The education miracle in Finland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You could say that about McLean.

Finland has very little diversity. It is easy to have equality when everyone is the same.

Finland is a bilingual country. School are either Finnish or Swedish speaking. They also have a minority of Sami speakers in the north
The other ethnic minorities are the Roma. It is not a mono-cultural place. Increasingly the cities are becoming very multi-ethnic.
This has not stopped its schools from producing results. Children are also not all from the same socio economic standing.

Interestingly, there is a strong interest in language learning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?

Not the PP but I think it is more that having a mix of abilities benefits everyone. There is an incredible amount of learning that comes from teaching. For a student to know something is one level of learning, to be able to teach those concepts to another and to teach them in different ways takes the 'teacher's' learning to a whole new level. It doesn't just benefit the learner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could say that about McLean.

Finland has very little diversity. It is easy to have equality when everyone is the same.

Finland is a bilingual country. School are either Finnish or Swedish speaking. They also have a minority of Sami speakers in the north
The other ethnic minorities are the Roma. It is not a mono-cultural place. Increasingly the cities are becoming very multi-ethnic.
This has not stopped its schools from producing results. Children are also not all from the same socio economic standing.

Interestingly, there is a strong interest in language learning

Virtually every Finn is bilingual or multilingual. Finns have mandatory education in both Finnish and Swedish for at least three years. Finns are also far more likely to have some level of proficiency in additional non-native languages like English or Russian than American students are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?

Not the PP but I think it is more that having a mix of abilities benefits everyone. There is an incredible amount of learning that comes from teaching. For a student to know something is one level of learning, to be able to teach those concepts to another and to teach them in different ways takes the 'teacher's' learning to a whole new level. It doesn't just benefit the learner.

Sounds good on paper but it ends up being the advanced learners who have to do a lot more work, who have more stress and pressure, and who get the added piece of trying to explain concepts to others, whereas the less proficient students coast along for the ride. Maybe the less proficient will pick a few things up but I certainly wouldn't pin my strategy and hopes on a 10 year old being an effective instructor to other students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?

Not the PP but I think it is more that having a mix of abilities benefits everyone. There is an incredible amount of learning that comes from teaching. For a student to know something is one level of learning, to be able to teach those concepts to another and to teach them in different ways takes the 'teacher's' learning to a whole new level. It doesn't just benefit the learner.

Sounds good on paper but it ends up being the advanced learners who have to do a lot more work, who have more stress and pressure, and who get the added piece of trying to explain concepts to others, whereas the less proficient students coast along for the ride. Maybe the less proficient will pick a few things up but I certainly wouldn't pin my strategy and hopes on a 10 year old being an effective instructor to other students.

I have never seen it play out that way. The older kids teaching the younger is just one aspect of the instruction, one way of differentiating the learning. It isn't the whole deal and it doesn't make the higher achieving students responsible for the learning of the others. I taught somewhere that didn't have AAP programs and kids of all abilities were in the same room and it worked great. None of what you describe would happen in practice in my classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A. Finland is a Nordic country and not a Scandinavian country. OP, if you don't know the difference then this thread is useless.

B. This article is from 2011 and does not align with more recent work like the book The Smartest Kids in the World and How They Got There.

C. Individual income tax rates are around 50% or more.

D. If you spent more than three days (?) in Finland, you would know that they are extremely concerned about the survival of Suomi (if you don't know what that is, then don't post about Finland) in light of the need to expand the population base. You might be surprised where they go for models of dual-language immersion...hint...it's not Quebec.

Are there lessons to be learned from Finland? Possibly. But don't "go there" unless you've actually been there.

Income tax is not 50%
Some high earners do pay that, but average salaried workers do not pay that. The taxes include health insurance and pension

I am not even making 6 figures, and taxes, cost of health care and 401K is more than 50%
Also, day care costs 200 euros per month

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?

Not the PP but I think it is more that having a mix of abilities benefits everyone. There is an incredible amount of learning that comes from teaching. For a student to know something is one level of learning, to be able to teach those concepts to another and to teach them in different ways takes the 'teacher's' learning to a whole new level. It doesn't just benefit the learner.

Sounds good on paper but it ends up being the advanced learners who have to do a lot more work, who have more stress and pressure, and who get the added piece of trying to explain concepts to others, whereas the less proficient students coast along for the ride. Maybe the less proficient will pick a few things up but I certainly wouldn't pin my strategy and hopes on a 10 year old being an effective instructor to other students.

I have never seen it play out that way. The older kids teaching the younger is just one aspect of the instruction, one way of differentiating the learning. It isn't the whole deal and it doesn't make the higher achieving students responsible for the learning of the others. I taught somewhere that didn't have AAP programs and kids of all abilities were in the same room and it worked great. None of what you describe would happen in practice in my classroom.

I suspect your experience comes from a more homogenous situation than DC. I really struggle with how that would work in DC, where you will have a middle school student who is reading at a college level and who is ready for pre-Calc in the same classroom with another kid in the same grade who still struggles with reading and writing and who hasn't yet mastered long division. There are some pretty huge divides to bridge here in DC - even a well-seasoned teacher would have a problem making this work effectively. We have both a huge concentration of kids from severely dysfunctional and semiliterate homes as well as the kids coming from one of the biggest concentrations of PhDs in the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:.....
the article talks about percentage of foreign born students, but often problem students are born in the US. kids in ward 8 are most likely born in the US, and I am not sure Finland has social situation similar to the one in the US. in my country we did not have situations of widespread economic and social problems like in the US. making sure that teachers are well qualified is really important (and I understand that in DC until recently there were teachers who did not have basic qualifications), but I doubt Finland has areas with tens of thousands of superpoor people from broken families where kids have kids

The big cities also their ghettos with poor kids and super poor

For the most part the poor live amongst average people and are spread out. There are not many rich only areas like here in America. City slums do exist but tend to be smaller than the average depressed American city area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?

Not the PP but I think it is more that having a mix of abilities benefits everyone. There is an incredible amount of learning that comes from teaching. For a student to know something is one level of learning, to be able to teach those concepts to another and to teach them in different ways takes the 'teacher's' learning to a whole new level. It doesn't just benefit the learner.

Sounds good on paper but it ends up being the advanced learners who have to do a lot more work, who have more stress and pressure, and who get the added piece of trying to explain concepts to others, whereas the less proficient students coast along for the ride. Maybe the less proficient will pick a few things up but I certainly wouldn't pin my strategy and hopes on a 10 year old being an effective instructor to other students.

I have never seen it play out that way. The older kids teaching the younger is just one aspect of the instruction, one way of differentiating the learning. It isn't the whole deal and it doesn't make the higher achieving students responsible for the learning of the others. I taught somewhere that didn't have AAP programs and kids of all abilities were in the same room and it worked great. None of what you describe would happen in practice in my classroom.

I suspect your experience comes from a more homogenous situation than DC. I really struggle with how that would work in DC, where you will have a middle school student who is reading at a college level and who is ready for pre-Calc in the same classroom with another kid in the same grade who still struggles with reading and writing and who hasn't yet mastered long division. There are some pretty huge divides to bridge here in DC - even a well-seasoned teacher would have a problem making this work effectively. We have both a huge concentration of kids from severely dysfunctional and semiliterate homes as well as the kids coming from one of the biggest concentrations of PhDs in the nation.

Interestingly it was a school that serviced two very distinct populations. It served a large public housing area as well as the area where many of the foreign diplomats lived. It was also in a nation's capital city (not the USA). DC may be an outlier but having a range of 7-8 grade levels in a class is normal in many classrooms (4 years above and below grade level). That was generally seen as manageable through differentiated instruction. I read at a college level early in elementary and I went to a rural school that had no programs and no differentiation and it had no negative impact on me or my life. My brother ended up going to a school in a different city to be in the gifted program but I wanted to stay with my friends so I did. There are many different ways to create a stimulating learning environment without ability groupings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scandinavian country is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

What they value is real challenge and real learning over real BS. Try to go there with the "equality" argument as framed by DCPS and you wouldn't last 3 days.

what equality argument framed by DCPS are you referring to? It's the Finns who have based their education system on equality.

Nope, the Finns haven't "based their education system on equality"...in the US/ DCPS sense of huge attention to "at risk" and special ed students and trying to get the bottom half to the average, and essentially ignoring the top half. They have based it on academic rigor for all, where "equality" means every kid can thrive academically - it's about "equal expectations"...that then, yes, leads to universal access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I suspect your experience comes from a more homogenous situation than DC. I really struggle with how that would work in DC, where you will have a middle school student who is reading at a college level and who is ready for pre-Calc in the same classroom with another kid in the same grade who still struggles with reading and writing and who hasn't yet mastered long division. There are some pretty huge divides to bridge here in DC - even a well-seasoned teacher would have a problem making this work effectively. We have both a huge concentration of kids from severely dysfunctional and semiliterate homes as well as the kids coming from one of the biggest concentrations of PhDs in the nation.

How is a kid who cannot read or has not mastered long division in middle school? Should that kid not have been retained in elementary to make sure he had the needed knowledge to go to middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suspect your experience comes from a more homogenous situation than DC. I really struggle with how that would work in DC, where you will have a middle school student who is reading at a college level and who is ready for pre-Calc in the same classroom with another kid in the same grade who still struggles with reading and writing and who hasn't yet mastered long division. There are some pretty huge divides to bridge here in DC - even a well-seasoned teacher would have a problem making this work effectively. We have both a huge concentration of kids from severely dysfunctional and semiliterate homes as well as the kids coming from one of the biggest concentrations of PhDs in the nation.

How is a kid who cannot read or has not mastered long division in middle school? Should that kid not have been retained in elementary to make sure he had the needed knowledge to go to middle school?

That would be the case in Finland. They would not move up, they would repeat their grade and get extra help. It clearly does not work well to have such huge discrepancies in a middle school class, thus it would not and should not be allowed to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scandinavian country is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

What they value is real challenge and real learning over real BS. Try to go there with the "equality" argument as framed by DCPS and you wouldn't last 3 days.

what equality argument framed by DCPS are you referring to? It's the Finns who have based their education system on equality.

Nope, the Finns haven't "based their education system on equality"...in the US/ DCPS sense of huge attention to "at risk" and special ed students and trying to get the bottom half to the average, and essentially ignoring the top half. They have based it on academic rigor for all, where "equality" means every kid can thrive academically - it's about "equal expectations"...that then, yes, leads to universal access.

For example, there's essentially not "social promotion" in Finn schools. If you are not ready for the next course, you simply don't move up to the next course. This ensures equal accountability at all levels, including the student, and a more "equal" class to teach every year.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There are a couple points that are very important and are being missed here.

1. The teachers are highly trained with masters degrees. The teaching programs/colleges are tough to get into and have a stringent grading system. This is because they have to know exactly how to teach courses, such as math, meaning they have to be at least good at the subject.

This is not the case here. Most courses here deal with classroom management and psychology. Not saying those are not important, but getting into a teaching degree program is not difficult and teachers don't have to have a deep understanding of math to teach it here. (Oh the mistakes I've seen, but the teachers don't even catch them)

2. Historically there has been no "gifted" program. The kids that excel in math stay in the same class as their peers and often end up assisting them. There are some now, but it's not prevalent.

Imagine telling AAP parents here, that their child doesn't need to be in a special classroom, at a center surrounded by peers of similar ability. That they can succeed in, gasp, Gen. Ed. classes. There would likely be county wide protests and petitions.

Here's a short video that provided a decent summary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

[/quote]

Agree with your first point - not to knock pedagogy but we have put pedagogy ahead of deep subject matter expertise, which I think is a mistake. Subject matter experts who are passionate about the subject area, who've had some incidental study of pedagogy are probably going to do better than people with an education degree, who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject matter. The proof is in the pudding: For all of this focus on classroom management, pedagogy and psychology that our public education machine has put on teachers, they don't seem to be doing a good job of it here in DCPS - with lagging performance in the basics like reading and math, not to mention poor behavior and poorly managed classrooms. I think we hit a point of diminishing returns, and the pendulum needs to swing back in favor of deep knowledge of the subject matter, as happens in Finland.

As for the second point, G&T programs have been around in the US public school system for 150 years and most of the country has G&T programs. I also do not necessarily agree that it's the job of an advanced learner to assist and tutor the less proficient students. I think it's great for them to do it on a voluntary basis but I don't think it should be an expectation. How is that fair to the advanced student?[/quote]

Not the PP but I think it is more that having a mix of abilities benefits everyone. There is an incredible amount of learning that comes from teaching. For a student to know something is one level of learning, to be able to teach those concepts to another and to teach them in different ways takes the 'teacher's' learning to a whole new level. It doesn't just benefit the learner. [/quote]

Sounds good on paper but it ends up being the advanced learners who have to do a lot more work, who have more stress and pressure, and who get the added piece of trying to explain concepts to others, whereas the less proficient students coast along for the ride. Maybe the less proficient will pick a few things up but I certainly wouldn't pin my strategy and hopes on a 10 year old being an effective instructor to other students.[/quote]

I have never seen it play out that way. The older kids teaching the younger is just one aspect of the instruction, one way of differentiating the learning. It isn't the whole deal and it doesn't make the higher achieving students responsible for the learning of the others. I taught somewhere that didn't have AAP programs and kids of all abilities were in the same room and it worked great. None of what you describe would happen in practice in my classroom. [/quote]

I suspect your experience comes from a more homogenous situation than DC. I really struggle with how that would work in DC, where you will have a middle school student who is reading at a college level and who is ready for pre-Calc in the same classroom with another kid in the same grade who still struggles with reading and writing and who hasn't yet mastered long division. There are some pretty huge divides to bridge here in DC - even a well-seasoned teacher would have a problem making this work effectively. We have both a huge concentration of kids from severely dysfunctional and semiliterate homes as well as the kids coming from one of the biggest concentrations of PhDs in the nation.[/quote]

Interestingly it was a school that serviced two very distinct populations. It served a large public housing area as well as the area where many of the foreign diplomats lived. It was also in a nation's capital city (not the USA). DC may be an outlier but having a range of 7-8 grade levels in a class is normal in many classrooms (4 years above and below grade level). That was generally seen as manageable through differentiated instruction. I read at a college level early in elementary and I went to a rural school that had no programs and no differentiation and it had no negative impact on me or my life. My brother ended up going to a school in a different city to be in the gifted program but I wanted to stay with my friends so I did. There are many different ways to create a stimulating learning environment without ability groupings. [/quote]

I really have to disagree strongly. No, 7-8 grade levels are not really manageable by most teachers. They talk a good "differentiation" story but the reality is that the vast majority of teachers just teach to the middle and basically ignore the needs of the top and bottom, leaving them to their own devices, whether it's the bottom performers perpetually struggling, floundering, frustrated, acting out in class, or the top performers bored, disengaged, ignoring the class and doodling, reading sci-fi, manga or some other mindless trash in the back of the room. That's the reality in most classrooms here. That was my experience in school, and that has been DC's recent experience in public school as well.