There are ways around having different levels of kids in one classroom that is actually beneficial to all levels of kids. Many schools look nothing like when I went there 12+ years ago. Much research has gone into teaching to different types of learners. Your better teacher/schools will have learned about these things and will use them in class.
In areas where they use the multi-age model (or even looping- where the teacher goes to the next grade level with the students,) learning at your own pace without feeling the stigma of being left behind is very possible. However, this requires training for teachers and administrative support- which is not the priority in many school districts. From a teacher's point of view, it presents problems in keeping materials and developing units. If you teach the same/similar things for a couple of years, you can develop quite a cache of resources, ideas, knowledge and project ideas. If what you teach changes every year, it requires more prep time.
[In my experience, teachers don't like change, especially the older ones. I meet with so much resistance in my building when it comes to school improvement!]
I also do not believe in ADD. I differ with you as to how to deal with the 'fabricated phenomena.' Most kids I meet expect to be entertained at all times in class. There's no way I can do that. It all goes back to work ethic. Kids who have work ethic have it on purpose. They know how to pay attention and why they should. Paying attention is a learned behavior, not something 'you either have or you don't.' Just as anyone can learn to draw, anyone can learn to pay attention.
There is significant research, however, linking kids who play video games or who stay on a computer for several hours each day to a lack of social skills and a shortened attention span. While I'm not against gaming, I am in favor of limiting the gaming activity and encouraging social interaction and physical activity. Classrooms aren't video games and kids need to learn to function in the real world as well as they do in fantasy. They need to see that people can react in more than just the prescribed/progammed ways in a video game.
Here are the problems with school vouchers where they are used: 1. They do not cover the cost of educating a child. They do not come close to covering tuition at a private school. Therefore, only those who can already afford private school are able to use them. Think of them like tax credits for the wealthy. [Most people will just move to a better district if they can afford it, as I will do this summer.] 2. They do not cover transportation. If you're poor, this is a real dilemma. 3. Schools do not have to accept students who come with a voucher. Better performing schools frequently will not accept a kid who isn't at the top of his/her class if they are worried about standardized test scores being used against them. (As they are in the No Child Left Behind legislation.) This leaves kids the option of schools that are just like theirs, only across town. Most school districts have school-of-choice anyway, which means a kid can go to any school in the district. My building boasts the highest number of 'choice' kids in the district and the longest waiting list (we're at capacity.) 4. Taking money away from a struggling school ensures the school's failure. The school is struggling because they're educating kids who come without having a meal since free lunch yesterday, who haven't seen mom or dad in a few days because their work schedule of 2 minimum-wage jobs gets in the way (read: no supervision, no homework help, no emotional support), who may have abuse situations at home (abuse statistics are tied to SES; that is, the less the income, the more the abuse.) They also need additional funding to cover meals, social workers, conselors, etc. Not to mention the fact that these kids come to school not knowing how to read. In the nice schools, 90% or more of kindergarteners know how to read when they enter school. That lets you (as a teacher) hit the ground running. That frees up so much teaching time that can be used to teach content that the kids in 'failing' schools don't get because they're still learning to read.
My biggest beef with failing schools is this: a school is a reflection of the community in which it is located. If the school is failing, believe me, the community is not the picture of a success story. I have met several university researchers who have had great success with programs in these poor/failing areas that reach out to the parents and teach them how to support their kids' learning at home. In many cases, tutoring was needed to help the parents learn to read, etc. Schools are a socialist construct. They do not work when put into a capitalist matrix. If you do that, you guarantee the failure of kids. And that just isn't acceptable anymore, especially with the lower-skilled jobs going, going, gone! overseas. How can schools help kids be successful in life without home and community support?
I think that instead of giving up on those schools, communities should look into ways of making them better.
I take great pleasure, but no credit, in saying that the majority of my students display charity and goodwill. They share with people in the class whether or not they are friends. They contributed more to this year's can drive than their high school counterparts(who have 3x the student population.)
Unfortunately, there are still students who are greedy and self-serving and there's really nothing schools can do about it. We are looking at instituting a community service requirement at the high school level with the hope that students who have the experience of giving back to their community will take pride in their community (and in giving) and that this will have a ripple effect throughout their lives. However, research doesn't support this.
Your posting points to a fundamental flaw of the morality in the United States (and I would hazard a guess that these problems exist elsewhere in the world.) For better or worse, our constitution lets us choose our morals and pass those on to our children. In all the historical literature I have ever read, the problems with society are the same as they are today. Unfortunately.
It's interesting to note that I just went to a conference where we discussed the "no child left behind" law. It requires 95% of the students at schools to take yearly tests in language arts and math and elem/middle/high tests in science and social studies. The school needs to post an improvement every year (even if they have 100% passing.) The consequence to this is losing funding, being taken over, or labeled 'inadequate.' Schools labeled inadequate are required to notify all parents of kids in that school and then pay for them to go somewhere else. The other school must accept these students, even if they have no room or resources.
Failure is not an option. Schools need to change the pass/fail mentality and learn to help all kids acquire the skills they will need to be as successful in life as they want to be. Funding, good teachers and supportive communities help. I wish everyone who doesn't understand schools today would spend some time in a classroom or with a teacher.
In the lower grades (I teach 7/8 science), teachers are much more concerned about students feelings than we are in the upper grades. However, we in the upper grades do need to be cognizant of students' feelings. Brain research (and experience) tells us that if students do not feel safe (physically and emotionally) then they physically cannot learn. Every year, I have students that require me to spend hours with them sorting out issues related to their attitude/feelings. Most often (though the elementary teachers you have come into contact with fall into this category), parents support and reinforce (in ways many are unaware) the feeling on the part of the students that the teacher needs to do everything for them and be nice about it. I can't tell you the number of parents who feel I should treat their child differently or make exceptions for their kid because 'he/she is trying to get organized.'
I am very respected by the parents and administration in my district, but I require students to accept responsibility for the consequences of what they do and fail to do, even at the temporary peril of their self-esteem. (I think it does them good in the long run.) I cannot speak for elementary teachers (indeed, I do not have the patience to sit in a room with 20-30 small children) or for any teacher other than myself in that regard.
Politics drive most of the practices in public schools. "All children will read by the 3rd grade." This sounds noble, but what about those (mostly boys) who are not developmentally ready? Where is the funding for the extra help for those kids? "No Child Left Behind." Good idea. Let's pay for that by cutting school funding ( at the state level currently at the level it was 3 years ago, not factoring in inflation) at the federal level to an amount that will fund virtually nothing. "Highly Qualified" Good idea...but let's not think about the areas of certification available when people graduated from college and took the various certification tests. Or the differing areas and responsibilities of special education teachers.
The promotion issue is based on research. There are many studies that have concluded that 80% of the kids who are retained do not graduate from high school. The fly in the ointment is that, while the studies have linked graduation rates to retention, they have not established a definitive cause because it's impossible to do. There are too many factors that play into graduation rates. Your child is lucky to have you for a parent. The time you put into helping your child learn, teaching them how to learn and modeling work ethic will ensure that your child will be successful no matter what they do. I hope I can instill the same ethics in my girls, who are just learning to walk and talk.
[In my opinion] It is the responsibility of the school to foster both individual achievment and group (team) skills. Many of the more interesting lessons I teach (and that are applicable to a student's life) require kids to work with others. This format is inherently problematic because I can't control environmental or emotional factors that happen outside my classroom. My best solution so far is to let them choose their own groups. Public education is like everything else- you get out what you put in.
In my experience, teacher unions protest testing practices that are unfair to students or unfairly penalize teachers. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of bad teachers out there (even now I contemplate leaving teaching for something that pays a livable wage), but there are plenty of good ones as well. When a teacher union protests testing, I have found that 90% of the time they have valid complaints (which are usually not explained by the press. In Michigan, all of the newspapers that are not Detroit papers are owned by an anti-education group that pour money into voucher initiatives, which are proven to only aid the rich.)
As far as the evolution thing goes...welcome to the Bible Belt. Get active or shut up. Your legislators
Work ethic is one of the biggest predictors of student success. For years, I have helped students who have it succeed and those who are lacking it fail (no matter how many meetings, chances, extra help, etc I give.) Unfortunately, it is a moral taught by parents, and the school system has little impact in that area. I am never surprised when I meet the parents of a failing student and find that the parents are no different from the student. I guess breeding is everything.
Slashdot Mirror
There are ways around having different levels of kids in one classroom that is actually beneficial to all levels of kids. Many schools look nothing like when I went there 12+ years ago. Much research has gone into teaching to different types of learners. Your better teacher/schools will have learned about these things and will use them in class.
In areas where they use the multi-age model (or even looping- where the teacher goes to the next grade level with the students,) learning at your own pace without feeling the stigma of being left behind is very possible. However, this requires training for teachers and administrative support- which is not the priority in many school districts. From a teacher's point of view, it presents problems in keeping materials and developing units. If you teach the same/similar things for a couple of years, you can develop quite a cache of resources, ideas, knowledge and project ideas. If what you teach changes every year, it requires more prep time.
[In my experience, teachers don't like change, especially the older ones. I meet with so much resistance in my building when it comes to school improvement!]
I also do not believe in ADD. I differ with you as to how to deal with the 'fabricated phenomena.' Most kids I meet expect to be entertained at all times in class. There's no way I can do that. It all goes back to work ethic. Kids who have work ethic have it on purpose. They know how to pay attention and why they should. Paying attention is a learned behavior, not something 'you either have or you don't.' Just as anyone can learn to draw, anyone can learn to pay attention.
There is significant research, however, linking kids who play video games or who stay on a computer for several hours each day to a lack of social skills and a shortened attention span. While I'm not against gaming, I am in favor of limiting the gaming activity and encouraging social interaction and physical activity. Classrooms aren't video games and kids need to learn to function in the real world as well as they do in fantasy. They need to see that people can react in more than just the prescribed/progammed ways in a video game.
Here are the problems with school vouchers where they are used:
1. They do not cover the cost of educating a child. They do not come close to covering tuition at a private school. Therefore, only those who can already afford private school are able to use them. Think of them like tax credits for the wealthy. [Most people will just move to a better district if they can afford it, as I will do this summer.]
2. They do not cover transportation. If you're poor, this is a real dilemma.
3. Schools do not have to accept students who come with a voucher. Better performing schools frequently will not accept a kid who isn't at the top of his/her class if they are worried about standardized test scores being used against them. (As they are in the No Child Left Behind legislation.) This leaves kids the option of schools that are just like theirs, only across town. Most school districts have school-of-choice anyway, which means a kid can go to any school in the district. My building boasts the highest number of 'choice' kids in the district and the longest waiting list (we're at capacity.)
4. Taking money away from a struggling school ensures the school's failure. The school is struggling because they're educating kids who come without having a meal since free lunch yesterday, who haven't seen mom or dad in a few days because their work schedule of 2 minimum-wage jobs gets in the way (read: no supervision, no homework help, no emotional support), who may have abuse situations at home (abuse statistics are tied to SES; that is, the less the income, the more the abuse.) They also need additional funding to cover meals, social workers, conselors, etc. Not to mention the fact that these kids come to school not knowing how to read. In the nice schools, 90% or more of kindergarteners know how to read when they enter school. That lets you (as a teacher) hit the ground running. That frees up so much teaching time that can be used to teach content that the kids in 'failing' schools don't get because they're still learning to read.
My biggest beef with failing schools is this: a school is a reflection of the community in which it is located. If the school is failing, believe me, the community is not the picture of a success story. I have met several university researchers who have had great success with programs in these poor/failing areas that reach out to the parents and teach them how to support their kids' learning at home. In many cases, tutoring was needed to help the parents learn to read, etc. Schools are a socialist construct. They do not work when put into a capitalist matrix. If you do that, you guarantee the failure of kids. And that just isn't acceptable anymore, especially with the lower-skilled jobs going, going, gone! overseas. How can schools help kids be successful in life without home and community support?
I think that instead of giving up on those schools, communities should look into ways of making them better.
I agree with you about the charity and goodwill.
I take great pleasure, but no credit, in saying that the majority of my students display charity and goodwill. They share with people in the class whether or not they are friends. They contributed more to this year's can drive than their high school counterparts(who have 3x the student population.)
Unfortunately, there are still students who are greedy and self-serving and there's really nothing schools can do about it. We are looking at instituting a community service requirement at the high school level with the hope that students who have the experience of giving back to their community will take pride in their community (and in giving) and that this will have a ripple effect throughout their lives. However, research doesn't support this.
Your posting points to a fundamental flaw of the morality in the United States (and I would hazard a guess that these problems exist elsewhere in the world.) For better or worse, our constitution lets us choose our morals and pass those on to our children. In all the historical literature I have ever read, the problems with society are the same as they are today. Unfortunately.
It's interesting to note that I just went to a conference where we discussed the "no child left behind" law. It requires 95% of the students at schools to take yearly tests in language arts and math and elem/middle/high tests in science and social studies. The school needs to post an improvement every year (even if they have 100% passing.) The consequence to this is losing funding, being taken over, or labeled 'inadequate.' Schools labeled inadequate are required to notify all parents of kids in that school and then pay for them to go somewhere else. The other school must accept these students, even if they have no room or resources. Failure is not an option. Schools need to change the pass/fail mentality and learn to help all kids acquire the skills they will need to be as successful in life as they want to be. Funding, good teachers and supportive communities help. I wish everyone who doesn't understand schools today would spend some time in a classroom or with a teacher.
In the lower grades (I teach 7/8 science), teachers are much more concerned about students feelings than we are in the upper grades. However, we in the upper grades do need to be cognizant of students' feelings. Brain research (and experience) tells us that if students do not feel safe (physically and emotionally) then they physically cannot learn. Every year, I have students that require me to spend hours with them sorting out issues related to their attitude/feelings. Most often (though the elementary teachers you have come into contact with fall into this category), parents support and reinforce (in ways many are unaware) the feeling on the part of the students that the teacher needs to do everything for them and be nice about it. I can't tell you the number of parents who feel I should treat their child differently or make exceptions for their kid because 'he/she is trying to get organized.'
I am very respected by the parents and administration in my district, but I require students to accept responsibility for the consequences of what they do and fail to do, even at the temporary peril of their self-esteem. (I think it does them good in the long run.) I cannot speak for elementary teachers (indeed, I do not have the patience to sit in a room with 20-30 small children) or for any teacher other than myself in that regard.
Politics drive most of the practices in public schools. "All children will read by the 3rd grade." This sounds noble, but what about those (mostly boys) who are not developmentally ready? Where is the funding for the extra help for those kids? "No Child Left Behind." Good idea. Let's pay for that by cutting school funding ( at the state level currently at the level it was 3 years ago, not factoring in inflation) at the federal level to an amount that will fund virtually nothing. "Highly Qualified" Good idea...but let's not think about the areas of certification available when people graduated from college and took the various certification tests. Or the differing areas and responsibilities of special education teachers.
The promotion issue is based on research. There are many studies that have concluded that 80% of the kids who are retained do not graduate from high school. The fly in the ointment is that, while the studies have linked graduation rates to retention, they have not established a definitive cause because it's impossible to do. There are too many factors that play into graduation rates. Your child is lucky to have you for a parent. The time you put into helping your child learn, teaching them how to learn and modeling work ethic will ensure that your child will be successful no matter what they do. I hope I can instill the same ethics in my girls, who are just learning to walk and talk.
[In my opinion] It is the responsibility of the school to foster both individual achievment and group (team) skills. Many of the more interesting lessons I teach (and that are applicable to a student's life) require kids to work with others. This format is inherently problematic because I can't control environmental or emotional factors that happen outside my classroom. My best solution so far is to let them choose their own groups. Public education is like everything else- you get out what you put in.
In my experience, teacher unions protest testing practices that are unfair to students or unfairly penalize teachers. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of bad teachers out there (even now I contemplate leaving teaching for something that pays a livable wage), but there are plenty of good ones as well. When a teacher union protests testing, I have found that 90% of the time they have valid complaints (which are usually not explained by the press. In Michigan, all of the newspapers that are not Detroit papers are owned by an anti-education group that pour money into voucher initiatives, which are proven to only aid the rich.)
As far as the evolution thing goes...welcome to the Bible Belt. Get active or shut up. Your legislators
Work ethic is one of the biggest predictors of student success. For years, I have helped students who have it succeed and those who are lacking it fail (no matter how many meetings, chances, extra help, etc I give.) Unfortunately, it is a moral taught by parents, and the school system has little impact in that area. I am never surprised when I meet the parents of a failing student and find that the parents are no different from the student. I guess breeding is everything.