A couple of items came to my attention today during my usual perusal of the Washington Post Education section. One is a piece by Jay Mathews (again) which, to be fair, decries the not-well-thought-out implementation of required honors courses in Anne Arundel County, but ultimately sticks with his previous claim that all students should take honors classes. Unfortunately, I can't find a link to his original post from several months ago, but I'll work on that and hopefully add it to this page soon.
Of course, since you know how I feel about everything Jay Mathews writes (or, at least, it seems like everything), it left me twitching and frantically typing in the comments section. It turns out I just can't stop myself.
The other is on Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet blog. In this post, the author challenges the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's conclusion that highly-advanced and gifted students are being shortchanged by our current basic-standards-based system. I think you know which side I support on THAT issue...
I'll try to return and post some analytical-type comments about each one here but, honestly, we have a pile of family coming to our house Sunday, so I might not get to it. But I'll try.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
PSAT this Saturday!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
room for debate
The New York Times Room for Debate on October 3rd focused on the needs and academic gains of high-ability learners and the concept of 'differentiation' in the regular, mainstream classroom. Studies show that although heterogeneous classrooms appear to support achievement for average and struggling students, high-ability students show relatively little achievement growth in this scenario. In other words, everyone else grows while the top-ability groups stagnate.
The question then becomes, "What do we do about it?" Carol Ann Tomlinson of the University of Virginia touts differentiation of instruction as an appropriate remedy, and I agree to a point. As she states, differentiation is a wonderful tool when used appropriately and skillfully; unfortunately, we often throw 35 students spanning 6 or 7 grade levels of ability and/or achievement into one room, and then expect the teacher to essentially individualize instruction. This might be possible in certain subjects or in non-traditional settings which do not emphasize high-stakes tests (Montessori is an obvious example), but you can't pound the round peg of differentiation into the square hole of mainstream, traditional classrooms without two things: adequate professional development and support for teachers and massive reevaluation of the goals of public schooling. So far, no dice.
If our goal is to encourage and equip students to pass multiple-choice tests, drill-and-kill is the way to go, regardless of class make-up. Though certainly not foolproof, it seems to be the best way to get students to fill in the right answers and, since high-ability students tend to pass these tests, it's okay to essentially ignore them; after all, they're a safe source of high scores. We tend to aim instruction at the 'fence-sitters' in this scenario: students who are low-average achievers and right on the edge of passing. There's not much of a push for average students to do more, and certainly not for high-ability students to excel; in fact, sometimes we even hear of high-ability students being denigrated by the teacher for 'reading ahead' or behaving as if they're 'smarter than everyone else'.
If our goal, however, is to encourage and equip students to think creatively, find and solve problems, construct understanding and knowledge, and effectively self-assess and self-evaluate, we have to do better. Differentiation in heterogeneous classrooms is a laudable goal, can be beneficial, and should be done as much as possible, but there is also value in allowing high-ability students to spend a portion of their time with their intellectual peers. Not only does it discourage them from doing "just enough to get by", but it also has benefits for average and struggling students.
Regarding Room for Debate, I wish there had been an actual teacher on the panel. Just one. Everyone who submitted a piece is either a researcher or associated with an advocacy or policy group (which tend to be funded by private interests with agendas of their own), with the exception of one school principal. Once again, those whose experience and opinions might better inform debate (TEACHERS!) are left out. Once again, we've missed an opportunity to elevate the discourse and given disproportionate voice to special interests, some of which are for-profit. I'm disappointed, to say the least.
The question then becomes, "What do we do about it?" Carol Ann Tomlinson of the University of Virginia touts differentiation of instruction as an appropriate remedy, and I agree to a point. As she states, differentiation is a wonderful tool when used appropriately and skillfully; unfortunately, we often throw 35 students spanning 6 or 7 grade levels of ability and/or achievement into one room, and then expect the teacher to essentially individualize instruction. This might be possible in certain subjects or in non-traditional settings which do not emphasize high-stakes tests (Montessori is an obvious example), but you can't pound the round peg of differentiation into the square hole of mainstream, traditional classrooms without two things: adequate professional development and support for teachers and massive reevaluation of the goals of public schooling. So far, no dice.
If our goal is to encourage and equip students to pass multiple-choice tests, drill-and-kill is the way to go, regardless of class make-up. Though certainly not foolproof, it seems to be the best way to get students to fill in the right answers and, since high-ability students tend to pass these tests, it's okay to essentially ignore them; after all, they're a safe source of high scores. We tend to aim instruction at the 'fence-sitters' in this scenario: students who are low-average achievers and right on the edge of passing. There's not much of a push for average students to do more, and certainly not for high-ability students to excel; in fact, sometimes we even hear of high-ability students being denigrated by the teacher for 'reading ahead' or behaving as if they're 'smarter than everyone else'.
If our goal, however, is to encourage and equip students to think creatively, find and solve problems, construct understanding and knowledge, and effectively self-assess and self-evaluate, we have to do better. Differentiation in heterogeneous classrooms is a laudable goal, can be beneficial, and should be done as much as possible, but there is also value in allowing high-ability students to spend a portion of their time with their intellectual peers. Not only does it discourage them from doing "just enough to get by", but it also has benefits for average and struggling students.
Regarding Room for Debate, I wish there had been an actual teacher on the panel. Just one. Everyone who submitted a piece is either a researcher or associated with an advocacy or policy group (which tend to be funded by private interests with agendas of their own), with the exception of one school principal. Once again, those whose experience and opinions might better inform debate (TEACHERS!) are left out. Once again, we've missed an opportunity to elevate the discourse and given disproportionate voice to special interests, some of which are for-profit. I'm disappointed, to say the least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
