There is an issue that has been raging in education for as long as I can remember. This includes the time when I was in school because my parents would debate this at the dinner table when we (my sister and I) were growing up. The debate comes down to whether it is better to have classes with heterogenous grouping or homogenous grouping. It has been called many things in the past.
When I was growing up, the idea was called "tracking." Essentially, you had three levels of classes through the end of high school: remedial, regular, and advanced (or honors). The idea behind tracking was that if you put people of the same ability group together then you could get more growth in each group. Secondary to that (and what they do not tell you) is that if you keep the slower kids away from the smarter kids then the smarter kids will achieve more and get in less trouble.
The undercurrent behind all of this thought is the idea of sequestering the slower students, because they also tend to be the trouble makers. Therefore, they get in all the trouble they always do without it spilling over into the rest of the campus. As you can probably already tell, I have my own opinions on the subject. This is because I have traditionally gotten the short end of the stick in my career, so I immediately feel empathetic towards those teachers that get those lower classes.
The alternative to ability grouping is heterogenous grouping. The advantages are two-fold. First, students are exposed to a variety of different kinds of students. One of the ways teachers like to help students learn is to have students work together and tutor each other. The downside is that all of the discipline problems are interspersed and teachers have to work very hard to insure that quicker students remain challenged while the slower students are allowed to keep up.
The school where I work at has ability grouping, but it's done in a different way than most schools. It has its advantages and disadvantages. I think it's pretty easy to figure out where I stand, but I want to open this up to the congregation. Most of you have kids that are either in school or have gone through school. Would you have preferred ability grouping or do you think putting them all together would have been better for them? I will field questions about how it works, but I want your opinions to rule the day.
Kelly, my kids were in the Cy-Fair open concept school, too. TERRIBLE for kids with ADHD or ADD. I DO believe in grouping by ability. We had a child accepted at Emery, and she would have been bored and dropped out without AP and college classes to take.
But I personally think the pay should be higher and the skilled teachers who WANT to work with the slower kids should be sought. They are out there. Why shouldn't "at risk" children get the really good, patient teachers?!?
In 4th grade, our math teacher divided us into 2 sections. The smarter kids were taught algebra and given really difficult projects. The slower children got the standard curriculum. I don't think it was good for their self-esteem to watch him get excited over us, but not them.
This isn't a direct response to your question buty it is relevant.
I was talking to a couple of people that were educated in Asia and they were both insistent that Asians do not spend more time in school than American kids. One of them has 3 kids in school currently and is very concerned that Obama is talking about keeping kids in school longer. I was told that Asian kids spend about 4 hours in school and are free to be with their families after that time period. The kids get copious amounts of homework, though. And all kids are required to take challenging courses. If they don't make it...then they try again.
We all thought it pretty important to pass that on. Especially considering escalating costs.
Kelly, sorry to take so long getting back to you. If I were guessing I would guess that your school was built in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Am I right? I hate open concept (as it was called) for the reasons you described. The general idea around it was to allow more teaming for each grade level. Some schools look for teachers to specialize (one teaches reading, one math, one science, one social studies). However, as any good administrator will tell you, most discipline problems (K-12) occur when students are in the hall. The open concept minimizes that because the classrooms are so close together, so the transitions are easier. The fact that the teachers in your school are building as many walls as possible tells you they hate it too. The schools were designed for there to be no back. Like most theories, it was short-lived, but schools that were designed that way must deal with the aftermath.
As for Carguy's point, the state of Texas already mandates a 22 to 1 student/teacher ratio. The problem is in districts like ours where we need to divide classes, but our facilities department is waiting for Haley's comet to come back through before they give us the portables we need. We don't have 22 kids in a class yet, but because we have extra teachers waiting for those extra classes we comply. I've always felt 22 to 1 should be mandated through the 12th grade, but I'll explain it by looking at a typical high school.
You have let's say 1000 freshman (typical for a 5A high school). All of them must take Geography. If I divide that 1000 by 25 then I would have 40 sections of World Geography. Teachers normally teach six of seven classes (or six of eight in block) so I would need seven full Geography teachers to make that work. If I mandate 22 to 1 then I would have 45 sections of Geography. If I went down to 20 kids then that would be 50 sections. Folks, that's an additional two teachers and I've only looked at one course in one department.
In one high school we would be looking at hiring six or seven additional teachers IN EACH DEPARTMENT. So, in a typical high school we would be looking at anywhere from 30 to 35 additional teachers. In multiple high school districts you might be looking at 150 additional high school teachers and maybe that many junior high teachers as well. A district like Clear Creek ISD (where I live not work) would have to pay those people an average of $45,000 which would amount to 13.5 million before I even talk about benefits (back to health care debate). Who's going to pay for all that? I would love that personally, but our tax hounds would have a fit.
Hey, there's ALREADY a LOT of people who can't answer the question "When did the War of 1812 start".
And ask people on the street to name the last five presidents....you might as well ask them the square root of 34,287.
More work, MORE MONEY.
Put fewer kids in the class too and now your talking progress.
If we don't find a way to deliver a better education.....well, it won't be MY problem to deal with, but I am sympathetic to those of you who will survive me. I'd hate to see "Jeopardy 2060" using questions they used to use on the old "Sale of the Century".
Scott, I have a question..
My child's elementary school has open classrooms. There are giant filing cabinets on all sides of the class room instead of walls. Sound carries from other classes all the time. As a weekly reader, I often have to read so loud that my voice hurts at the end of my sessions so that the kids can hear me over the other teachers. In turn, the other teachers have to get louder to yell over me. My daughter, who has a heck of a time paying attention, says she'll listen to the other teachers during her tests and thats why she loses focus. She can't get past this.
What is the theory or justification for this type of classroom environment?
First of all, I wanted to thank everyone that has contributed thus far. The opinions were what I would figure they would be. Parents want the best for their children and I am no different. While my opinions as an educator go one way they go another as a parent. I fundamentally agree with ability grouping, but have issues with how it works in practice.
What I have found is that in most schools, those that are lowest on the totem pole in experience or in certifications get the slowest and most challenging kids. After all, who really wants those kids? So, the best kids get the best teachers. That works great if you have a kid that is a faster learner. Quite frankly, that's what you want.
At my school, they have done it differently and better, but I still feel for those teachers. I honestly believe those teachers deserve some sort of stipend to do what they do. If you offered a special stipend (say a $5000 shaft stipend) I think you might even get some volunteers. Those of you who bought my book (hint, hint, hint) saw me talk about this at long length.
If you haven't chimed in yet you still can. As always, I will try to field as many questions as I can.
When I was in AP classes you had to be selected and invited. I was so excited when I got in. If that's not the case, I dont think it really changes the dynamic, because those taking AP classes must be doing so out of a desire to succeed and take education to the next level, no?
Unfortunaty, the only boy only schools I am familiar with are catholic schools. However, anecdotal knowledge tells me they should do better. Most of the stupid stuff I did as a teenager was to impress girls, so if you take that away I might have done even better.
On education,
Bob Herbert's column this morning in the New York Times is particularly timely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1&hp
We definitely have to do something about the drop out rate. In order for us to compete in a global economy.... we DO have to educate all our kids.
My parents wouldn't let the schools skip me in grades because they wanted me to grow up with kids my own age. Honestly, I wish they had.
I got along better with the older kids in my English classes, anyways. I had a seventh-grade vocabulary and reading level when I entered the math & science magnet school in fourth grade. I was on independent study for English by sixth grade and tested into Algebra I for seventh grade.
When we moved back to Texas and into Klein ISD for my eighth-grade year, I had to take Geometry at Klein Oak and then walk to Hildebrandt for the rest of my day. While I was happier in Klein ISD than I ever was in Arkansas (we moved back to TX in 94 and I didn't go to AR until I was a married adult, and only to visit my mom who moved back after her kids grew up), I still never really felt comfortable in my own skin with kids my own age until I went to the Texas Academy of Math and Science for my last two years of high school.
I definitely think I performed better and felt better about myself when I was with kids who worked as hard as I did and valued their time in school. In Arkansas, I was verbally and physically attacked because I was proud of myself and my education. So, I'm all for ability grouping.
Actually AP is open to all which makes it different from honors.
Does anybody have any statistics concerning "single gender" classes???
I have heard that girls do MUCH better in such an environment.
Being a boy, beginning in the 6th grade, girls were the only reason I went to school voluntarily.
I'd like to see facts and figures about boys learning in an all boys school that wasn't just for academically able students.
Scott, you got anything here????
No. You did just fine. I enjoy reading your posts. Wish we had mroe people like you....maybe....60-70 million.
I think you need a remedial group as long asa it is truly remedial. Putting the really slow learners with the rest of the class benefits nobody.
But then you have the kids that "can" learn but won't. Troublemakers, real distractions. THey need to be put on a more "vocational" track because, face it, they ain't college material. Question is whether they are Huntsville Walls Unit material.
I think we should consider leaving more kids back. Not "behind" just back. Or getting them after school tutors for the courses they have the most trouble in.
Biggest problem NOW, fractured and dysfunctional families giving the kids NO support at home. I guarantee you, 50% of what I learned I didn't learn in the classroom.
I believe that students would be less distracted and would learn more if they wore uniforms and were grouped in a class of the same gender.
I have experienced both. When I went to an all girl's school, I didn't think this way, but now looking back.. I do believe it works best.
The problem, that I see, that plagues most public schools is the classes are wayyy too big, instead of concentrating on teaching the teachers are mostly spending their time disciplining students. So, if they would just build more schools with smaller classes, they would have half the problems solved. They would save on the cost of security and alternative schools and the students would benefit from a smaller student-teacher ratio.
Correction!
Title of the program referred to in my previous post (which went into cyberspace I guess) is: "Growing Up In America."
And, of course it aired on www.KPFT.org.
3:00 p.m. on Monday - September 28th. In the Archives. Available for listening or download.
I downloaded it, and listened at the same time.
Some of Jay Matthew's opinions I agree with, and some I don't.
I do agree with his point on AP classes. Kids should be challenged in school -- to stretch their brains -- not discouraged from doing so.
You may, or may not be aware -- program is weekly.
Every Monday at 3:00.
Scott, this is the perfect conversation for me to have right now. My daughter is in the 3nd grade, and she's in a heterogenous school environment. Most students in the class are of the same ability as my daughter. They're smart kids who don't always learn everything on the first try, but retain information well once learned. There are a handful of children at her grade level that have severe behavior and learning disorders. They are split, one into each classroom, and attend class all day with the other children, with the exception of one hour or so of private tutoring to help keep them up to speed. I'm glad for these children, truly, that they have the opportunity to strive to higher levels than they'd acheive in an isolated environment. On the other hand, the 8 and 9 year old children without learning and behavior disorders are 8 and 9 year old kids - and that means that they can be easily distracted and led. We had to have a flag on my daughter's records to keep her out of class with one certain child who had a developmental disorder because this child attached to my daughter and spent all year crying, talking, and distracting my daughter so much that I had to "homeschool" her after school in order for her to pass. That was 1st grade. My child is now in 3rd grade and still has trouble because she got so far behind in the 1st grade. Now, I'm still open to the possibility that it'll benefit her in the long run, as she'll learn how to deal with distration better. The important thing to keep in mind, I guess, is that we use these situations as teachable moments and prevent them from learning the bad behaviors.
Now, in advanced environments, like high school AP, I wholly believe that homogenous learning is the way to go. AP classes can go very far when you've got a class full of kids that really want to learn. The children of limited ability or motivation so much can attend a class with a slower pace of learning and more time for personal attention.
Sorry if I've rambled.
I think schools and some teachers need to re-visit the vocational school programs. We need to accept that not all students are geared towards advanced degrees nor have the desire to seek higher learning. There is nothing wrong with learning a very useful trade or skill to prepare oneself for life after graduation. I have met several people enrolled in college classes, paying loads of money for a degree they don't want and have no desire to pursue after graduation. Also, I would like to see more focus on the arts, learning music and other languages. This is a huge benefit no matter if a student pursues a higher degree or not. The U.S. is not remaining competitive in these areas.
The question comes down to this: can the faster 80% get the slower 20% going, OR will the 20% slow down the 80%?
No easy answer to this one, however the overall school environment has a direct impact on the result. It's not just limited to the immediate classroom.
Scott,
I no longer have kids in school - only great grandkids. I still have to pay school taxes -- so I feel OK about commenting on this.
I heard a radio program on Pacifica yesterday afternoon -- and it's one they have dedicated to education.
The talk was with a man, whose name (I think) was Jay Matthews -- who writes books, and editorial comment for the Washington Post -- on education stuff.
Mr. Matthews has studied the benefits of AP Classes -- on all students. Seems his studies have shown that kids to take even one AP Class ususally do go on to college, and do better in higher learning ... than those who have not, for whatever reason, been able, or allowed to take advanced placement classes --- or even one class.
The topic of the day was "how valuable are vocational schools -- and who mostly are sent there -- steered to them -- and for what reasons?"
If I heard right -- and I think I did -- this is a program that Pacifica airs each day at about 3:00 p.m.
I plan to listen more often. I found the information extremely interesting -- and valuable.
A transcript may be available at www.Pacifica.org.
I'm not sure about that -- I'll look it up.
Miemaw