Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:47 - G&T programs aren't about "coddling" students - in fact, it's about accelerating them and challenging them with harder material.

But if you are so opposed to "coddling" students, then consider this: Isn't it "coddling" the less-proficient students to have them coast along, be assigned student tutors, and so on - when their peers are having to work harder than they do?

How is the less proficient student working less hard? If two students, one that excels in math and the other that doesn't, are given the same worksheet, student A breezes through it without much effort and the student B spends more time and has more difficulty with the sheet, did student A work harder than student B? Are they coasting along? Now student A explains the problem to student B, student B re works the problem, student A cemented the knowledge in his brain.

I always signed up for tutoring students or working as a TA in med school. You know why? Teaching the concepts I learned to other students always cemented the knowledge into my brain.

Anonymous wrote:12:47 - G&T programs aren't about "coddling" students - in fact, it's about accelerating them and challenging them with harder material.

But if you are so opposed to "coddling" students, then consider this: Isn't it "coddling" the less-proficient students to have them coast along, be assigned student tutors, and so on - when their peers are having to work harder than they do?

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

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.

Norway also has very little diversity, but can't hold a candle to Finland's education achievements. (it's in the article)

Anonymous wrote:Even with their "fall" in the PISAs, the Finns are still far ahead of the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DC public schools do social promotion. You get a passing grade basically for just showing up, and get promoted from grade to grade regardless of whether you did the work, mastered the material, or even if you didn't even try. As such, there's no accountability, no work ethic instilled in students, no failure, no consequences, everything is just taken for granted, the "rewards" come for nothing. And that's the case across the board in DC - I believe the only school in DC that does not do social promotion is BASIS DC PCS.

well
if school is day care, then there is no hope

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.

You don't have to pin your hopes on it, but it's clearly working there. I understand the concept seems completely foreign because we have such strong views in this country to separate the gifted children (spending 10 minutes on the AAP forum would make that loud and clear) but it does not mean it doesn't work.

How do you know the child helping a classmate feels undue burden for doing so? Maybe it just feels normal (since that is the norm) and maybe they develop a sense of pride in themselves, security in there understanding and caring for others at the same time? Coddling and separating a bright child from an average child is better how? They could very likely end up in the same workplace right next to each other in 20 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DC public schools do social promotion. You get a passing grade basically for just showing up, and get promoted from grade to grade regardless of whether you did the work, mastered the material, or even if you didn't even try. As such, there's no accountability, no work ethic instilled in students, no failure, no consequences, everything is just taken for granted, the "rewards" come for nothing. And that's the case across the board in DC - I believe the only school in DC that does not do social promotion is BASIS DC PCS.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.