Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.
Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx
Anonymous wrote:
What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.
Actually it was decided (based on actual research) that retention did not improve academic performance but did increase the likelihood that the student would drop out of school.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leade...l65/num06/Grade-Retention.aspx
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.
It would be great to have summer programs, but there is not longer money for them. Bleeding hearts or not.
And students who are double blocked for math and reading already happens. Those kids get to watch their peers go off to classes like art, cooking, electonics, music, and other electives while their elective is shanghaied. There's nothing touchy feely about it. It already happens. It's great.
+1 Summer programs were cut a long time ago, because schools can't afford the utilities bill during the summer months. Not because liberals have an ideology that you heard someone ranting about on a radio show.
Anonymous wrote:
I have taught students who are going through 9th grade for the third time (failed twice) AMA---Ask Me Anything.
Anonymous wrote:
The Common Core standards do not require children to be taught at grade level, regardless of where the children actually are, and rational administrators will not require it either.
But, there are tests. And, I know that is NCLB, but CC was designed with tests in mind.
I have read this assertion several times here, but there has not been any evidence to support it. There was one PP who provided links, but the links did not say what the PP said they said.
Regardless, if a child is below grade level,
1. the Common Core standards do not require the child to be taught at grade level, and
2. teaching the child at grade level will not improve the child's test results.
Anonymous wrote:What they used to do is have kids repeat a grade if they were struggling to master the material. Then it was decided that this was somehow too cruel to kids. Though, nobody seems to have figured out that it's even more cruel to kids to set them up for lifelong failure by not giving them a second chance to catch up, than it is to have them suffer the great indignity or whateverthefuck of having a second chance. The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.
Anonymous wrote:
The Common Core standards do not require children to be taught at grade level, regardless of where the children actually are, and rational administrators will not require it either.
But, there are tests. And, I know that is NCLB, but CC was designed with tests in mind.
Anonymous wrote:
And, why do CC standards state a grade level if teachers don't have to teach to those standards?
Because they are grade-level standards. They say what a student should be able to do by the end of that grade, in order to be on grade level.
Circular firing squad.
Anonymous wrote:The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.
It would be great to have summer programs, but there is not longer money for them. Bleeding hearts or not.
And students who are double blocked for math and reading already happens. Those kids get to watch their peers go off to classes like art, cooking, electonics, music, and other electives while their elective is shanghaied. There's nothing touchy feely about it. It already happens. It's great.
The bleeding hearts these days don't seem to even want to give kids a chance to catch up via reading labs, math labs, summer programs, lest it make them feel singled out and feel different than their peers. Touchy-feely has pushed learning to the sidelines, IMHO.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kind of shrill calling everybody a shill, aren't you? That supposedly rightwing shill Pioneer Institute has a Democrat as its research director and also recently brought on former Massachusetts Senate President (Tom Bimringham) as senior education fellow: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/former_massachusetts_senate_pr_1.html. They seem to choose pretty good people to work with given that: "Birmingham was a principal author of Massachusetts' 1993 Education Reform Act." (see article)
Sometimes you have to work harder than engage in simple-minded ad hominem attacks.
I'm more interested in who funds the Pioneer Institute than the political party affiliations of the various people they hire. So, who does fund the Pioneer Institute?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Far more likely that the kids started school without number sense and the teachers had to push ahead in order to meet the standards--instead of teaching what the kids really needed.
This argument never makes sense to me. If the kids are starting school without number sense, then pushing them ahead is not going to get them to meet the standards.