Posts
Define basic. Is it functioning on grade level, i.e., doing what a 5th grader is expected to do, when you're 10? If that's the definition, then what should one do with children who enter their 5th grade year above grade level? What are systems legally required to do?
Our school system doesn't have G&T, so that's never been an option for us. The school's answer has been, in general, that strong students should tutor weak students. Of course, a kid who's bored out of his gourd may not look like a strong student, because compliance with a rules based system may not make any sense to a bright 10 year old. Why should he pretend to make an effort, when the homework takes no effort? If the class matter is too easy, it will have no value for him -- or as much value as a worksheet requiring adults to name the days of the week would have for adults.
If a basic education means the provision of teachers and academic work, why must it fit the age, not the kid's academic level? Why must a 10 year old functioning at a 7th grade level attend 5th grade classes?
This is vitally important for our society. Just this week I saw an article citing a national shortage of nuclear engineers.
I submit that the kid who gets As on class tests, but doesn't hand in his homework, needs more interesting subject matter. Every student should have the privilege of being unable to ace tests. If students are passing tests with 100%, they aren't correctly placed, even if they're darned useful to others as tutors. On balance, they're more useful to society, in the long run, as nuclear engineers or lawyers, than as free, untrained tutors.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
cranberry - define basic
cranberry wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
"I saw an article citing a national shortage of nuclear engineers."
It's interesting how times change. Nuclear power is now "in" again.
Don't forget curriculum. I surely didn't want my son to be accelerated in MathLand or Everyday Math.
Is there any angle or argument that can be used to get schools to start grouping by ability or performance? Is there anything that will get them to provide a proper path to algebra in 8th grade?
The closest one I've seen is a charter school in our area that calls itself a full-inclusion environment, but the core academic courses are grouped by ability, not age. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, they had a poor curriculum. That neutralizes everything. It seems like everything boils down to low versus high expectations. Progressive just provides intellectual cover for low expectations.
Cranberry said:
"Our school system doesn't have G&T, so that's never been an option for us. The school's answer has been, in general, that strong students should tutor weak students."
Even if (and perhaps especially if) a school has no funding for G&T, it can accelerate a student in a single subject if he is gifted in one subject or an entire grade if he is advanced in all subjects.
I'm trying to remember which blogger it was who said that all kids should gain at least 1 year's achievement in 1 year's time, starting from where they are.
I can probably scare up the link.
Catherine Johnson said...
"I'm trying to remember which blogger it was who said that all kids should gain at least 1 year's achievement in 1 year's time, starting from where they are."
In general, children with IQ's below average but not in the mentally retarded range -- say 80 to 90 -- will NOT gain at least 1 year's achievement (of a normal child with IQ of 100) starting from where they are. Intelligence affects how fast children learn -- how many repetitions they need -- and also puts a limit on the complexity of what they can learn.
I support measuring progress for all students, but one should have realistic expectations.
Given the way my state define's 'year,' it's realistic to assume 1 year's progress for everyone except for kids with MR & severe autism (and even there....I wonder).
also, I don't believe in being realistic
Acceleration in typical schools works poorly. In first grade, I was sent to second grade for math. Sounds fine, but here is how it actually works. Your teacher resents the fact that you are not in her class, since the time you are missing may not be math time. The upper class teacher finds you an inconvenience. The kids in the upper class resent you, because in our "sorted by hat size" system, having a kid in class with a smaller hat size makes you feel dumb. The kids in your class consider you to be stuck up, or figure you must be dumb because most pull out classes are remedial.
Skipping a grade can work better, but it isn't a panacea. I remember in sixth, which I went into direct from fourth grade, the average and below average kids were furious with me because I was still well above average. Maybe it is worse for girls, where the social stuff is more complex.
"I support measuring progress for all students, but one should have realistic expectations."
Who gets to set those expectations, parents or schools that give us Everyday Math?
When my son came back from private school to public school in 6th grade, we got the school to let him skip 6th grade math. That was important to us because they use Everyday Math. They even offered to let him skip all subjects. That would have been easier from a scheduling standpoint, but we weren't looking at education as a race.
It might be surprising that they did this in a full-inclusion school. Perhaps this was their way of showing everyone that they are trying to meet the needs of all students. Also, a precedent had been set with another (special needs) student who was ahead 2 years in math.
Skipping a grade or class year is not easy if there is no normal process for doing so. At my son's school, you have to go in and make your case. Even if you convince them, it's most likely that you will have to take an online course, unless you skip a whole grade. Scheduling is a big problem.
I think that skipping a grade or a class is only odd because so few kids do so. It's also not automatic. My son had to take the sixth year final test for Everyday Math as proof of readiness. So we spent the summer before sixth grade going through the EM course. (By the way, I kept wondering what EM did to finally finish the spiral sequence at the end of 6th grade and wrap up all of the loose ends for all students. It does nothing.)
For boys, where only two boys got onto the honor roll, I don't know if it is complex socially, but it is isolating. When my son went off to a summer camp last year, he thought it was great because nobody knew anything about the school stuff. I told him that hopefully things will change when he gets to a much larger high school next year.
SteveH wrote:
"Is there any angle or argument that can be used to get schools to start grouping by ability or performance?"
Yes, of course, there is the argument that children vary substantially intelligence and that more intelligent material learn faster (they need fewer repetitions) and can handle more complex material at given age than children of average intelligence. Some mathematically gifted children can learn algebra in 6th grade, for example. However, when Allison or I mention what IQ tests have found and what their implications are, there is much resistance on this blog. Educators, especially in elementary school, do NOT want to admit that some children are much smarter than others and that the same curriculum at the same age is not appropriate for all children.
I am not not advocating giving IQ tests to place children in advanced reading or math classes. Students should be placed according to their level in specific subjects. However, achievement in the various academic subjects will be positively correlated, because the "g" (general) factor in intelligence affects achievement in all academic subjects.
"do NOT want to admit that some children are much smarter than others and that the same curriculum at the same age is not appropriate for all children."
Few people really believe that all kids are equal intellectually. Perhaps they would like to ignore it to some extent, but IQ tests or even any other kind of performance test won't move them from their full inclusion position. The IQ argument has no traction. Not even simple performance tests have any traction. They aren't going to magically change their educational position if only they could somehow see the light.
I would like to see grouping by ability or performance, but you first have to get schools to accept that as a model. The current model in our schools is full inclusion with differentiated instruction. They know that some kids are smarter. It's just that they are in some sort of fairyland that thinks this can be done in a very widely mixed ability environment with differentiated instruction.
I find it strange that starting in 7th grade, separating kids by performance and ability (in math) is magically OK. This continues in high school. Schools know that kids are different intellectually. This doesn't magically happen in 7th grade. Schools don't want to separate kids by ability in the lower grades for other reasons. They think they can get it to work.
I've always thought that the only way they get away with this is by defining education in fuzzy and vague terms; concepts trump skills and spiraling allows kids to learn at their own speed. Their talk of critical thinking and understanding is only a cover for lower expectations. They would claim that nothing is stopping the better ability kids from doing more. Unfortunately, the more is defined in terms of enrichment rather than acceleration.
My position is that IQ adds nothing to the conversation. In fact, it's a distraction and ends up being very divisive.
I think it may just be that by 7th grade the range of grade levels in a full inclusion classroom is so great that it can no longer be ignored. At that point, it could cover the whole primary-secondary spectrum and I'd guess that it's fairly common to see an achievement range from 4th-9th grades. Though, sadly, our middle school may revert to inclusion next year, with math presumably continuing to have different grouping.
Also, at some point the school has to recognize that it has finite time to get students to an acceptable level for graduation.
My position is that IQ adds nothing to the conversation. In fact, it's a distraction and ends up being very divisive.
I agree. What point can you make with IQ that you couldn't make by measuring individual skills? And even measuring skills meets with resistance (not just because it implicitly acknowledges differences in ability, but also because of the work and focus it would require to adequately measure skills).
What hope do you think there is in using IQ to open up debate?
Referencing IQ alone also ignores the important factor of executive function, which is party innate, but also probably much more easily malleable than IQ (if IQ is malleable--I don't think a definitive answer exists on that, yet).
Teaching kids to focus, to discipline themselves, to plan, to follow through--these skills make a huge difference in learning rate as well.
Yes, IQ matters. But it's not the only thing that matters, and there are clear steps one can take to improve the non-IQ factors in a way that positively affects academic performance. Across the board--low IQ, high IQ and in-between.
That won't eliminate an achievement gap, but it might make the gap less important and less threatening to those who worry that any remaining gap would prevent equality of opportunity.
"My position is that IQ adds nothing to the conversation. In fact, it's a distraction and ends up being very divisive."
I will also agree. Either the child can perform a specific task correctly and quickly, or not. That should be the starting point of instruction.
But their argument is not that there is no difference in intellegence.
When I was growing up, it was a sink or swim world, but you could get to calculus without outside help. (I'm not saying it was a good educational model.) With that model, it was reasonable to keep all kids together in one classroom through sixth grade.
Nowadays, more kids are being keep in our schools at the lower end rather than sending them off to out-of-town schools. Some have suggested that this is just a money issue, but in our town, it's more than that. They want K-6 to be a supportive and natural learning environment where kids are pumped and not filtered. This requires a different definition of education. This also leaves many kids unprepared for the big high school filter.
So, now we have a larger ability spread than years ago, but our school still wants to educate them all together and track them by age as much as possible. You can see different levels even in Kindergarten. To some extent, they limit the visibility of the spread by claiming that other types of learning are more important. My son's first grade teacher told us that our son had a lot of "superficial knowledge". It's not that she thought that he was just like everyone else. She just wanted to protect their model of education. She didn't want us to expect more from her. Actually, we did set up a system where he read advanced books and submitted book reports to her. She barely looked at them. We used the differentiated learning card to push that one. They can suppress this ability range and offer enrichment for only so long.
What will drive our schools to offer ability grouping in K-6 when they've never offered it before? They know that they have widened the ability spread in the lower grades, but the problems don't jump out at them. More of the top end kids go off to private schools, but they have mixed results. Our son (and others) came back, so what does that tell them?
I've had conversations with the principal at my son's school and she knows what the problems are, but only in a general sense. She still thinks that enrichment and differentiated instruction can get the job done. She is not open to a detailed discussion of curricula and acceleration. I think that my son and a couple of other kids are token models. Our son came back from private school and they allowed him to skip a grade in math. It's very tough to get into detailed discussions of ability spread after that.
"Also, at some point the school has to recognize that it has finite time to get students to an acceptable level for graduation."
This sort of downward pressure from high school has helped our town. It got them to get rid of CMP and offer the exact same honors algebra course in 8th grade that the high school offers. This required a proper pre-algebra course in 7th grade and forced them to define a tracking test at the end of sixth grade. This forced more ability separation down to 7th grade. We are slowly chipping away at the full inclusion wall from the top.
This is where that sort of thinking runs into the K-6 stone wall. Since some kids make it to the fast track, they are not worried. However, they don't care to know how many of those kids got help at home. I think that is the bigger truth they have to confront. If you take away the parental and tutoring help, what do they have?
This really bothers me. They talk about how parents should help by reading to their kids, modeling an interest in education, turning off the TV and providing a quiet place to work. If only that was all there was to it. But then they complain about how parents help with projects even though the school doesn't prepare the kids properly. They also complain about helicopter parents. I'm sure that long after my son is gone, he will be used as a model of how the system works.
Below the high school (or the 6th-7th grade dividing line), it's an impenetrable world of edu-thought.
Referencing IQ alone also ignores the important factor of executive function, which is partly innate, but also probably much more easily malleable than IQ
This is an interesting question, I think.
It's true that executive function is also heritable --- but it's also true that there are work-arounds for executive function. "Positive habits," routines, and structures: all of these things substitute for or augment an individual's executive function.
My image of the malleability of IQ comes from Gottesman, whom I interviewed years ago.
He explained that for any heritable trait there is a "range of reaction." (I remember we wrote about this before. I should find that URL.)
For IQ the range of reaction was quite large (IMO). I think he said that if your inherited IQ centered on 100, your range of reaction went from 80 to 120.
That is, your environment could cause you to end up with a measured IQ ranging from 80 to 120.
That is my image of what a good education should be and do: a good education boosts you to the top of your range.
For years people have talked about students 'reaching their potential,' and I think that is a case of common sense understanding biology.
We don't inherit a point or a number; we inherit a range.
A good school should ensure that each child reaches his or her full potential --- and, yes, that full potential will differ for different children.
"A good school should ensure that each child reaches his or her full potential --- and, yes, that full potential will differ for different children."
Our schools believe this, and they think that their full inclusion K-6 model achieves that end. At least that's their goal. Nobody claims that all kids have the same intellectual potential. They've gotten rid of the old sink or swim model and assume that kids will achieve their potential naturally. Trust the spiral means that if you don't get to algebra in 8th grade, then it must be your lack of potential. Talk of potential (or lack thereof) can be misused both ways.
How can a school ensure that kids reach their potential with they can't define what that is? Is it something that is achieved naturally, or is it a goal that has to be achieved by pushing?
Is it something that is achieved naturally, or is it a goal that has to be achieved by pushing?
That does seem to be the key question.
The more I learn both about progressivism (and the one big thing I think they have right is that learning can be more effective when the kid is working actively toward a goal--they just don't know how to do that in a way that scales up) and behaviorist models like DI, the more I think that the answer is something like: the more the kid knows and can truly accomplish on their own, the more you let them take over responsibility for their learning.
A scripted curriculum definitely has benefits, but for some kids it's going to be overkill and economically prohibitive. For others, it's a lifeline, or the best choice available.
On the other hand, just giving a kid time to read each day and calling it learning is asking the very least of a kid, and showing them that you don't expect much of them.
How can a school ensure that kids reach their potential with they can't define what that is?
Exactly.
That's what Ed and I said to our former assistant superintendent for curriculum & instruction.
Just found out last night that she's landed on her feet; she is now a superintendent in a district up north.
I'm so glad. She was a standards person and a straight shooter.
I've never been convinced of the value of individual reading as an assigned part of the everyday classroom. It's one thing to have kids read if they finish work a few minutes early, but I know some schools set aside a half hour every day for individual reading. I'm not convinced that real learning is happening and that some kids - probably the neediest - aren't just turning pages without reading. It just seems an inefficient use of time. In early grades, when kids' comprehension is so much greater than their reading ability, having the teacher read aloud (fiction, non-fiction, history etc.) is a valuable teaching tool.
"set aside a half hour every day for individual reading"
DEAR time: Drop Everything And Read. My son had that for years. A waste of time if you ask me. The reason they like it is that it fits with full inclusion. They can give each child a book at his/her own level.
The research on "DEAR" is uniformly bad. No gains at all.
As far as I can tell, kids are spending a HUGE amount of time working on their own thanks to all the differentiated instruction.
palisadesk sent me a link for a video on writing workshop in 1st grade, where the teacher talks about the kids' writing 'stamina': they are able to write 45 minutes at a stretch (something a lot of professional writers can't do...)
Why do 6 year olds have to write for 45 minutes out of a 6-hour school day?
So the teacher can hold individual conferences with the kids.
Doug Lemov has a terrific section on differentiating instruction --- will post.
Champion teachers don't do it by putting everyone in groups and working one-on-one.
Catherine Johnson said:
"The research on "DEAR" is uniformly bad. No gains at all.
As far as I can tell, kids are spending a HUGE amount of time working on their own thanks to all the differentiated instruction."
My 2nd-grader son has DEAR in school. Googling "research drop everything and read" produces a few sites supporting DEAR, but it does seem strange to have children do at school what they could just as well do at home. Could you cite some research against DEAR?
In general, my 6yo son is often immature (we did accelerate him a grade), and I think a more teacher-led classroom would be more suited to him. He is advancd in reading and math (he qualified for the Johns Hopkins talent search based on SCAT scores), but I get the feeling school is largely a social experience for him. He does read a lot at home.
Googling "critique drop everthing and read" I found at
http://www.illinoisloop.org/reading.html
Drop Everything and Read ... But How? For Students Who Are Not Yet Fluent, Silent Reading Is Not the Best Use of Classroom Time by Jan Hasbrouck, American Educator (American Federation of Teachers), Summer 2006. "Methods labeled 'sustained silent reading' (SSR) or 'drop everything and read' (DEAR) became commonplace in schools across the country. ... Of course, not all educators got swept up in the excitement around SSR and DEAR; some questioned if devoting this much time to unassisted, independent reading and writing could really be beneficial for all students. What about those students who struggle with basic reading skills and who may not use their silent reading time well -- either wasting time by doing little to no reading or writing, or trying to read materials that cause frustration because they are too difficult? As it turns out, such concerns are justified."
Questions About Reading Instruction, Partnership for Reading. "The [National Reading Panel] suggested that sustained silent reading during class time without time set aside for instruction in the numerous skills associated with reading may not be a productive way to spend valuable class time. It is important to note that the Panel did not discourage teachers and others from encouraging students to read more on their own outside of class time."
I have mixed feelings about DEAR. Our school did it when my oldest started school. It was presented as a time to impress upon the students that reading is a highly respected activity, worthy of time and attention.
My child enjoyed reading, when allowed to read materials at her level. It was at least a time in the school day during which she was permitted to move at her own pace, and she did not have to wait upon others.
I am troubled, though, by the techniques which are so widespread in public schools, in which students do work during class time which my generation would have done as homework. A class period is thus broken up into much smaller sections. How does this help the students develop the attention span necessary to follow an hour's lecture at the college level?
I realize that "direct instruction" and "lecturing" are considered dirty words by some. If students have the necessary preparation and attention span to follow an extended argument, however, a class devoted to lecture or an intensive back-and-forth with the teacher would seem to me to be a good way to provide students with a guided approach to advanced material.
On IQ. When the topic arises, the debate always becomes bitter. I would submit that IQs do vary. I am not convinced that all IQ tests are equally valid. I have also heard of testers doing the equivalent of "cutting and pasting" different sections of tests together, or adapting tests to meet the needs of unusual subjects. Can the result be valid, if it's basically the professional opinion of the tester? How valid is an IQ test for the outliers?
Richard Feynman is reported to have had an IQ of 124. I understand that score would not have qualified him for many Gifted and Talented programs. I am not trying to throw doubt upon the existence of g. I am not comfortable denying appropriate instruction to children who miss an arbitrary cut score by a few points.
As flawed as IQ scores are, I think teacher nomination is a more flawed system. Compliance with classroom expectations is not an accurate measure of intelligence. I have known many exceedingly bright people in my life. A great number of them would be a handful in any class. Others were dreamers, more interested in their own thoughts, or the scene outside the window, than in handing in the homework. The number of bright people who survived the tedium of school by reading more interesting books on the sly!
"So the teacher can hold individual conferences with the kids."
Before 7th grade, my son tells me that only a small part of the day involved direct instruction from a teacher, either one-on-one, or in a group. There didn't even seem to be much of an emphasis on mixed ability group learning. Apparently, the goal is just to eliminate the sage on the stage. My son told me on several occasions that what teachers do is sit at their desks and do their work.
Post a Comment