redkudu on grouping & behavior problems

Here is a brilliant, illuminating post by redkudu on the educational causes of sh**** students. (I'm sorry; it is bad form to call sh**** students sh****. Truth is no excuse).

Seeing as how redkudu's former web site chewed up and swallowed her equally brilliant, illuminating post on How to Break Up a Fight, I am re-posting this new one in its entirety, here, just to be on the safe side:

Mamacita raised a few eyebrows with this post a few weeks back, a rant about the poorly behaved students in schools. From The Trenches followed up with this mostly supportive post, which also examined some criticism from another blogger.

I'm not really going to discuss the posts (you should go read them), except to use the original as a springboard for something I keep saying over and over, and which I believe to be true: we could solve 60-80% of these disciplinary problems if we put students in classes where they were able to perform at their ability level, and excel from that level upward - something which might also help solve the engagement problem.

I recognize these students Mamacita is talking about - but for the most part I recognize them as the students in my class who are either above or below the "middle ground" I am expected to teach to. The ones below the middle ground become listless and frustrated with material that is over their heads, and a teacher who is too busy juggling ability levels to give them the concrete instruction they need. The students above the middle ground grow bored and resentful as they see themselves being held back by both the middle ground and those below it.

I went to a professional development meeting this morning in which we were given concrete strategies to use in what are now being called "stacked classes." Differentiated classrooms with ability levels so diverse they require teachers to teach two (or more) different curriculums in the same class period. The basic premise is that we begin with the same literature or subject matter, and with a unified activity (such as a journal). We then split the classroom up and teach one thing to one group, and another to another group, all the while finely splitting the hairs of a timer so that instruction for both is timed down to the minute. (And what if one group runs over? I hear you asking. Why, we do what we've always done...tell the other group to find something to do, or whip out some busy work for them. Alternatively, stop the slower group and have them complete the assignment for homework.)

The teacher then bounces back and forth between groups, but we have the same problem as ever - the implication is that we can trust ONE of those groups will be self-sustaining and self-motivated while the teacher works with the other group. So while we're making more work for the teachers, we've backslid into the exact same position as before - those kids who know how to learn on their own will, at least to the extent of the lowest-common-denominator of expectations the teacher is able to set, and the kids who can't learn on their own will be given activities which don't actually increase their ability level, but rather maintain them at their level while making it appear we're giving them more personalized time.

It just seems so odd to me that though we are now able to admit students have wildly varying needs in the classroom, we cannot bring ourselves to assign students to classes according to their ability, where a teacher would teach one specifically targeted lesson that might have the potential to bring students up to the level of their peers, instead of simply maintaining their status quo.

I guess that will have to wait for when I have my own school. :)

I'm pretty sure there is a parent version of this post to be written.

Stalker moms aside (and, speaking of stalker moms, is it getting to be time for parents to come up with a set of nasty labels for ineffective teachers?),^* reasonable moms and dads can find it difficult to maintain a tone when we are always and forever on the receiving end of comments like, "If students need distributed practice, parents can find worksheets online," and, "I will not discuss curriculum and pedagogy with parents," and, "It will be possible to move your child down to Phase 3, but it will not be possible to promise to move him back up to Phase 4 in the fall," and so on and so on.

Even Ed, who has had years of experience maintaining a tone, suffered a lapse with the math chair during our last encounter, at one point telling her to "shush."

Afterwards, he was mortified.

In any case, it's clear to me from conversations with other parents that, yes, there are some nutty parents out there. I may know one myself. But, and here is the point, I would not call her funny names, and nor would anyone else I know.

I should add that "stalker mom" is funny; it's good writing.

But, speaking as a writer, I am here to tell you that in personal writing a lot of one's best phrases and images must be squelched. If a teacher wants to write a blog post about a "stalker mom," and I think teachers should write blog posts about stalker moms, a good editor would tell her simply to describe the parent's wingy behavior as it occurred.

That will do.



How to Handle Difficult Parents, TOC

Dealing with Parents 101

A Short and Subjective History of Parents

The Acorn May Not Fall Far from the Oak

Problem Parents:

• Pinocchio's Mom
• Caped Crusader
• Ms. 'Quit Picking on My Child'
• The Intimidator
• The Stealth Zapper
• The Uncivil Libertarian
• No Show's Dad
• Helicopter Mom
• The Competitor

Who's the Fairest of Them All?

Tips for Effective Parent Conferences

!

! ! !



ok, here's a tip for effective parent conferences

don't call people names

also, while you're at it, don't write a whole book cooking up a big, long set of names for teachers to start calling parents behind their backs

we call this Dealing with Other Human Beings 101




^* the answer is no