Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or....what does one do with a bimodal distribution???
I'm starting to think that the only way we can raise the bar on education is to go back to a tracked system.
I teach chemistry on two levels: One college bound and one non college bound. I find I have issues in both classes due to kids just not fitting with the program. In my lower class, my upper kids are BORED and disruptive because they are bored but I can't move on because the bottom 2/3 of the class needs a slower pace. In my upper class, I have the opposite problem. The upper 2/3 are ready to move on but the bottom 1/3 is floundering. I'm thinking the only solution is to take the top 1/3 from my lower class and the bottom 1/3 from my upper class and make a new class that is in the middle.
I completely agree. This is the easiest, simplest way to improve the educational system in the US. All students benefit from being in classes with students with similar abilities. Obviously, there are issues with the implementation. Smaller schools have a more difficult time placing students with similar abilities.
I think tracking should start in first grade. The advantage to the slower classes is you can assign less students to a class and increase the resources. I have seen classrooms with co-teachers, learning support teachers and aides. Place the resources where they are needed.
As far as the people who think, "kids on the lower end of the spectrum miss out on having peers who motivate them to do better," I can tell you it rarely happens. What often happens is the slower students get discouraged and labels themselves as "dumb." Go to any high school in this country, including the top schools, and you will find students who have mentally dropped out of school.
The tracking system should be as transparent as possible in the lower grades and there should be complete flexibility to move up or down. Obviously in HS, a student won't move from remedial math to calc II from one year to the next.
Many kids are suffering today because they are being forced to study concepts they don't need and will never use. On the other hand, many students are getting to HS without basic skills in math such as multiplication, division, fractions and decimals. These students did not have the repetition with these concepts in schools because they were being taugh geometry and pre-algebra starting in 3rd grade.
Another skill that suffers is reading. Kids don't develop reading skills at the same level. Many students are being forced to read (which means they don't bother) books that are beyond their reading level. These students get to HS and are incapable of reading a textbook, and they don't even try. Many kids, for example, are not ready for Shakespeare in 8th or 9th grade, yet schools teach it anyway.
Or....what does one do with a bimodal distribution???
I'm starting to think that the only way we can raise the bar on education is to go back to a tracked system.
I teach chemistry on two levels: One college bound and one non college bound. I find I have issues in both classes due to kids just not fitting with the program. In my lower class, my upper kids are BORED and disruptive because they are bored but I can't move on because the bottom 2/3 of the class needs a slower pace. In my upper class, I have the opposite problem. The upper 2/3 are ready to move on but the bottom 1/3 is floundering. I'm thinking the only solution is to take the top 1/3 from my lower class and the bottom 1/3 from my upper class and make a new class that is in the middle.
Sounds good except for one question. Why does a non-college-bound student require chemistry?
Sounds good except for one question. Why does a non-college-bound student require chemistry?
What science would you recommend for non-college bound students? What if schools require all students to take biology, physics and chemistry, but have four or five different tracks or levels that would differ on degree of difficulty?
Sounds good except for one question. Why does a non-college-bound student require chemistry?
You'll have to ask the Michigan board of education that question. I'm trying to figure it out myself.
I'm findind teaching chemistry to students who don't want to take it and who are mad they are being made to take it to be quite challenging. While there are things I can do to draw their interest, getting them to the level the state wants is a challenge. I'm pushing the rope but they're not pulling.
What science would you recommend for non-college bound students? What if schools require all students to take biology, physics and chemistry, but have four or five different tracks or levels that would differ on degree of difficulty?
Personally, I'd go with a practical chemistry course. Study things like solutions (water pollution/purification/toxicity), acid/base reactions (acid rain/buffered lakes), the properties of elements (toxicity/health/difficulty of disposal), etc, etc, etc....things that tie to real life for the average person. I would also teach lab skills because those can lead to jobs. Even though it wouldn't take an entire year to teach such a course, I'd make it a year so you can teach it hands on.
When I taught at the charter school, we used the Chemcom book and one of the first labs is a big water purification lab where the students are given a contaminated water sample and take several class periods to purify their samples. Afterwards the groups compare how much water they recovered. I love this lab because it makes them think about what it takes to deliver clean water to the tap and why you shouldn't dump certain things down the drain. It's well worth taking nearly two weeks to teach the skills needed to do the lab, doing the lab and the post lab discussion IMO. (And the kids loved it. It's practical chemistry.)
Or....what does one do with a bimodal distribution???
I'm starting to think that the only way we can raise the bar on education is to go back to a tracked system.
I teach chemistry on two levels: One college bound and one non college bound. I find I have issues in both classes due to kids just not fitting with the program. In my lower class, my upper kids are BORED and disruptive because they are bored but I can't move on because the bottom 2/3 of the class needs a slower pace. In my upper class, I have the opposite problem. The upper 2/3 are ready to move on but the bottom 1/3 is floundering. I'm thinking the only solution is to take the top 1/3 from my lower class and the bottom 1/3 from my upper class and make a new class that is in the middle.
my school has been dealing with this issue for the last 2 or 3 years with our principal essentially asking us to only recommend kids for honors level courses or AP / IB coursework that can truly do the work and not based on a kid simply being a good student.
case in point, i've had and presently have kids in some of my lower level world history courses that are VERY intelligent and well read yet their grades are sub par. why? my educated guess has always been they simply get bored in their lower level classes and perform according to the other kids in there when it comes to actual work.
some kids in my experience also don't want to stand out academically. i've had seniors tell me they chose the "college prep" track (our lowest track) so that they wouldn't have to do anything, could maintain a high GPA and stand a better chance at getting into college and getting some money. It however does me relatively no good to berate them for having taken that horrible advice after their 8th grade year from whoever provided it to them b/c well they're at the end anyways by now. kids fail to realize that rigorous course selection with B and C grades will do more for you than A grades in the lowest level.
kids who i have in my CP courses who I feel are not being challenged in those environments I always recommend them for Honors level courses. conversely if i have a kid in my honors course who doesn't belong in there I immediately will when the time comes recommend they bump down a level. i had a very sweet hard working girl this past semester in honors world history who struggled to keep up and was VERY "ditzy". her history teacher from the previous year recommended her for honors simply because she was a "nice girl" and fit the honors stereotype which at my school usually means - white, suburban and well behaved.
It's impossible to raise the bar because doing anything too hard will make a student feel bad and that wouldn't go along with the "make everyone feel happy, even the lazy kids"
You'll have to ask the Michigan board of education that question. I'm trying to figure it out myself.
I'm findind teaching chemistry to students who don't want to take it and who are mad they are being made to take it to be quite challenging. While there are things I can do to draw their interest, getting them to the level the state wants is a challenge. I'm pushing the rope but they're not pulling.
does Michigan actually require chem? I find that odd that they would require a specific science course to graduate with. In ohio where I grew up we had to have 2 science credits to graduate (which generally meant Bio and what was called back then general science). now this was back in the mid 90s and as a current educator i realize that A LOT has changed over the years since then.
I teach in SC. the below exert is taken directly from our course guide when it comes to what kids can or need to take to graduate science wise in SC. basically as long as you get to chem you're ok sci wise. i remember in high school chem was always the make or break point. in other words you'd have kids take chem or kids take what was called then as "earth science". if you took earth science it meant you were going to be doing 36 weeks worth worksheets out of the textbook. then there those of us who took chem as 10th graders but decided to balk at taking AP chem and instead took Anatomy. The Anatomy classes were funny b/c within the first week the class would start off at like 20 kids and balloon to 30+ once kids started dropping like flies from AP chem the first week.
THREE UNITS OF LABORATORY SCIENCE: Two units must be taken in two different fields of the physical or life sciences and selected from among biology, chemistry, or physics. The third unit may be from the same field as one of the first two units (biology, chemistry, or physics) or from any laboratory science for which biology and/or chemistry is a prerequisite. Courses in earth science, general physical science, or introductory or general environmental science for which biology and/or chemistry is not a prerequisite will not meet this requirement. It is strongly recommended that students take physical science (taught as a laboratory science) as a prerequisite to the three required units of laboratory science outlined in this section. It is also strongly recommended that students desiring to pursue careers in science, mathematics, engineering or technology take one course in all three fields.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
