Posts
State schools admit they do not push gifted pupils because they don't want to promote 'elitism'
As many as three-quarters of state schools are failing to push their brightest pupils because teachers are reluctant to promote 'elitism', an Ofsted study says today. Many teachers are not convinced of the importance of providing more challenging tasks for their gifted and talented pupils. Bright youngsters told inspectors they were forced to ask for harder work. Others were resentful at being dragooned into 'mentoring' weaker pupils.
In nearly three-quarters of 26 schools studied, pupils designated as being academically gifted or talented in sport or the arts were 'not a priority', Ofsted found.Teachers feared that a focus on the brightest pupils would 'undermine the school's efforts to improve the attainment and progress of all other groups of pupils'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234906/State-schools-admit-push-gifted-pupils-dont-want-promote-elitism.html#ixzz0ZWqSe4TI
Everyone has won. All must have prizes. (fixed.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The comments on that article say it all. Not so different from the US unfortunately.
Does Britain have anything like AP classes or IB? The problem seems to be quite different in K-8 versus high school. In the US, our schools will claim that it can be done with differentiated instruction. They will just provide enrichment.
My question is what causes the big change in 7th grade (or high school at the latest) that makes it OK to separate kids by ability or willingness to learn? The real "real world"? Are K-6 schools just too far away from reality? Why don't they just come out and tell parents that social issues are more important than academic ones? Do they really think they can have it both ways?
SteveH asks, My question is what causes the big change in 7th grade (or high school at the latest) that makes it OK to separate kids by ability or willingness to learn?
If you haven't seen it already, this Fordham report on tracking and detracking in Massachusetts will be of interest.
It makes the point that a critical variable is SES of the school population. While Steve's district offers tracked classes in 7th and 8th grade (in math and maybe foreign languages?), elementary schools in my part of my very large urban district do not. My area is almost entirely low-SES, and in the last five years or so they have also eliminated tracking in ninth and tenth grades. Even in math, a student who enters high school with second-grade skills in math can sign up for the most advanced math class in 9th grade. He will fail, of course, but he can still enroll -- and many do, according to the math department chairperson at our nearest high school.
Our elementary and middle schools offer a constructivist math program right through 8th grade -- no Algebra I. There is some tracking in 11th and 12th grade math classes, but by then most of the low achievers have dropped out. The tracking is made possible by having course pre-requisites -- you have to have passed 9th grade advanced math to take 10th grade advanced math, and so on. But in 9th and 10th grade most courses are open to anyone who wants to enroll.
Steve, the answer to your question in NY is that the state law allows the splitting up of students. I'm assuming it is a political compromise.
The law reads:
•Students in grade 8 shall have the opportunity to take high school courses in mathematics and in at lest one of the following areas: English, social studies, languages other than English, art, music, career and technical education subjects, and science courses.
There are further laws about remediating students that failed to earn a '3' on the state ELA or Math test. Students that didn't fail aren't eligible for double period classes so a sorting has to occur for money reasons.
So far I've found nothing to indicate how my district gets away with restricting opportunity. A mix of '3's and '4's on the state math tests in Gr. 3-6 will not get a child into 'honors' math (i.e. standard 7th grade prealgebra) if the 6th grade teacher is against it. There is no bridge program for those who were not 'chosen'. The few engineering parents tend to ignore school math anyway and teach their children at home, then move them officially into the appropriate high school or distance learning course in 9th grade, based on SAT scores or an accredited course taken outside the district in conjunction with discussion with the math dept chair unless of course they can move to a hgher SES district.
Great link palisadesk. Everyone should read it. I just read parts and scanned the rest. I'll have to go over it in detail.
I wish there was more information on links between tracking and curriculum.
"In most of the experimental studies reviewed by Mosteller et al. both high and low groups received the same curriculum. That makes sense in controlling for curriculum effects, but as any educator who favors tracking will argue, the point of tracking is to vary the curriculum—to give highly able students more challenging work while struggling students get the work that will help them catch up. It is not surprising that tracking’s effects appear muted when the same curriculum is offered to all groups, ..."
Yes, "muted".
Our 7th and 8th grades changed from CMP with no tracking to a proper Glencoe Algebra I with tracking. The report argues that tracking is a better model for all grades, but does not delve into the effects of the specific curriculum being used. In our schools, I can't imagine that they would continue to use CMP after tracking. Our schools know that tracking would improve academics, but in the earlier grades, that is not their primary goal.
Unfortunately, tracking seems to imply a difference in content, not just speed. If official tracking begins in the early grades, it then becomes a permanant track. If the content is different, then there is no way for the low trackers to ever catch up. I think that is a big problem with tracking. But the solution is not differentiated Instruction with enrichment and no acceleration. That's even worse!
I can only speak to one small rural US school district here, but moving a kid ahead of the others is horrifying to them. The child would be subjected to too much ridicule. Um, like that's not already happening to smart kids?
Britain used to have really good state schools for bright secondary students. Dr. Sylvia Ann Hewlett of Harvard grew up poor in Wales but aced a test at age 11 and was able to go to a good grammar school en route to Cambridge. Unfortunately, in the late '60's the Labor government decided to abolish the separate tracked schools in favor of "comprehensive" secondary schools :-(
Most of the selective secondary schools in the UK were in fact phased out, but a small number of "grammar schools" (as they were and are called) remain and the "11-Plus" exam is still given to those students wishing to attend the grammar schools. Competition is fierce, as the schools are considered equivalent or superior to selective private schools, and are tuition-free.
For background on grammar schools, see here
and more on existing grammar schools see here
Most of the selective secondary schools in the UK were in fact phased out, but a small number of "grammar schools" (as they were and are called) remain and the "11-Plus" exam is still given to those students wishing to attend the grammar schools. Competition is fierce, as the schools are considered equivalent or superior to selective private schools, and are tuition-free.
For background on grammar schools, see here
and more on existing grammar schools see here
There is great unwillingness (sometimes outright refusal) in the education world to admit that not all kids are equal in either intellect or motivation. It's almost a reflex response; "of course, all kids can succeed at high levels" (usually combined with a plea for more funding). Unfortunately for the "all students will be proficient" crowd, the kids at the far left side of the bell curve probably don't belong in an academic setting at all and the next group up is unlikely to be able to handle abstractions of any sort with much success. They need a curriculum tailored to what they CAN do and which can prepare them for a job they can do. The "regular" curriculum works for the middle of the curve, with the recognition that many of these kids should have strong vocational options available for those interested. The kids at the right side of the curve deserve a wider, deeper curriculum that is delivered at a faster pace. Acceleration should be an option. The kids at the extreme right side of the curve may not belong in a regular school any more than their counterparts on the opposite end.
I can't see any of this happening on any large scale, however.
I did resent the GEP in Singapore, but because I didn't see why I should be banned from studying something I wanted to study.
Post a Comment