Why the aversion to grouping kids based on ability rather than age? Thoughts from down under.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
Isn't this the Montessori approach (well, in part)?
I think it's a great idea. I also think it flies in the face of the current approach in MCPS to go even more in the direction of lumping all ability groups together rather than trying to find groups of similar ability kids to more effectively target each group where the kids actually are at learning wise. So, pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon. which is too bad. |
Anonymous
|
Haven't read the article but it sounds great to me.
I believe with the transition to more computer based learning, this will gradually occur because it's much easier to have students passing through courses and gathering up certificates as they progress. Computer based learning can intuit what areas people need more work on and individualize the learning process. Hopefully then teachers will act more as tutors and could engage students more Socratic discussions and project-driven group work. |
Anonymous
| hmmm - doesn't seem to be the way things are trending in this area, at least in MCPS, PP. |
Anonymous
|
1) People do not want 5 and 10 year olds in the same class.
2) Grouping leads to tracking kids and kids do not move up in tracks (or least in the past they did not often move up). Which means a 5 year olds future is determine the moment they walk in the door or perhaps is pre-determined at birth. 3) There is a belief that smarter kids learn from the slower kids and the slower kids learn from the smarter kids. The conversations in the classroom are more diverse. 4) Kids with problems are grouped together which might make their overall learning environment tougher and slower. You then have to provide smaller student to teacher ratios and people complain that too much attention is given to these students over gifted or regular students. 5) Stigma 6) Advocacy - just like parents advocate for GT, certain parents will advocate for their kid to not be in the slower class. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable population will not have people advocating on their behalf. Growing up, I definitely saw kids who were in the slow class (for lack of a better word) who would have been better off in today's system. They were not slow but because they were pegged at such an early age and there were not really services to get these kids move back to their current grade level they fell behind. I really noticed this with the AA kids at my school, I did not see nearly as many white kids in this class. Even with all that I have said, I believe in tracking and ability grouping however I think you can only do it with one or two grades. More than that it is too much of an age difference; the maturity level of kids can be dramatically different. |
Anonymous
|
"There is a belief that smarter kids learn from the slower kids "
how so? I can see the reverse being true, but don't see - educationally at least - how having slower kids in the class helps the smarter kids at all. The reverse I think, actually. While I can recognize the problem with #2 and agree that it is somethign that would need a ton of attention to ensure is not the case, I think that w/o grouping you greatly increase the pressure on middle class families in more mixed neighborhoods to forego their local schools entirely out of a desire to have their kids w/ a similar educational peer group rather than in a class where the teacher has to spend inordinate amounts of time w/ those that are educationally slower or starting off at a disadvantaged level. |
Anonymous
| PP at 15:10 again - I'd say this also escalates the housing "arms race" by making getting into good neighborhoods all the more important and buying in a mixed neighborhood all the riskier. |
Anonymous
If you truly understand something, you can explain it, if you sort of understand it, you can coast for a while, and hope someday you really get it. At least, if you care about learning, not just grades. To have a classroom that is always set up so "faster learners" teach "slower learners" is not ideal. To have this happen sometimes, stretches kids who think they have mastered something, to truly master it. Also, kids have all different kids of problem solving abilities. Often, the more verbal kids get all the credit as the fast learners. Sometimes kids who are (relatively) less verbal kids are better,or different, problem solvers. There is much to learn from them. Not saying a super bright kid is going to benefit by being partnered with a low-average kid all day. That would be pretty miserable. But, we do write off certain kids early and credit other kids with superior learning ability that may not be so superior. It's not so impressive to have a "smart" kid who can only interact with a computer program that pitches him problems exactly at the right level. It's really impressive to watch a kid who can lead a whole group to solve a challenging problem, and use all of the groups' different talents and abilities. |
Anonymous
|
13:08,
"There is a belief that smarter kids learn from the slower kids " This was quoted at my local school. Kids can learn, if they are allowed to, that things do not always come easy to everyone. They might be able to appreciate their abilities more. Another thing they can learn is work ethic. Often times, when things come so easy, students do not learn to work hard. I was debating with someone about HS athletics and if only the best and most talented should make the squad. When I went to school, they really work us hard in the beginning. Those who were not truly committed quit. The remaining were usually the good athletes and the untalented hard working students. Whenever the top athletes did not live up to their potential the coach put the other kids in to show the team what hard work looked like. They were also the hardest working kids and the most appreciative to be there. In the end the smartest kids will not achieve the most, it will take ability and desire. |
Anonymous
|
I absolutely hate the argument that the smarter kids can teach the younger kids. I don't want my GT kid teaching anyone. I want this child to be challenged in school by teachers who are paid from my tax money. Every kid should be challenged to the best of their ability. Kids are not school system employees.
I also reject the notion about stigma. Kids know which kids do better in school, no matter how you group them. One of my kids knows that they are well behind other kids in reading in a mixed classroom environment. Believe me, it doesn't help my child's esteem to see how far behind DC is from the other kids everyday. We are talking like 2-3 grade levels behind. Tracking is another BS argument. First off, I don't buy that falling behind in elementary school determines your lot in life. I don't even buy the fact that if you don't take AP classes in HS that you can't earn a PHD someday. ES, MS, HS is not the end of your education. Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein and a host of other people did poorly in early education due to things like dyslexia. Secondly, I don't think tracking exists anymore like it did in the past. Kids can work hard and get into higher level classes later. In MCPS, being in a magnet at one level (ES, MS, or HS) does not ensure you get into the next level magnet. Likewise, kids from neighborhood schools do get into magnets at the next level. There is just not substitute for challenging every kid at the right level. Stop the social engineering. |
Anonymous
|
PP, this is true for parents with means and parents focused on their child's education. I believe in tracking but I have no doubt that in general kids with parents who know how to and do advocate for their child will get more out of the system and that a lot of kids, especially poorer kids, will be placed in a track early on and never move out of that tracks. Of course, the current system allows that same student to get more services but chances are they will still stay behind their peers but I do believe they get more emphases in the current system to move head.
There are a lot parents who push to get their kid in GT although they did not meet the requirements. They will also prep the kids through Kumon, test prep and other ways. Poor kids have only their natural abilities. |
Anonymous
The irony in learning in only this environment -though it has many pluses- is that a child with classwork pitched in a very narrow range gains limited problem solving ability. Some combination of different ability/talent grouping and peer talent/ability grouping would offer a learner more. |
Anonymous
| Makes sense provided the slow learner is not the only child in the room getting an intellectual and academic challenge. If the precocious, advanced and fast learners receive no intellectual challenge it's simply a waste of their time to tweedle their thumbs only teaching the other kids -- and the teacher in some instances -- what they already know. |
Anonymous
I don't get this at all. A kid who is reading chapter books will not learn anything sitting in a class that is learning the alphabet. This does happen in MCPS. |
Anonymous
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think holding back good learners is an acceptable solution. In fact, I would argue that gifted kids from poorer backgrounds are hurt the most by mixed ability classrooms. I have a GT kid and I can afford to give my child extra resources when the school falls short. There are all sorts of camps, tutoring, software, and other tactics I can use to challenge my child. Without money or parental effort, the poor GT kid would just have to get bored in the mixed class. This could lead to future disenchantment with education and a poor outcome. I also dispute the notion that GT kids have to have more resources. I think they should get regular resources, but at an accelerated pace that meets their needs. In fact, I would actually support lower student:teacher ratios for kids at the bottom of the test score distribution. I also would accept paying for Saturday school or summer school for kids that need extra help. In the end, though, schools are not the solution to fixing societal inequities. For better or worse (worse in my opinion), our society does not want to transfer wealth and resources from the rich to the working class. The schools need to accept that they can't fix these inequalities and just try to help each kid the best they can. That doesn't mean holding back some kids, though. |