posted
Background: I am working in an "urban rim" school. Which basically means a very diverse group. There is everything, poor kids, rich kids, 70 languages spoken at home, a real mix with an emphasis on the lower economic groups. It tends to be a very mobile population, with about 50% turnover during the school year.
I have some really bright kids in my classes. But I have some really slow kids too ("low performers"). I mean sixth graders that are still having problems with their multiplication tables (taught in third grade). A kid who after fifteen minutes of thinking and writing on a topic came up with two sentences, neither one coherent. A kid who only put wheels on one side of her Lego car, and couldn't figure out why it wasn't rolling.
I've gotta feel for these kids. Their whole life is probably a frustration. Very few of them have families that can afford to give them other chances to succeed (like in the arts or sports). Many of them live in huge families on welfare, where they can get very little individual attention or help with their homework.
So, here's my question, and I really am struggling with an answer. Before I began at this school, I felt that every kid should be educated to their potential. To do otherwise, would rob the kids and society.
However, being in the classroom makes me see how these kids hold all of the other kids back. I think it's possible to drill multiplication tables into all of them, although it won't be a pleasant experience for anyone. But the reason that they need to know their multiplication tables in sixth grade is to do further math. Fractions, factoring, multiples, statistics, probability, graphing, etc. And you can be sure that a kid that had trouble with third grade math is also deficient in fourth and fifth grade math. And sixth grade math is currently passing them by.
What do you do with these kids? Do you hold them back until they get it? What if they are fine in everything but one subject.
Do you give them individual attention? Schools have limited resources. Giving these kids extra help (presumably several times what they other kids need) will resulting in cutting sports, music, and all kinds of other programs. Should everyone sacrifice for the few?
Do you let them keep riding along on the "grade train?" Going to the next stop, even though they haven't really learned the content at the previous stop?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What should happen: the low performing kids should be given individual attention. The parents need to be called in and told to drill their kids at home and help them with difficulties they're having. The school needs to devote someone to help out in the classroom. If the school doesn't have funds, then philanthropists need to be petitioned for help, or get help from the state gov't.
What actually happens: the parents get told. They actually think about helping their kids, or even start to, but that gets old after a few days and then all their everyday troubles become more important. The lack of attention from parents might have been what got these kids off to a slow start to begin with, although it isn't necessarily the parents' fault because they may be poor and/or single and have to work long hours and they don't have the energy to help the kids after such a long day. The schools don't have the funding to help the kids, there aren't enough philanthropists to cover the holes, and the state is still suffering a budget deficit. The kids are screwed. They get held back. They suffer from the stigmatism. They end up hating school and doing worse because of it.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can help you more with some strategies for teaching diverse learners than with what is right or wrong with the whole system. Here are some tips that have worked for me over the years:
Don't make homework a big deal for kids with chaotic homes. Sometimes, the kids cac't get help, because their parents can't do the work. Seriously. Keep homework simple, and try to provide a time in school for them to do it.
Forget about times tables. Some kids will never learn them, and it will only hold them back. Give them a chart to use for fractions, etc. Make sure they understand multiplication on a concrete level(lots of ways to do this-Marilyn Burns is great)
Use money as much as possible. They understand money.
In our class, we have set up a town. The kids earn "money," we made a map, they have busineses and property. You can get the higher level kids to be the bankers and personal accountants.
Try to match group work time with individual time. While some kids are working on a project, try to catch others for mini lessons on what they missed, or for those who are way ahead, it could be a time to focus on their needs.
I understand completely, though, that none of this can hapen if behavior is out of control, which is another lovely aspect of many schools. Get a handle on the behavior first, or nothing will work.
Hope this is a bit helpful.
Edited to spell "wrong" correctly.
[ October 18, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I wish they would do at my schoool, which is high school, so it's a bit differnet, is force the kids to gt tutoring in subjects they don't understand. Right now the NHS holds tutoring sessions in the cafeteria every Wed. during our hour od Student Resource time. Last week we had two people. There are 1900 kids at our school, more than two of them needed help. If all kids that were failing classes were forced to get tutoring, I think a lot less would fail. But they have to be forced to, no one who's failing is going to go get help on their own, if they were the kind of people who asked for help, they wouldn't be failing.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But if they are forced to get help, it won't do them any good. Rather, they will resent it and ruin the effectiveness of that time for the kids who do want help.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There aren't any kids who do want help. And there's no way to really force high school students to get help. They can always just cut, like have the school does on wed. anyway.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
How do you know there aren't any kids who want help? I bet a whole lot of kids want help, and just need a little extra nudge to seek it out. Not everyone is content with failure.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there will be some who don't cut, because they're already facing expulsion or whatever, or because they are on some team and want to be allowed to play, or because they have nothing better to do. But, if they're really that bad, they will completely disrupt any help that anybody else could receive.
If there is truly nobody who wants help, terminate the program. The heck with them. Put them in remedial classes or fail them out.
What I have seen, though, is that there are typically kids who do want help, in addition to the kids who just don't care. Are you sure your program is well-enough publicized? The lowest achieving kids typically don't listen to morning announcements or read flyers posted on walls, since, after all, everything the school or any campus club has to say is stupid. Maybe sending people into individual classes to announce the existence of this program and give a little sell for it would help.
But in my experience, forcing kids who don't want it to have extra help always ends badly. They disrupt, they destroy, and they are sometimes even violent.
posted
I think our country's whole school system needs to be redone to start seperating levels [i]before[i/] high school. I also think you should have to apply to high schools the way you apply for colleges, just with more of them so everyone is guaranteed a spot somewhere.
Posts: 981 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I mean, there are a lot of kids who want help, but aren't going to go out of their way to ask for it. Those are the kids that need the extra push to actually go get help. I didn't mean that no one wanted help, but rather that no one was coming to use to get it on their own.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Twenty years ago, I would have strongly disagreed with you. Now, I see the European system of "sorting" tests in (8th?) grade very beneficial.
However, we also need to take away the stigma of trade schools. Somehow. How?
I would like to know more about the European system, its good points and its drawbacks. My main concern is that there would be stratification on an economic level, which often leads to other kinds of stratification. How could this be prevented?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that there's such a stigma for trade schools. For electricians, at least, you are required to take a test and interview to become an apprentice for four years, but after those four years, you're making about $32/hr (you start off at about $15/hr as an apprentice). Welders also make good money and there's certainly no stigma attached to them or any other construction workers, really. No stigma attached to technology trade workers either. Which trades were you talking about? Sure, they're not on a level with doctors and lawyers, but for good reason. If I'm in danger of losing my life, I want someone smart to help me because they will be more successsful at solving the problem. Whether that be medical, or legal (on trial for murder). So doctors and lawyers get revered and paid well. Start paying teachers what you pay lawyers and I guarantee that we will have better teachers and the kids will start learning more. Though, there will probably be stricter standards to become a teacher, and it will mean losing some of the smart people from other professions.
Of course, smart people don't always end up in the positions you need them in. Just look at the current presidency...
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For electricians, at least, you are required to take a test and interview to become an apprentice for four years, but after those four years, you're making about $32/hr (you start off at about $15/hr as an apprentice).
o_O
Apprentice electricians make more a year than I do?
posted
Oh sorry, I was not talking nationally, but locally, here in Washington state. Also, these are union electricians I'm talking about. I was a non-union electrician for a while and I started out at $19/hr, and quit after 8 months when someone offered me an electrician job at $22/hr working for Weyerhauser. Then I got bored with being an electrician and decided to go back to college. Otherwise I would have taken the apprentice test and been put on a waiting list to be apprenticed. They accept only a very small percentage of the number of people who take the test to become apprentices, so don't think that it's easy to become one...YMMV
posted
There's a huge problem with trade school stigma in Europe, though. Parents whose kids don't pass the Bac in France are really harsh on them.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The lack of attention from parents might have been what got these kids off to a slow start to begin with, although it isn't necessarily the parents' fault because they may be poor and/or single and have to work long hours and they don't have the energy to help the kids after such a long day. The schools don't have the funding to help the kids, there aren't enough philanthropists to cover the holes, and the state is still suffering a budget deficit. The kids are screwed. They get held back. They suffer from the stigmatism. They end up hating school and doing worse because of it.
Nice work Bravo. I think your analysis is impressively astute. _____ This is a democracy. Trade schools may help to slow a short term problem, but if we give up on a classical education when children are young, I'm worried the republic won't function. Every kid needs to be able to read, write, and think well. In America, the people often make serious decisions, and it's in the nation's interest to go about the business of raising serious citizens. ________
I don't mind standardizing the curriculum in terms of tests. We'd have to think deeply about what types of tests and what types of skills we would need to test, but I do think that a federal system of tests would go a long way in focusing public education.
That said, I also think that there should be wiggle room in the curriculum for local interests to manifest in terms of what subjects to emphasize in history or english.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The lack of attention from parents might have been what got these kids off to a slow start to begin with, although it isn't necessarily the parents' fault because they may be poor and/or single and have to work long hours and they don't have the energy to help the kids after such a long day. The schools don't have the funding to help the kids, there aren't enough philanthropists to cover the holes, and the state is still suffering a budget deficit. The kids are screwed. They get held back. They suffer from the stigmatism. They end up hating school and doing worse because of it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice work Bravo. I think your analysis is impressively astute.
Bravo and Irami, I think that you are being very condescending to poor, single parents. Why are they held to lower standards of parenting than comfortable or wealthy married parents? To give some anecdotal evidence, I was raised by a single mother. Because my father cut off support payments and eluded the courts for years, we were very, very poor. My mother worked very long hours and still managed to make sure that I got the very best education available. She considered it her duty as a mother. Nothing was more important in my family than education, despite our economic hardships. I went to a private high school on a scholarship and I went to college on a scholarship. Of course it was hard for my mother, desperately hard, but she would not let the hardships of poverty prevent her child from having the best education.
As to the subject at had, there's obviously no clear and easy solution. I don't think throwing money at the situation will help anything. The New York City Public School system is a great example of that.
Incentives are very effective with otherwise unmotivated students. We had a program where students scanned their homework with a supermarket-like scanner when they finished it. The kids thought it was so neat that they would do their homework just so that they could scan it. Point systems can also work wonders, with educational prizes (a trip to a museum, etc.).
Also, I think it is extremely important to let each student know that you hold him or her to the highest standard that they are capable of meeting. Kids respect toughness, when it's fair and consistent.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I also think that there should be wiggle room in the curriculm for local interests to manifest in terms of what subjects to emphasize in history or english.
History, certainly. English, I dunno... I am not one to attempt to hold back the progress of language, but I do think it should be held to some level of scrutiny. And as long as the 50 states are part of one country, I think that level should be national.
quote:Bravo and Irami, I think that you are being very condescending to poor, single parents. Why are they held to lower standards of parenting than comfortable or wealthy married parents?
Condescending? Perhaps. But is it true? I do not know; my parents are still together and middle-class, likely upper-middle-class. But in my (admittedly limited) experience, those students who were products of single-parent households were generally (sure as hell not completely) not as academically successful as those students who came from middle-class, two-parent homes. One parent cannot do as much as two. My father was a more distant inspiration than my mother, although he was very close to me. Certainly he was far more responsible for bringing home the bread. My mother's fairly small salary paid for luxuries, but not necessities. Yet she urged (or nagged, but who cares?) me to try my best in high school, which likely resulted in the scholarships I now hold. If I had only one parent, they could easily have done one of those two factors, but both would have been much harder. So perhaps (nay, likely) single parents are held to lower standards than double parent households. Yes, this is regretable, even tragic. But it is understandable. I do not like this. However, I have yet to see an adequate resolution of this problem, and while I am not smart enough to conceive of one, I am smart enough to tell which solutions will fail, whether completely or merely mostly.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bravo and Irami, I think that you are being very condescending to poor, single parents. Why are they held to lower standards of parenting than comfortable or wealthy married parents? To give some anecdotal evidence, I was raised by a single mother.
Obviously, she's done a great job. I can't argue with your anecdotal evidence, but I would argue that the path you took is not possible for many students from poor, single parent families. I singled out poor, single parent families because this is an extreme case, and when I'm trying to make my point I use extreme cases. Do wealthy, married families have low performing students? You bet they do! But they are able to recover from that early deficit because they CAN (but do not always) take more time to help their children do better, hire tutors, send them to private school. Public schools in wealthy areas tend to have better teachers and smaller class sizes.
First, the title of this thread is "Low Performing Students". I would argue that you were not one of those. I would use as evidence that you attended private high school and college on scholarships. The kids we're talking about do not start school with the same skill set that you did, or that many kids do. They start off slow, because reading is hard for them, concentrating in school is tougher. They aren't retarded or just dumb, just that they didn't have the attention and training that others did before they attended school. Then, when they get to school, they find themselves behind and in need of individual help just to keep up with the other students. They can't get the help needed from the public school system, because of lack of funding and large class sizes. I don't know where you went to school - perhaps you were in a district that was more affluent even though your family was not. Their parent does not have the time to provide the extra attention that they need to catch up. I'm guessing that you didn't need this extra attention.
You might then argue that your poor, single mother was able to give you the necessary training and attention before you attended grade school, why couldn't they? It could be the education difference, and I'm not necessarily talking about formal education here either. I'm saying that there are many parents (both single and married) that do not understand that it's important to read to children while they're young, to teach them all their colors and numbers and the alphabet, to teach them how to problem solve and focus. Many of these parents did not receive this same training themselves and that deficiency gets passed on culturally. Why aren't we teaching the parents before their kids get to school? No money to fund programs to do this.
I'm not Dan Quayle, and I don't preach the traditional family as the only way to properly raise a child. I'm not saying that the parents from poor, single families should be held to a lower standard of parenting because they couldn't help it. These parents love their kids just as much as everyone else's parents love their children. They want the best for their kids. It's not that they're lazy or they just don't care (although this does happen across all income levels). It's just that they do not have the right tools to prevent the problems, and the means to correct the problems once they happen. Wealthy, two parent families have more time and means.
Although I did and will continue to emphasize money as a way to help these students, obviously there's more to it than that. There are many plans with the incentives that you mentioned, with new and interesting ways of implementing the curriculum. But who is going to provide the books and the training that the teachers need for these plans to work? There are some philanthropists that set up these programs, but not nearly enough. There are really only two reasons why things don't get done when we have solutions to problems - money and politics. Money provides the books, the salaries for the people to train the teachers, the incentives for more people to become teachers reducing class sizes. You talk about holding kids up to higher standards and finding better ways of teaching the kids. I totally agree, but I've got to tell you this is old news. People have been teaching for a really long time, and there are TONS of solutions to these problems. We just need people to train the teachers how to do this, to have the political will to set it in motion, and to have the money to set it all up.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Although I did and will continue to emphasize money as a way to help these students, obviously there's more to it than that."
I agree.
I feel that it all comes down to student:teacher ratio. At risk children need much more attention. They often need counseling. They need home visits. They often need behavior modification, when bad patterns have developed.
A low student: teacher ratio costs money. In the long run, though, it would save much more money.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While a low teacher:student ratio is ideal, and helps quite a bit (I have an average of 14 students in my 7th grade math classes), it isn't an ultimate answer.
Some students will struggle no matter what the environment, and no matter how much extra help or individualized attention they get. For a variety of reasons.
One of the more common reasons I have seen is one of priority. Many of the lower performing students just don't see school as a priority - instead putting socialization, outside-of-school activities, entertainment or other time-consumers first. This is not even including the students who *need* to put familial problems or work hours first just to maintain a semisolid structure at home (if they can even attain that).
Those students who put school on a lower tier on their priority scale seem to do far worse than those who place it at the top. Regardless of background, ethnicity, gender, or anything else. (Let me emphasize here that I am in a very diverse school, with no noticeable "minority" population... by that I mean every student has quite a few other students who look like them, and quite often at least one or two others in the same class with them)
It has been one of my goals to raise the priority of education with these students (an uphill battle). Money is a big step, because money is always a priority. It's important because the students know that without an understanding of money, they can't function in the world. The trick is applying that same priority to, say, the area of a triangle.
There are other students, however, that put education as a high priority, but are just slow. These are the students who, try as they might, cannot learn mental math, cannot memorize their multiplication tables with any mastery, and continually fall down on word problems because they couldn't keep more than one or two processes in their heads at one time.
I have students who work their behinds off studying, taking notes and asking questions, but who still can't handle even the simpler problems (even with very active parents). These students need extensive individualized attention just to pass. It's hard, for them and for me.
I thankfully have a very good special education system in my school (for the most part), and those students identified as having special education difficulties have a great support structure and do well. It's those students who are slow but aren't identified as special ed that pose the most difficulty.
...
As to the idea of homogeneous grouping vs. heterogeneous grouping, I've seen both work and both fail. It really depends on the situation, and the staff involved in each. Though, I must say I am more inclined to push toward homogeneous groups that stratify education, giving the brightest kids more challenges and the slowest kids more help.
As for heterogeneous groups, with all levels in the same class (a la the one room school house), it's more problematic. What I have right now works, but what I had last year was a train wreck.
I'll likely have more on this later, but I need to go eat something. This is obviously a subject near and dear to my heart. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really remember how it worked, but we had half of our class taking one math class and the other half taking another in 8th grade. I however was in a fairly small school Catholic school. But, that also seemed to happen in the public school down the road. I think that helped make up for the difference in student knowledge/comprehension.
posted
Flying Cow: "It's those students who are slow but aren't identified as special ed that pose the most difficulty."
These are the kids I have. I am noticing more and more that they fall into a pattern of nonverbal learning disabilities. These are bright kids who have difficulty with directions, social cues, math, and higher reasoning skills. They can GET there, but you need to bridge the gap. For instance, you can do hands-on stuff with these kids all day, and they will have fun, but they will not make the connection to the abstract concepts. You need to bring them over that hill.
Because nonverbal learning disability is relatively new, and does not usually fall under special ed, these kids tend to get lost, and/or increasingly disruptive,as time goes on. Also, they tend to do very well in early grades, and then get pegged as lazy and unmotivated in upper elementary and middle school.
[ October 19, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really interesting to read this thread. I think we're getting to a point where everyone, even people who don't have kids and aren't planning to be teachers, is concerned about education. There is a lot of interesting research out there right now about improving schools, it's going beyond more money and better tests in the more outside-the-box think tanks. These are interesting sites- Carnegie Corp.
posted
I would hold them back myself, they need to learn the basics before you put them an environment where they are expected to know even more, and they will do even poorer.
[ October 19, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold them back? But that would be leaving a child behind, wouldn't it? We just *can't* do that... I mean, what would our darling president say?
[/sarcasm]
The problem with holding children back is that it's not in the hands of the school, and certainly not in the hands of the teacher. Students who would improve tremendously if they repeated first grade (either socially, or just in terms of literacy) are pushed ahead because parents want to avoid the "stigma" of their child being left back. They forget about the stigma of being branded an idiot in a class that's out of their league.
Ultimately, though, the decision is in the parent's hands... just like the decision to test a child for learning disabilities. This makes sense, you see, because parents have such vast amounts of formal training and experience in the area and can objectively look at their child's performance... oh wait... wrong reality, sorry.
This is complicated more by the fact that bean-counters are running things in many areas. They count the number of students left back, they count the number of students suspended, they count the number performing poorly, they count, they count, they count. With so much counting going on, it's amazing any teaching gets done at all.
Schools who do the right thing and hold failing students back because they are not prepared to advance are stigmatized because they can't provide education to these children. Schools who suspend a large number of students in an effort to curb behavioral problems are stigmatized because their teachers obviously have no control over their classrooms. Schools with low performance on tests obviously don't have "highly qualified teachers" - as if years of schooling have any direct bearing on your ability to function in a classroom.
So what happens? Many schools give up. They stop holding students back, instead opting to water down their curriculums so that all students can pass. They stop suspending students, instead allowing more and more behavioral problems to go unchecked - because what isn't reported doesn't reflect badly on the school. They teach to the test so that they have higher scores and can claim to be true educational institutions.
It's getting bad. No Child Left Behind is only ascerbating the problem. It will get worse before it gets better... and when the droves of Baby Boomer teachers finally all retire, we'll have no teachers at all. As it is now, a vast majority of those currently teaching have more than 20 years in. They can't teach forever, and new restrictions are making it harder and harder to get and keep teaching jobs.
So we're losing teachers at record rates and making it harder to gain new ones. If we're not careful, we might end up leaving *all* the students behind.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My immediate response is to beg you not to let them "ride the grade train". Among the many high school math students that I work with (none of which have a solid knowledge of their multiplication tables), one senior just celebrated his twentieth birthday. While he has trouble with basic operations, his biggest hindrance is that he has no concept of the value of money. I think it's incredible that this kid is still in school, and commend him for that. But I'm also horrified that he was allowed to pass through the system without being given what I consider to be survival skills. His records show no diagnosis of any specific learning disability, so I'm not clear as to why this situation was allowed to get so far out of hand.
I have an issue I've been throwing around in my own head that I'd like to get some opinions on. Some people have commented on the differences in ability between income/social classes. But does anyone think that there are differences in the number of diagnoses of learning disabilities between the income classes? Where are they more common, and why?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it's interesting the context in which this has been brought up on another thread
quote:
quote:What do you think would be a workable way to have a progressive society that has room for those who can't keep up the pace?
A good question. One of the government activities which you all may be surprised I support is education. State universities are spectacular. However, every level below the universities is corrupted. If the elementary school program can be fixed, and the highschools fixed, that would go a LONG way towards fixing the problem. Knowledge is one of the best ways to solve many problems
quote:I have an issue I've been throwing around in my own head that I'd like to get some opinions on. Some people have commented on the differences in ability between income/social classes. But does anyone think that there are differences in the number of diagnoses of learning disabilities between the income classes? Where are they more common, and why?
That's an interesting question and I don't think there's a clear-cut answer. I don't think that there are more actual instances of learning disabilities in one or another income class, but I think that there is a tendency to label any kind of behavior problem ADHD in the lower income classes. For example, Andrew and I have been thinking about becoming foster parents. Almost every single child has been labeled ADHD, both in the VA foster system and every other state that we looked at. I have a hard time believing that all of these children are ADHD. How much of their behavior problems stem from the instability of living in the foster care system? How much influence do pharmacutical companies have over the professionals who are diagnosing and treating these children?
Also, all of those children are on medication for their condition, which the state pays for. Do all of these children need to be medicated? I seriously doubt it. I'd be interested to see their condition after they've been with adoptive families for a few years. I think there's a tendency to rush to cure behavior problems with medication, which is a huge mistake.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Clearly, promoting students who have not mastered material does not work.
But many of you opining on the issue aren't familiar with the researcch out there.
I am hardly a wishy-washy type when it comes to education, but I have looked into this matter. Out of 67 research studies comparing kids who were "socially promoted" to kids who were retained, 66 studies showed that retained students did not gain for having repeated the material. In each of the 66 studies, they showed modest to no gains in their performance over the course of the year which they were repeating, and any gains were lost the next year, when they finally went on to new materials. The 67th study studied kids at a very affluent school who received regular one-on-one tutoring in addition to repeating the grade, and whose families also had more resources to back up what the school was doing.
When I worked in a private school where I never encountered the issue of retention versus promotion, I felt sure I knew the answer. I was a big proponent of retention. I was a hardliner. Then I saw it in effect, when I switched to the public schools. I saw what happens when children enter puberty surrounded by nine- and ten-year-olds. I also saw that the retained kids virtually never improved.
The big problem with retention is that it just repeates the material; it typically doesn't give a kid any remediation to fix why he or she failed in the first place. And of course, the stigma of having failed is a legitimate concern. Kids figure out pretty quickly that if they don't try at all, then they don't need to feel embarassed for failing, because it's a reflection of their work habits instead of their intelligence (and worth). Perhaps you feel that failing kids are not to be pitied; be that as it may, retaining kids does not improve their performance. It doesn't solve any problems.
I'm not saying that "social promotion" is the answer. Rather, I'm saying that there is no easy answer ("Just make 'em repeat it!") and that we need some new ideas. One idea that might have some merit is a sort of "half-promotion." Retained kids could be put in a program geared toward their specific needs, in which success means eventually rejoining their age-mates. That's an incentive that may be worth working for. Another idea, a much more blue-sky idea because of the restructuring of our educational system that would be necessary, but one which I personally favor, is removing failing kids to a special program all their own. It may not address their motivational needs, but it would at least keep retained kids with their age peers (and not with little kids). Retained kids also often have other problems, including behavioral problems (due perhaps to frustration) and if they were placed in a program with a small enough class size, their needs could be better met, and they would also not be a disruption in the classrooms where currently they are only failing anyway. Is this a realistic hope? Nope. Not currently, anyway. It's too politically incorrect, and too expensive. We don't put our money where our mouth is like that. But I think it could be a solution, where simple retention is not.
-o-
quote:Almost every single child has been labeled ADHD, both in the VA foster system and every other state that we looked at. I have a hard time believing that all of these children are ADHD.
Believe it. I don't mean that their problems are necessarily chemical in origin or solution--I'm not addressing whether ADHD, ADD, and LD have become quasi-medical euphemisms. But in terms of the vast majority of the kids in state custody having behavioral and learning issues, then yes, they do. I say this as an adoptive parent who has taken in two kids with problems that are relatively mild compared to most in the system. Both are at least a year behind their age-peers, both are likely to repeat a grade at some point in the near future--quite likely this year--one is not currently in a regular classroom setting, and at least one may end up on some sort of behavior medication. And we were inordinately lucky to get kids who were younger than the norm and whose problems were much much milder than the norm.
quote:How much of their behavior problems stem from the instability of living in the foster care system?
About half. The other half from whatever put them in the foster system to begin with, and anything left over from whatever genetic and chemical imbalances their birth parents passed on to them. The numbers of kids in the system with fetal alcohol syndrome, prenatal exposure to cocaine, shaken baby syndrome, etc. are staggering.
quote:I'd be interested to see their condition after they've been with adoptive families for a few years.
Based on my anecdotal experience, I would say that a good adoptive family doesn't cure all of their problems. (Thinking that it does seems to assume that foster families are necessarily not good families; an assumption that is not borne out by my personal experience with foster families.) Further intervention than just a good home is necessary--and a good adoptive family will do what is neessary for their kids to thrive, rather than what is more aligned with their worldview.
I too believed, and continue to believe that medications are overpresecribed. I believe that we use medical labels euphemistically, and that we often medicate as a substitute for good parenting. But, as with retention, my beliefs were formed in abstract, from a position of not having had to deal with many of these issues first hand, and a smug confidence that what I now see was my naïveté was, in fact, evidence of my moral, intellectual, and motivational superiority. Now life is challenging some of those assumptions for me, and while I still think there is some truth to my old beliefs, I am having to accept that there is also truth in some of the ideas I used to think were simply excuses for irresponsible people.
-o-
You can take that as you will. Instead of seeing me as someone who has learned from experience that the simple answers aren't always adequate (in fact, they seem often inadequate), you can conclude that I am simply a failure of a parent and of a teacher, and am joining the excuse-makers to protect myself from an awarenes of that. Or you can conclude that my experiences are legitimate but that I am a statistical anomaly . . . that my anecdote does not constitute evidence (overlooking my extensive experience in public and private education, with DCF, and volunteering with disadvantaged children).
*shrug*
It's up to you, I guess.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support Pope John Paul II. Except for the child molestation scandal. And the ordination of women. And the stance on gays and gay marriage. And the ban on married clergy.
But the rest of the time . . .
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Retained kids could be put in a program geared toward their specific needs, in which success means eventually rejoining their age-mates."
This basically describes our class, and some do make it back to the mainstream successfully. We have fifth, sixth and seventh graders in a self contained classroom. Most have severe behavior problems in the mainstream. They have been screened out of special ed, most have pretty tough home situations, though some do not.
When they come into our class, they breathe such a sigh of relief you can feel it. Most have stayed back at least one year. We run a parallel curriculum, and they are still required to take all the tests, but they are safer, and directions are clear, and they don't have to make a lot of transitions, which just destroy many at-risk kids. We have most of them for two years, some for three.
The problem is, they go off to "high school"(which is 8-12th grades), and there is no similar program. Their options are to go into the high school Alt. Ed(which is not a good fit for most of them)or just jump back in the mainstream and fail.
Instead of figuring out that there needs to be another(at least) class like ours at the high school level, our magnificent principal would like to put both alternative ed classes together. Fifth grade through twelfth. Basically, she could give a rat's patootie about these kids. She just wants to lump them all together, though their needs are significantly different, because she wants to take a couple of teachers off the payroll.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I'd like to say that the stigma of trade schools is a crock of manure. The only people who place a stigma on it are the intellectual elite who couldn't craft anything marketable with their own hands if their lives depended on it.
It's easy to look down on a plumber or carpenter or auto mechanic. But it would be so hard to live your life of leisure and academia if a social worker had to lay the foundation of your home or an organic chemistry professor had to create a plumbing system in your home that didn't shake itself apart each time you flushed your toilet.
Or perhaps that orchestra you went to hear at the concert hall wouldn't have sounded so good under a giant lean-to instead of the conservatory they played in. Or what if they had to play in the dark because no one could figure out how to wire a place for electricity without burning the place down?
Perhaps that free-range organic chicken and brocoli you had for dinner last night just magically appeared on your plate without the help of a chef, a greengrocer, a truck driver, a ton of factory workers and a farmer or two?
Perhaps you'd really like the government to do something right for a change. But without the taxes paid by the "tradesmen" what could be done?
You bunch of self-righteous prigs. I've met physicians who couldn't understand that you can't flush diapers down toilets and I've carried mortar and bricks to masons who could debate classical Greek literature. Many here would shun work with hammer and nails, or balk at a job that actually forced them to create a product in a factory. But they would bandy about their "education" as a mark of excellence. I can play the violin and appreciate theater! I can debate social constructs in the post-modern society! Big deal.
My father received his degree in clinical psychology with a minor in architecture. Do you know what he does? Fine cabinetmaking. To most, he'd be a tradesman, just a simple guy who can cut and shape would. To a select few, he's a person that is sought after from Vermont to Florida, from the East Coast as far west as Texas. They look for him because of the quality of work he does, for the artistry and skill he possesses. For his ability to design (furniture and houses) to suit the individual needs and desires of a very select clientelle.
Some would just see a fellow who gets covered in sawdust every day. Me, I see a man who is skilled, who works hard and who I hope to live to be like someday.
What I am getting at here, however, is the failure of our current school system. In the last 25 years or so, they've gone about trying to teach from the top down. Please let me explain.
Today, children start keyboarding for computer use in kindergarten and begin learning Spanish at the same age. Computers have become more and more a tool and subject of choice. Children understand computers before they have even mastered the multiplication table. Children are taught the basis of geometry before they are even taught how to measure. They are taught a foreign language before they have even begun to get a grasp on reading our own language. It is top down teaching and it has destroyed potential.
Children are not getting a foundation before they are asked to start studying the end results. They are asked to look into sciences that lead to engineering before they are ever shown a gear and see how it works. We teach them art, before we allow them to really even draw.
Yes, I understand when folks say, if you expose children to computers at an early age, it helps them to learn math and science and language as they go along. I can easily see the logic in it, but I can also see students who can turn on a computer and play educational games who can't write or sometimes even speak a complete sentence. Children who can say their numbers from one to 10 in a foreign language but haven't touched on the numbers of 11 and higher. Children who have learned the Spanish word for cat before they can even spell it.
Sure, it all helps, they say, but the results aren't bearing the fruit we keep expecting. Perhaps we should put more emphasis on the basics of language, arithmetic, social studies, science and physical education in the early years of school. Why are so many kids unable to read at their grade level compared to yesteryear? Possibly because we are trying to throw too much at them too early. I haven't noticed the length of the school day or the length of school year growing noticeably in recent years. I do know that the test scores haven't grown.
But what it comes down to is that in working out the basics, children really were able to once upon a time, start picking the directions their lives would take. A second grader with an assignment to write a story using his spelling words could discover a love for writing and become a journalist. A kid who really took to arithmetic could pursue higher math and might want to learn about computer programming. A child who loved finger-painting might move on to discover the world of art and graphic design. A child who loved stacking blocks and learning to read a map could become an engineer or architect.
But today we force too much on children when we should really be equipping them with the basics upon which they can guide their own education, and therefore their lives.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
It sounds like you are giving evidence for the existence of a stigma against trade schools.
I don't see the purpose behind this us vs. them rant. I wish I could see exactly what offended you in the thread.
I think it takes all kinds of specializations for our society to continue to function at the level we are used to . . . for "basic" needs to be met, for quality workmanship to exist, and for discoveries and technological advancements to be made. Which is precisely why a stigma against going to trade schools is a problem. We need, as a society, to place value/esteem upon the trades, so that we can have qualified workers in them.
The problem that I have with your post is that, while I don't see it as possibly being a reaction to anything I have posted, I do find your talk of worthless academic types personally offensive, and so while I share some of your values, I am put off by the fact that you think what I do is without value. And so my immediate impulse is to be defensive. To waste time pointing out counterexamples in my own life to your ridiculous, ignorant, and false assumption that, as a teacher, I don't know jack about plumbing, carpentry, cooking, etc. etc. etc.
But a flame war won't get us anywhere useful.
So can we agree that we need to encourage people to work in a variety of fields, without you defending "blue collar" workers through the tactic of explaining that white collar ones are useless?
-o-
quote:But what it comes down to is that in working out the basics, children really were able to once upon a time, start picking the directions their lives would take. A second grader with an assignment to write a story using his spelling words could discover a love for writing and become a journalist. A kid who really took to arithmetic could pursue higher math and might want to learn about computer programming. A child who loved finger-painting might move on to discover the world of art and graphic design. A child who loved stacking blocks and learning to read a map could become an engineer or architect.
And this doesn't happen today? I think you are confusing the real classrooms of today with some two-dimensional imaginary ones being bandied about by both sides of the current pedagogical debates.
As far as the foreign language thing, mountains of research shows that the average child is much more able to learn languages when he or she is pretty young. There is a "window of opportunity" there that closes after the age of seven or eight. For most young children, learning a foreign language actually helps them learn their own language better, because they begin to understand the structure of language on the whole. Learning a Romance language in particular helps children with higher level English vocabulary, because most "ten-dollar words" come from latin root words. In my own anecdotal case, I began kindergarten not knowing a word of English, and picked it up extremely quickly, to the point that by the end of kindergarten I was more comfortable in English than in Spanish. If you don't believe we should teach languages so early, you might as well decide not to teach them at all, because leaning languages in the classroom simply does not work for older children (or adults). The window of opportunity has closed by that age.
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. We have decided not to teach my daughters Spanish, because they both had language delays, and it was important for them to work on learning English (or rather, some language) first. But, for the typical child, tons and tons of research shows that early childhood is the ideal time to pick up new languages, and that doing so helps rather than hindering the development of the native tongue.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The advantage of a classical education is that it enables you to despise the wealth it prevents you from achieving."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Megachirops, but I was actually reading and responding to folks other than you in this thread. Try not to take it too personally, but while you've written volumes here, none of it raised my ire.
Yes, there is an overall stigma against the trades, or blue collar work, among the intellectual elite in this country. This has become more evident as we've sadly moved from a manufacturing society to one based on services. It's no longer en vogue to teach a shop or home ec class, but we are strongly advised that all of our children need foreign languages and higher end math.
Take a look at the yellow pages some time. You'll see more listings for lawyers than plumbers. More computer degrees are probably given out than electricians licenses. It's not a good recipe. Someday we'll all have our cars break down and there will be no mechanics left to fix them. What will we do? Or will we all have cell phones but no one know how to actually bolt together the cellular service towers?
But what parent wants to hobnob with their friends and proudly boast that their son or daughter is learning welding in a room full of folks discussing their child's MBA?
We're quickly becoming a society of chiefs, but no braves. And I do believe that our education system is very much responsible for that. The track they've chosen is one set for pushing students at higher education, that the college degree is the end all, be all. That the degree is where a career lies, and only with it, does a person find their value. That would be a wonderful thing, if it could ever be achieved.
Sadly, in the push to cram more college-worthy material into children's schedules, we have taken time away from establishing the basics. Look at literacy. Not at the number of illiterates, but at the number of children reading at their grade levels. Reading is the most basic and fundamental of all learning skills, but we're falling behind. More and more students are not reaching the goals they need to have in this most important of skills.
But we add more things on to their educational plates as if they were only allowed one trip through the buffet line that education should be. It's as if we made them take a big spoonful of everything being served without acknowledging either the room available on the plate or their ability to consume that much food. Then the kid goes back to their table, plate brimming over and they sit down. Either they will just pick at the plate, overwhelmed by the messy pile of food, or they will dig in and consume everything. Either the child will go hungry unable to tackle the monstrous meal or they will gorge themselves on too much of too many different things in an effort to join the "clean plate club."
Perhaps, to keep the analogy going, we, as adults, should just point them to the buffet and say "There's the meat, there are the vegetables, there's the bread and there's the dessert. Take what you want and what you will eat." The child will come away nourished and filled to their desire. They might also sample something different and make a new discovery.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The advantage of a classical education is that it enables you to despise the wealth it prevents you from achieving."
That's a facile cop-out. I do believe that it may lead you to despise people's amoral attempts to garner wealth. But you don't despise the people because they prevent you from gathering money, but you shudder at them because their practices existence degrades your soul. It's like knowing your neighbor beats his wife. ______
Sopwith,
quote:Yes, there is an overall stigma against the trades, or blue collar work, among the intellectual elite in this country.
I don't know if the disconnect is where you think it is. I think the intellectual elite and the working class get along fine should get along fine. On the other hand, the white collar professionals are at odds with both groups.
posted
Yeah, kat, and you know how much I love it when you goof around, especially about something as trivial as a classical education.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think you were responding to me. My point was that you were responding to something pretty vehemently, in such a way as to alienate people who might otherwise agree with you, as I agree with you about the disadvantages of sneering at trade schools and vocational education.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It sounds like you are giving evidence for the existence of a stigma against trade schools."
Yes, it does, and I am raising my hand as the person, I guess, who is the intellectual prig? Because I mentioned the stigma? Because there IS a stigma in this country, and it is NOT just from the intellectual elite. It is often from parents who do not want their kids to go to the local trade school because they feel it is a second-best situation.
Sorry, Sopwith, but my stats come from my life. I have heard these words come from students themselves, and from their parents. I have taught kids who can visualize a house, car, building, whatever, from any perspective, and draw it. They think they are dumb in math because they haven't learned their times tables.
The point I was trying to make is, basically, the same one you were trying to make. So, I don't get it, and, frankly, my feelings are hurt by your vilifying language.
[ October 21, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I haven't read this whole thread and I'm jumping in a bit here, but the issue bugs me quite a bit. First off, any potential teacher should realize that any trouble that arises with a non-badly disabled kid in this area is not the fault of the kid! Their background or environment, possibly. In any case, from your perspective, the problem should be seen as the teacher's.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Maybe sending people into individual classes to announce the existence of this program and give a little sell for it would help.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
