect too little of our children. Our teachers are at the mercy of their admistrators, who by the way make a butt load of cash. I would become dissolustioned also if I worked for them and the unions!
If you are truly a great teacher, I salute you. If your just some whinny gripper who feels their paycheck is being threatened, go find a real job.
Oh, by the way, I take one furluogh a month and just had my pay and benefits cut 5%!0 -
Well, our "gifted" children have their own classes which is also special education. Being "gifted" and being smart a two different things.
Glad to hear the former - wish it was the case everywhere. Can you explain further what you mean re. the difference between 'gifted' and smart? I think I know what you're getting at, but I don't want to jump in with a polemic on this if we're on the same page!0 -
Okay but the reality is very simple:
Children must learn discipline from somewhere
Teachers are not nannies.
There are other agencies that are supposed to take care of these types of problems (social service agencies)
Disruptive kids destroy the classroom not only for themselves, but also for everyone else. It ain't fair.
yes, yes, yes!
it isn't fair, but in practice, there is not a whole lot to be done about this, and there *should* be. i have a great example. one of my husband's classes is a fairly good group of students, save for three girls. they are disrespectful to other students and my husband, they scream at random intervals just to get the class going, they do not complete their work, they cheat, they throw things across the room, they start eating doritos and soda in the middle of class.
are these girls stupid? no. do they know the rules? yes. does my husband write them up anytime they deserve it? yes. he and their other teachers, too. one of them recevied 15 detention forms in *one* day. are their parents contacted? yes. do they care? no.
why are these girls still there? it burns me up that they have not been sent to an alternative school or suspended for the year by now. the others in this class would benefit from them leaving, but the way the system is currently, it would be unfair for these three girls if they aren't offered their education. and that is just bacwards.
in this, i agree with you wholeheartedly. there needs to be an alternative place for massively disruptive students to go. that is certainly not fair to the others.
one of the girls' mother is a hair dresser, and she came into the school one day to tell my husband not to call her f*ckin number again because she had more important things to be doing than worrying about school. is this abuse? can this be measured in some way? i think measuring the damage that some parents do to their children is probably just as ellusive as measuring the adequacy of a teacher.0 -
Well, our "gifted" children have their own classes which is also special education. Being "gifted" and being smart a two different things.
Glad to hear the former - wish it was the case everywhere. Can you explain further what you mean re. the difference between 'gifed' and smart? I think I know what you're getting at, but I don't want to jump in with a polemic on this if we're on the same page!
Keep in mind these are generalizations (and not true of every situation):
Intellectually "Gifted" kid (I feel that there are gifts such as music, art, sports, etc that are not included in this category) - I have a whole different view of the world. I see things in a way that no one my age can even comprehend. I will grow up to be an innovator or an intellectual of some kind. I look disorganized to others, but ask me where a specific piece of information is and what it means I can probably tell you. I probably get annoyed when my peers don't understand what I'm saying. I don't typically work well with the "smart" kid. I may appear to be lazy (get bad grades) because I don't feel like I need to complete such simplistic tasks
Teacher observation on the "gifted" kid - Some of that includes IQ (usually have to have really high IQ), but it also has to do with how you think, how you see the world. These types of kids would be bored in a traditional classroom because their thinking is at a higher level than a smart kid. Sometimes these kids are high academic acheivers and (in my experience more often than not) sometimes they are not. Challenging to teach because you can never quite figure out what they are going to do with an assignment that you give them. May have issues getting along with peers because they consider them to be on lower level (this is not true for all gifted kids). I personally love teaching these kids because they keep me on my toes. Most teachers wouldn't want to teach this group of kids because it's too much work.
"Smart" kid - if you teach me something I can do it and do it well. I'm a teacher pleaser. I get good grades. When I'm challenged on my thoughts, I come up with an answer that is a common answer. I get along well with my peers and I make a good peer tutor for kids who may be struggling to understand. It helps me to improve my skills. My parents think I'm gifted.
Teacher observation on "smart" kid - Usually average intelligence, most teachers wish they had a classroom full of these kids, they work hard, they are not behavior problems, and they will acheive high test scores.0 -
Okay but the reality is very simple:
Children must learn discipline from somewhere
Teachers are not nannies.
There are other agencies that are supposed to take care of these types of problems (social service agencies)
Disruptive kids destroy the classroom not only for themselves, but also for everyone else. It ain't fair.
yes, yes, yes!
it isn't fair, but in practice, there is not a whole lot to be done about this, and there *should* be. i have a great example. one of my husband's classes is a fairly good group of students, save for three girls. they are disrespectful to other students and my husband, they scream at random intervals just to get the class going, they do not complete their work, they cheat, they throw things across the room, they start eating doritos and soda in the middle of class.
are these girls stupid? no. do they know the rules? yes. does my husband write them up anytime they deserve it? yes. he and their other teachers, too. one of them recevied 15 detention forms in *one* day. are their parents contacted? yes. do they care? no.
why are these girls still there? it burns me up that they have not been sent to an alternative school or suspended for the year by now. the others in this class would benefit from them leaving, but the way the system is currently, it would be unfair for these three girls if they aren't offered their education. and that is just bacwards.
in this, i agree with you wholeheartedly. there needs to be an alternative place for massively disruptive students to go. that is certainly not fair to the others.
one of the girls' mother is a hair dresser, and she came into the school one day to tell my husband not to call her f*ckin number again because she had more important things to be doing than worrying about school. is this abuse? can this be measured in some way? i think measuring the damage that some parents do to their children is probably just as ellusive as measuring the adequacy of a teacher.
:explode: Had that conversation many times - why do keep calling this effing number? He/she is your probem from 7:15 - 3:150 -
Well, our "gifted" children have their own classes which is also special education. Being "gifted" and being smart a two different things.
Glad to hear the former - wish it was the case everywhere. Can you explain further what you mean re. the difference between 'gifed' and smart? I think I know what you're getting at, but I don't want to jump in with a polemic on this if we're on the same page!
Keep in mind these are generalizations (and not true of every situation):
Intellectually "Gifted" kid (I feel that there are gifts such as music, art, sports, etc that are not included in this category) - I have a whole different view of the world. I see things in a way that no one my age can even comprehend. I will grow up to be an innovator or an intellectual of some kind. I look disorganized to others, but ask me where a specific piece of information is and what it means I can probably tell you. I probably get annoyed when my peers don't understand what I'm saying. I don't typically work well with the "smart" kid. I may appear to be lazy (get bad grades) because I don't feel like I need to complete such simplistic tasks
Teacher observation on the "gifted" kid - Some of that includes IQ (usually have to have really high IQ), but it also has to do with how you think, how you see the world. These types of kids would be bored in a traditional classroom because their thinking is at a higher level than a smart kid. Sometimes these kids are high academic acheivers and (in my experience more often than not) sometimes they are not. Challenging to teach because you can never quite figure out what they are going to do with an assignment that you give them. May have issues getting along with peers because they consider them to be on lower level (this is not true for all gifted kids). I personally love teaching these kids because they keep me on my toes. Most teachers wouldn't want to teach this group of kids because it's too much work.
"Smart" kid - if you teach me something I can do it and do it well. I'm a teacher pleaser. I get good grades. When I'm challenged on my thoughts, I come up with an answer that is a common answer. I get along well with my peers and I make a good peer tutor for kids who may be struggling to understand. It helps me to improve my skills. My parents think I'm gifted.
Teacher observation on "smart" kid - Usually average intelligence, most teachers wish they had a classroom full of these kids, they work hard, they are not behavior problems, and they will acheive high test scores.
Thanks for expanding - we are on the same page here, so no polemic required.
Your observations made me giggle in recognition. I agree that other gifts and talents are often excluded from the way we use 'gifted' in an educational context, but these abilities are often cherished and fostered in extracurricular settings, and it seems that fewer people find it difficult or distasteful to acknowledge non-intellectual gifts (in my personal experience - I'm a professional musician now, and being a good singer was never a problem at school, whereas having a reading age of 14 at 4.5 years old was a 'problem').
The kids I really worry about are the intellectually-gifted kids in a typical 'mainstream' classroom, who often seem to be overlooked in the bigger picture of educational policy. As you may have guessed from my passion on the subject, both I, and my younger sister, fitted comprehensively into the 'gifted' group, and school was not a positive experience for either of us, despite attending private schools that promised 'extension' work and attention to our individual needs.
I'm interested in your comments about teachers who would and would not want to teach this group - in retrospect, I can pick the teachers who enjoyed teaching me, and those who were, I think, annoyed or a little afraid of being shown up. I remember the boredom and frustration vividly, and I really fear for kids whose intellectual gifts are extreme, but whose parents are less aware than my mother was, and less inclined to go to bat for them to get what they need from their education.
I've got rather off-topic in the process, but I do think we are failing the brightest kids more often than not, by insisting on mainstreaming them - I didn't have friends of my approximate age until I started my second undergrad degree at 19; as you observe, the frustration of attempting to have a conversation with a 'peer' who had no comprehension of or interest in the subject I was trying to discuss, was not conducive to age-based friendships, and the 'smart' kids tend to resent, and therefore tease, the kid who wants to talk about women's suffrage or the Battle of Trafalgar at morning break!
I also smiled in recognition at the 'appearing disorganised' (every school report I ever had) and not feeling the need to complete simplistic tasks. It just seems such a waste that raw ability should be being largely suppressed because of political unease with admitting that not all brains are created exactly alike. I also suspect that the issues around child and teen-suicides have more to do with this than we may realise - frustration and boredom can lead further than mere bad behaviour.0 -
You know, Chanstriste, I really do like you, but you just don't get it. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. If you don't uproot the system, you are PROMOTING DYSFUNCTIONALITY. The system is broken. It's like you're in a hospital but there is no medicine or electricity. You ain't gunna cure anyone that way.
i like you too, veg. and i agree with you - the system doesn't work like it should. i probably get that a lot better than you even, since i've actually worked in it. but it works well enough that roughly 69% of public school seniors ended up in college last year, and that's not too shabby considering the many hurdles that teachers and students alike have to overcome.
i don't agree with you spouting that we should all just abandon ship, which is what you basically seem to be preaching. start a mutiny. sacrifice our jobs for the cause and all that because if we really cared, we would be willing to do so. it sounds like you are a great academic on the subject, but you haven't been on the inside of all this, so your perception is a hill beside this mountain that needs to be moved somehow.
the only actual suggestion you have made is ability grouping, which may or may not work. but teachers can't make those decisions themselves. we get the roster that is handed to us. that's just the nature of the beast.
as for your experiences with one teacher at one school in one community - that's enough to do what you will with your own children, but it's hardly enough to denounce or deny the many good experiences that students and parents have had with their public school systems.
Ability grouping works. Period. I know because I have been a student in an ability grouped school. Ability grouping, however, does not favor any particular group, but treats all equally. That is one of the reasons the Teacher Union hates it. It goes against their liberal political agenda. Ability grouping would take the bright kids and separate them from the non-bright, and that is intollerable for those with a political agenda.
The idea of multi-ability classes is that the bright kids can be used as a role model for the the non-bright. Wonderful. However, I just don't feel like having my kids used as teaching tools. I send them to school with the naive expectation that they will actually learn, and not be utilized. Bright kids have a right to an education too. We realized that, and that is why we pulled our kids out of public school early on, and why we are very happy we did so.
If you want to see the results of public school education look at some of the debates on different boards. (I am not referring to this board, which for the most part is the best debated board on this discussion group. You can actually have an interchange of ideas.) On some boards if you disagree with someone, they immediately call you a "racist," and start swearing at you. They have no knowledge of history. They have know knowledge of how to tell a good study from a bad study. They are frankly stupid people with no real eduation who think they know everything.
Yes, I also think I know everything (! - beat you to it!) but I put my money where my mouth is. I raised my own kids the way I think they should be raised, and so far, at least, it has worked fine. I really have fears for the fate of America when our school system is turning out drones who can't think, who know nothing and who are arrogant. We really need a revolution in eduation.
We get your point - UNIONS ARE THE DEVIL. Unions are everything that is wrong with education. However, we have heterogenous grouping and we have no unions. We also have a lot of really bad things going on (cheating scandal, low performing schools, poor performing teachers). So, it's not just the unions that create these issues. I do agree with you that politics need to stay out of education and we could actually get something done. (I know shocking I agreed with something you said).
Well, yes, ability grouping works to a certain extent, but one of the best ways to learn a subject is to have to teach it to someone else.
*******************************************
I agree. But a better way is to do original research in the subject. Certainly, there are kids in high school capable of doing original research.
*******************************************
If a student can teach someone else a subject and that person understands the subject, both students benefit from that situation. Also, how do you put the students in groups, test scores, motivation, IQ......I see all of those as flawed ways to track a student that prevents movement to either a higher or lower group (I've previously posted my experience with ability grouping - in most cases in the past it has been used to keep minorities, both racial and economic, from being placed on a college track).
**********************************
Okay, my way of doing this would be to suggest to each student where they belong, based upon, say IQ tests and recommenations. However, I would give the student the final choice as to which track he ends up in. Also, I would require, for example, an A average (3.6 or better) to remain in the top track, a B averagre (3.2 or better) to remain in the normal college track, and other tracks would not have grade requirements.
Anyone who did not maintain the required average for two semesters running, would automatically revert to the next lowest track. Anyone from a lower track who, taking similar courses got the grades of the next higher track would be "promoted" if he wished to be.
************************************
We use differentiated instruction within a heterogenous classroom (I believe you previous stated that you have never heard of this idea - but you know I have a reading comprehension problem).
*************************************
You understdood me just fine.
*************************************
The students are placed into "flexible" groups that move based on their current level of knowledge. I think that allowing for movement up or down in an ability group is important.
***************************************
I agree.
***************************************
Not every high kid is good at everything and it is a great thing to see a student who is struggling "get" something that the "highly" intellegent student doesn't understand. Traditional tracking doesn't work that way. Once a student is placed on a track, they can't get out of it.
**************************************
That is not how my tracking worked. For example, English was offered at sevaral different levels. Only the top level was invitation only, but if you got the grades in the next lower level, you got the invitation.
**************************************
I think your experience with one teacher almost 20 years ago does is not enough to condemn an entire practice. There are a lot of bad teachers out there. I actually really like having a group that is not all the same. Sometimes it is difficult because there is too much of a disparity between the top and the bottom, but most of the time it is great.
****************************************
If an efficiency expert were to look at this sysetem, what would he say?
****************************************
BTW - I think I figured out that my reading comprehension problem has to do with the way you post. I looked back at several of your posts and sometimes I can't figure out whether it is something that you typed or your response to the comment of another. Sometimes you respond in the quotes box, sometimes you don't. It's a little confusing especially since the threads are so long.
****************************************
Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. I am not terribly adept at computer stuff. Most times I really don't know how to get the result I want, and I am too lazy to try and figure it out. When my son or daughter are around, I ask them, but when they are not I flounder.
****************************************0 -
You know, Chanstriste, I really do like you, but you just don't get it. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. If you don't uproot the system, you are PROMOTING DYSFUNCTIONALITY. The system is broken. It's like you're in a hospital but there is no medicine or electricity. You ain't gunna cure anyone that way.
i like you too, veg. and i agree with you - the system doesn't work like it should. i probably get that a lot better than you even, since i've actually worked in it. but it works well enough that roughly 69% of public school seniors ended up in college last year, and that's not too shabby considering the many hurdles that teachers and students alike have to overcome.
i don't agree with you spouting that we should all just abandon ship, which is what you basically seem to be preaching. start a mutiny. sacrifice our jobs for the cause and all that because if we really cared, we would be willing to do so. it sounds like you are a great academic on the subject, but you haven't been on the inside of all this, so your perception is a hill beside this mountain that needs to be moved somehow.
the only actual suggestion you have made is ability grouping, which may or may not work. but teachers can't make those decisions themselves. we get the roster that is handed to us. that's just the nature of the beast.
as for your experiences with one teacher at one school in one community - that's enough to do what you will with your own children, but it's hardly enough to denounce or deny the many good experiences that students and parents have had with their public school systems.
Ability grouping works. Period. I know because I have been a student in an ability grouped school. Ability grouping, however, does not favor any particular group, but treats all equally. That is one of the reasons the Teacher Union hates it. It goes against their liberal political agenda. Ability grouping would take the bright kids and separate them from the non-bright, and that is intollerable for those with a political agenda.
The idea of multi-ability classes is that the bright kids can be used as a role model for the the non-bright. Wonderful. However, I just don't feel like having my kids used as teaching tools. I send them to school with the naive expectation that they will actually learn, and not be utilized. Bright kids have a right to an education too. We realized that, and that is why we pulled our kids out of public school early on, and why we are very happy we did so.
If you want to see the results of public school education look at some of the debates on different boards. (I am not referring to this board, which for the most part is the best debated board on this discussion group. You can actually have an interchange of ideas.) On some boards if you disagree with someone, they immediately call you a "racist," and start swearing at you. They have no knowledge of history. They have know knowledge of how to tell a good study from a bad study. They are frankly stupid people with no real eduation who think they know everything.
Yes, I also think I know everything (! - beat you to it!) but I put my money where my mouth is. I raised my own kids the way I think they should be raised, and so far, at least, it has worked fine. I really have fears for the fate of America when our school system is turning out drones who can't think, who know nothing and who are arrogant. We really need a revolution in eduation.
We get your point - UNIONS ARE THE DEVIL. Unions are everything that is wrong with education. However, we have heterogenous grouping and we have no unions. We also have a lot of really bad things going on (cheating scandal, low performing schools, poor performing teachers). So, it's not just the unions that create these issues. I do agree with you that politics need to stay out of education and we could actually get something done. (I know shocking I agreed with something you said).
Well, yes, ability grouping works to a certain extent, but one of the best ways to learn a subject is to have to teach it to someone else.
*******************************************
I agree. But a better way is to do original research in the subject. Certainly, there are kids in high school capable of doing original research.
*******************************************
If a student can teach someone else a subject and that person understands the subject, both students benefit from that situation. Also, how do you put the students in groups, test scores, motivation, IQ......I see all of those as flawed ways to track a student that prevents movement to either a higher or lower group (I've previously posted my experience with ability grouping - in most cases in the past it has been used to keep minorities, both racial and economic, from being placed on a college track).
**********************************
Okay, my way of doing this would be to suggest to each student where they belong, based upon, say IQ tests and recommenations. However, I would give the student the final choice as to which track he ends up in. Also, I would require, for example, an A average (3.6 or better) to remain in the top track, a B averagre (3.2 or better) to remain in the normal college track, and other tracks would not have grade requirements.
Anyone who did not maintain the required average for two semesters running, would automatically revert to the next lowest track. Anyone from a lower track who, taking similar courses got the grades of the next higher track would be "promoted" if he wished to be.
************************************
We use differentiated instruction within a heterogenous classroom (I believe you previous stated that you have never heard of this idea - but you know I have a reading comprehension problem).
*************************************
You understdood me just fine.
*************************************
The students are placed into "flexible" groups that move based on their current level of knowledge. I think that allowing for movement up or down in an ability group is important.
***************************************
I agree.
***************************************
Not every high kid is good at everything and it is a great thing to see a student who is struggling "get" something that the "highly" intellegent student doesn't understand. Traditional tracking doesn't work that way. Once a student is placed on a track, they can't get out of it.
**************************************
That is not how my tracking worked. For example, English was offered at sevaral different levels. Only the top level was invitation only, but if you got the grades in the next lower level, you got the invitation.
**************************************
I think your experience with one teacher almost 20 years ago does is not enough to condemn an entire practice. There are a lot of bad teachers out there. I actually really like having a group that is not all the same. Sometimes it is difficult because there is too much of a disparity between the top and the bottom, but most of the time it is great.
****************************************
If an efficiency expert were to look at this sysetem, what would he say?
****************************************
BTW - I think I figured out that my reading comprehension problem has to do with the way you post. I looked back at several of your posts and sometimes I can't figure out whether it is something that you typed or your response to the comment of another. Sometimes you respond in the quotes box, sometimes you don't. It's a little confusing especially since the threads are so long.
****************************************
Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. I am not terribly adept at computer stuff. Most times I really don't know how to get the result I want, and I am too lazy to try and figure it out. When my son or daughter are around, I ask them, but when they are not I flounder.
****************************************
I'm glad your tracking allowed for movement. Our tracking system did not because if you did not get the college level English freshman year you had to take it sophomore year to 'move' up. So it effectively prevented movement because you couldn't take 5 full year English classes in four years). I also disagree with the idea of grouping based on IQ (unless you are talking about truly gifted - which is a small segment of the population). You will still have trouble reaching the truly gifted in that system because there are so few children that actually fall into that category that economics would preclude having that class. (I think my AP Physics and AP Calculus classes in high school had 3 students in it and by the time my brother was a senior (4 yrs later) it was gone.
Not to mention you would have trouble finding teachers to teach that program because it is a challenge to constantly be intellectually challenged by a student in K-12. A lot of adults don't like it when kids come up with ideas that don't fit neatly into what they were expecting the project to be.
You are right about an efficiency expert, however, even within ability grouping you still have varying levels and a good teacher would break those groups down even further so that the kids would get instruction on exactly what they need. It's not really all that different than having a heterogenus group because you still have to recognize that no two kids are exactly the same. It will all still start with large group instruction and then break down into smaller learning groups. I don't think it's any easier/harder to do it with varying levels. My background is in elementary/middle school, but I think that high school kids would also benefit from that idea. Everyone learns better in small environments where you can get 1 on 1 attention. This is one of the reasons why kids who are truly homeschooled are so much further along than their peers in public schools (I think your family is an example of this, but there are some people who claim to homeschool their children and they are out at the mall everyday or never actually do some of the basic school things like learn to read or add).0 -
I'm glad your tracking allowed for movement. Our tracking system did not because if you did not get the college level English freshman year you had to take it sophomore year to 'move' up.
******************************
I may have given you the wrong impression. Mobility was really effectively limited to 9th and 10th grade. After that you were either too deep into the subject or had missed too much. Reverting to a lower track would, however, have been easy.
******************************
So it effectively prevented movement because you couldn't take 5 full year English classes in four years). I also disagree with the idea of grouping based on IQ (unless you are talking about truly gifted - which is a small segment of the population).
******************************
Okay, this is an area where I probably disagree with you profoundly. My own children are in the upper range of bright normal (Bright Normal I./Q. on Stanford Binet between 116 and 130). They absolutely benefited by entering college at ages 10 and 12 respectively. Admittedly, at first they took "remedial" math and English courses, along with French and art, not terribly demanding courses at the beginning, but once they got used to college level work, they thrived. They finished Community College (my daughter is still waiting for her degree) at ages 16 and 17. In the roughly five years they attended Community College, they earned over 75 transfer credits, which means they effectively skipped the first two years of 4-year university and then some. Remember they never went to grade school or high school. (Other than my son's five weeks in first grade.)
I don't know what you consider "gifted." I would consider 131 to 145 mildly gifted, and 146 to 160 profoundly gifted. If you are considering special classes only for the profoundly gifted, that is not good enough. In my experience, from 116 on up, kids can benefit from accelerated instruction. Admittedly the capability of a 116 cannot match a 160 in a subject like math, but in other subjects, they can keep up. It is a real mistake to consider kids from bright normal on up not worthy of a gifted program.
*******************************************
You will still have trouble reaching the truly gifted in that system because there are so few children that actually fall into that category that economics would preclude having that class. (I think my AP Physics and AP Calculus classes in high school had 3 students in it and by the time my brother was a senior (4 yrs later) it was gone.
********************************************
Economics are a red herring. With abilty grouping you would save money and be able to service all at the level of their ability.
********************************************
Not to mention you would have trouble finding teachers to teach that program because it is a challenge to constantly be intellectually challenged by a student in K-12. A lot of adults don't like it when kids come up with ideas that don't fit neatly into what they were expecting the project to be.
*********************************************
That is for darn sure. But a lot of adults also love it. I really enjoyed teaching Latin, for example. I had some very bright kids, and they made it a pleasure.
*********************************************
You are right about an efficiency expert, however, even within ability grouping you still have varying levels and a good teacher would break those groups down even further so that the kids would get instruction on exactly what they need. It's not really all that different than having a heterogenus group because you still have to recognize that no two kids are exactly the same.
********************************************
Oh, I think it is a very big difference.
********************************************
It will all still start with large group instruction and then break down into smaller learning groups. I don't think it's any easier/harder to do it with varying levels. My background is in elementary/middle school, but I think that high school kids would also benefit from that idea. Everyone learns better in small environments where you can get 1 on 1 attention. This is one of the reasons why kids who are truly homeschooled are so much further along than their peers in public schools (I think your family is an example of this, but there are some people who claim to homeschool their children and they are out at the mall everyday or never actually do some of the basic school things like learn to read or add).
*********************************************
There are different homeschooling models. Ours was "The Well-Trained Mind" classical model. You are referring to unschoolers, which I have seen a lot of. Some unschooling works out very well, and some is a horrible disaster. A self motivated creative person who has subject matter interest will do extremely well at unschooling.
*********************************************
[/quote]0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions