How About "No Child Left Unchallenged"?
I was bored out of my gourd throughout much of my pre-college schooling.
I learned a lot, but only because I spent so much of my time reading. School was just a place to show up and collect good grades without doing much.
I would have benefited if I hadn't been in class and had even had somebody providing minor guidance and oversight. I'm not talking about some private teacher -- just somebody checking in on me (and perhaps other students) to answer questions and point me (and us) in the right direction if we needed help.
This BRKing article at Policy Carnival is right on:
There is less focus on the student who is achieving, than on the student who is not achieving. Why is the law titled "No Child Left Behind" instead of "No Child Left Unchallenged"? The entire discussion with regards to student achievement centers students to an average, rather than the best of their ability. Equality of opportunity is important, and there does need to be attention given to the disadvantaged, however, the discussion also needs to focus on propelling our bright students forward. Some may argue that the need to push our bright students forward is just as important as pushing our underachieving students. The focus on aiding underachievers leaves high-achievers bored and unchallenged.
For example, from that link above:
James Kulik reports that highly gifted students that are grouped with their intellectual peers gain as much as a year of academic development than if they had remained in the regular class. Skill-based grouping of students rather than age-based grouping has been found more effective for learners at all levels. Unfortunately, because No Child Left Behind focuses on reducing shortfalls instead of promoting excellence, it has created an environment where average test scores are more important than successful learners.
via @ifeminists
I had meant to comment on the post last week... I do think a "continuous representation", in which students do their work with other students who are moving at a similar pace, would be more effective. I actually went to a school that tried this in reading. It was grades 3-4 and they had a bunch of "modules" that you did more or less on your own, with occasional guidance from the teacher. (One practical problem that we had back then was that there were only so many copies of the printed materials, and sometimes after you finished a module, you had dead time while you waited for another student to finish with the module you needed to do next. That wouldn't be a problem today because everything would be on line.)
The two big problems you run into are (1) how to prevent it from becoming too chaotic to manage, and (2) how to ensure that the students are actually making progress. Traditional school systems would really struggle with #1. I think they'd have to start working the way that colleges and some high schools do, where at least part of the faculty consists of teachers who teach subjects rather than grades. As for #2... everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but the answer is occasional standardized tests, as check points. Not all of them need to be as formal as the SAT, but there should be at least a few formal reporting points, so that the effectiveness of the schooling can be maintained.
Probably the worst aspect of NCLB is the fact that it has completely failed at its stated mission: bringing the worst schools up to spec. For a while, it was at least shining a light on these schools, but the educrats have managed to capture the regulatory process and turn the funding towards their preferred, non-education-related goals. They succeeded in defeating the reform effort.
Cousin Dave at October 12, 2016 6:14 AM
As long as public schools continue to provide "free" babysitting (and meals, in many cases), where you can stick your kid all day while you go to work, I don't think you'll see too many parents kick up a fuss about this.
The ones who want their kids to be successful learners are already providing that kind of direction on their own time and their own dime, because it would be useless to try and tackle the bureaucracy of the school system.
Most teachers would probably love a system like the one described, but it would require massive support among the parents. In wealthier neighborhoods where you have a concentration of high-achieving adults, their schools probably do reflect this.
Most parents seem more concerned with their kids behaving, following the rules, and not getting into trouble during the day, so they aren't getting bothered at work.
Pirate Jo at October 12, 2016 8:58 AM
In 5th grade, there was a set of independent reading modules at the back of the room (SRA I think, from IBM). Before the end of the year I had finished 12th grade reading material, and there was no more to do. After that, it was back to grade-relevant reading (yawn). There was strong resistance to letting a kid move ahead faster. On the other hand, I was the slow kid in Spanish and music classes...
cc at October 12, 2016 10:59 AM
I like the idea of skill-based grouping, but I also think the current system could be better. Here's an idea: if a student finishes their classwork early, why not have teachers encourage that student to help tutor another student who's struggling? There are some obvious benefits to this:
1. The "tutor" gets to practice soft skills that will be important to their life. Learning to coach, mentor, and tutor another person to be the best they can be is a challenge, and this gives students more years to develop the skill.
2. Teaching another student may encourage the "tutor" to adopt new perspectives pertaining to the subject matter.
3. The struggling student can get some form of help, which is often in short supply since there's only one teacher to help, say, 30+ students.
4. Students can bond and form new friendships this way with people they would not ordinarily befriend. As a student that's been at the tops and bottoms of classes, I can attest to how rewarding it can be for a struggling student to get help from a very talented student. It provides a sense of hope. Being able to help struggling students also brought me joy. Just seeing someone's eyes light up when they finally grasp something they spent so long grinding through is just as rewarding.
Of course, I do realize that this arrangement isn't perfect. It does require a certain level of maturity, and patience. But I just think it's time to rethink the design and structure of classes and classrooms. I don't think the teacher *has* to be the one who answers all questions and points students in the right direction.
Kenii at October 12, 2016 2:24 PM
"The "tutor" gets to practice soft skills that will be important to their life. Learning to coach, mentor, and tutor another person to be the best they can be is a challenge, and this gives students more years to develop the skill."
In practice this doesnt work very well. Most times the tutored student becomes very passive, and expects the tutoring student to actually do the work for them.
A big part of learning is learning *how to learn*, which involves following written instructions on a work sheet, or in a book, not being spoon fed every answer by an over involved tutor. Because the correct answer is never the goal. It is always the *correct process*.
I gave music lessons one summer when I was in high school, because I was better at my instrument than the HS band director was.
There is nothing you can do *for* a student in a lesson, that improves his skill on an instrument. You can only correct tiny mistakes in technique or music reading. The rest is really up to them.
Most education needs to be one on one, and largely computer, and internet driven.
There are so many better ways to learn now, than even one on one with a poorly educated mediocre drone standing in front of a room full or bored and unengaged kids, it isnt even funny.
I can learn more French in 10 hours on Duolingo than I learned in an entire year of classrom instruction.
Isab at October 12, 2016 6:53 PM
I guess you've never seen that tutor method put into practice Kenii. The other students just resent the ones who get done faster. Subcontracting the teacher's job isn't effective. And on top of it you are stealing the educational opportunities that your best students could be using to try and drag the least interested forward.
Ben at October 13, 2016 5:57 AM
I would have hated tutoring.
When I interview now...the answer to my biggest weakness is that I get frustrated when someone isn't getting up to speed as fast as I would like.
Katrina at October 13, 2016 6:12 AM
I meant to post this on a previous thread, but all my schooling, in the 80's and 90s in TX and OK and CO, was not age-divided. One wing of the school was for 1&2nd grade, one wing for 3&4, one wing for 5&6. You technically had a grade you were in, but each subject you were in a group by ability. And some students would be in groups outside their 2-year division, as well, in certain areas. This was public school. Jr High and High School were all by ability, not grade or age. This was that stupid fly-over redneck hick part of the country. Thank god some smert people from the coasts moved in and got all THAT changed-wouldn't want some snowflake depressed they're in a slower group, after all.
My kindergarten, in TX, had no walls dividing classes, either, and was mostly play, which I believe is currently an idea from Norway or Finland, making the rounds on the internet as such an amazing idea.
momof4 at October 13, 2016 6:12 AM
This is my pet peeve, gifted education. Tried to learn something about it when I was getting my EdM but it was too politically incorrect to talk about, "IQ is flexible", "Everyone is gifted" etc.
They had no problem talking about special needs students, it was only if kids had difficulties that theyy were considered worth helping.
NicoleK at October 13, 2016 8:33 AM
The other problem with tutoring is that the kids who complete the work quickly don't get what's not to understand about it, and can't explain it well.
Ever had one of those professors who is a super genius researcher but sucky teacher? Now it's the kid next to you.
NicoleK at October 13, 2016 8:35 AM
"Ever had one of those professors who is a super genius researcher but sucky teacher? Now it's the kid next to you."
In the fifth grade, I was that kid. I had just transferred from a private school to a public school, and I was a year ahead of the class, so I completed most of the work in pretty much zero time. To fill some of my time, I was assigned to be a tutor to this poor guy who had, before that year, been attending a truly awful school system in Chicago. (And this was the early 1970s... blue-model blues isn't a recent phenomenon.) He read at a second-grade level and struggled with addition and subtraction; he knew nothing of multiplication or division. I found it stressful. I had a hard time trying to come up with ways to explain things to him in a way that he could understand, and I had to read most of the material out loud to him. He was also not very well socialized and I quickly learned that he'd steal anything that I left laying around within his eyesight. I guess it was a life lesson of sorts.
Cousin Dave at October 13, 2016 1:50 PM
Why should the smart kids be unpaid tutors for the dum dums?
Would you expect the athletic kids to spend their time coaching the klutzes instead of honing their own skills?
JoJo at October 19, 2016 8:29 AM
Leave a comment