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.
Last year I had 45 elementary students (two classes). Out of that number, 14 were pulled for the advanced academics program (GT). That's a fairly large percentage.
What grade? I ask because kids who are worked with at home are often ahead during elementary school but they don't, necessarily, stay ahead. Many of my dds' friends were way ahead of the curve starting kindergarten (I'd guess around half) but few still were by the time they headed to middle school. Sometimes kids are just taught early and not G&T at all but that early teaching makes it necessary to separate the kids to keep them from being bored until their friends catch up.
And a quick google search reveals that the Flynn effect (wasn't familiar with it) isn't ongoing but, likely, is stopping in developed nations. It appears to be linked to better nutrition, better test taking skills and a more stimulating environment but once those things are in place for two generations, the effect would be dimished. So, the Flynn effect likely isn't the issue here. There is no reason to believe that kids today would have, significantly, higher IQ's than their parents. In developing nations, as health increases and availability of education increases, you could see a significant difference between parents and children but once those things are in place, you shouldn't see a continued increase. So this only applies to populations where the parents were lacking nutrition and educational opportunties. So it explains why my kids both have IQ's significantly higher than mine (I suffered from malnutrition as a young child among other things) but does not predict that their children's IQ's will be higher than theirs. In fact, genetics says that their children's IQ will be closer to average than theirs.
Shame on you. How you can call yourself a science teacher when you misrepresent science is beyond me. It is disgusting to pretend that theory is fact and abhorrent to the ideal of science itself.
Fact, the flynn has been ongoing for a century, not two generations.
Fact, the nutrition hypothesis is just that a hypothesis, AND it does not negate the fact that children are showing gain in IQ of 3 points per decade ACROSS ALL DEMOGRAPHICS. If nutrition ALONE could explain the Flynn effect, it would be simple to regress it to specific malnourished populations. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Additionally, nutrition hypothesis is just one of many possible including more stimulating environment, epigenetics causes, etc. Pretending we KNOW why Flynn is occurring is a LIE.
As per the bold, plain old BS. Genetics says no such thing. Additionally FLYNN IS A FACT. Average IQ is going up, even in this country. Based on this simple, statistically supported FACT, if your children have kids at the age of 20, odds put their non-normalized IQ at 6 points higher than their parents. If they wait until 30, its going to be pushing 10. I am not saying what the causative factor is but pretending it is not happening is a lie.
Quote:
Also, average IQ isn't increasing.
Please don't speak about what you know nothing about. The ONLY reason Average IQ isn't increasing is because it is normalized based on each set of test takers. Flynn effect refers to comparing raw scores of current test takers to prior test takers and then it does go up. Again, simple observable fact. Lying about it is wrong.
Quote:
While it may be true that when parents provide a better environment for their children than they had that thier IQ's are higher than that of the parents, there is a correlation between IQ and birth rates with birth rates being higher among lower IQ parents and not all parents provide a better environement for their kids than they had. The Flynn effect is pretty much a one time boost that occurs when nutrition and education increase for the children. There is no reason to believe it would continue over time.
Except that it is, even in this country, and has continued to increase over 100 years. So it is ongoing in this country as shown by primary research. Pretending it isnt is a LIE.
What grade? I ask because kids who are worked with at home are often ahead during elementary school but they don't, necessarily, stay ahead. Many of my dds' friends were way ahead of the curve starting kindergarten (I'd guess around half) but few still were by the time they headed to middle school. Sometimes kids are just taught early and not G&T at all but that early teaching makes it necessary to separate the kids to keep them from being bored until their friends catch up.
Middle elementary. The number was too high. There were kids who were being pulled who probably would have been better served staying in the classroom.
Fair is fair, and in this case the school should have allowed him to makeup the lab. He wasn't joyriding somewhere, he was at an adoption hearing for his little sister.
The problem here is that you're making the assumption that a student will want to be rewarded with higher requirements for getting the work early. At the high school level, they consider that punishment. Kids who get the material fast don't want more work because they got it faster. When allowed to self pace, most will pace slower because they think they will be required to learn less. In elementary school, kids tend to do what they're told to do by the teacher. They haven't figured out that if they drag their feet, they're required to do less yet.
I know a high school teacher whose school tried mastery level learning using computer programs so that the class could be tailored to each student. What happened is very little progress. They ended up assigning a grade based on a composite of the percent of the material finished and the percent mastery just to light a fire under the students and that didn't work well. Instead of spending her time helping the kids who needed help, she spent her time policing internet usage during class.
Mastery learning works for motivated learners. It doesn't work for unmotivated learners. At the high school level, we have a lot of those.
I have a couple of questions on how you "grade". What levels do you use? What is considered mastery? Do you differentiate between students who have barely mastered something and those who have mastered it well? How would you suggest I apply this in chemistry with 143 core content expectations? From what I've seen, mastery models usually mean kids have met some minimum requirement not that they've actually mastered the material. When discussed WRT high school, I've seen 80% thrown around as the definition of mastery. That's, currently, a B-. What's the incentive to learn more once mastery has been achieved?
This will be new for us this year (although other schools have piloted it), so I'll answer the best I can.
Kids who already understand the material don't get "more work". They get different work. Nobody is required to do less or more.
You're right. It won't work for those who are not motivated or don't want to excel. My DW and I both teach for this district. We have talked about this. We'll have kids who won't be motivated, but this district will expect them to excel and we will be held accountable.
The "grades" are numerical, 1-4. Mastery is consistent demonstration of complete mastery. No %. I think I posted this link earlier in this thread Elementary Progress Report. There is a narrated Powerpoint. All of the standards (or your content expectations) fit under a group of broad categories on the progress report. So, all of the math standards will be grouped under 6 or 7 categories. Each category will receive a number. That the tricky part. 4=Consistently 3=Usually 2=Sometimes 1=Seldom demonstrates
This will be new for us this year (although other schools have piloted it), so I'll answer the best I can.
Kids who already understand the material don't get "more work". They get different work. Nobody is required to do less or more.
You're right. It won't work for those who are not motivated or don't want to excel. My DW and I both teach for this district. We have talked about this. We'll have kids who won't be motivated, but this district will expect them to excel and we will be held accountable.
The "grades" are numerical, 1-4. Mastery is consistent demonstration of complete mastery. No %. I think I posted this link earlier in this thread Elementary Progress Report. There is a narrated Powerpoint. All of the standards (or your content expectations) fit under a group of broad categories on the progress report. So, all of the math standards will be grouped under 6 or 7 categories. Each category will receive a number. That the tricky part. 4=Consistently 3=Usually 2=Sometimes 1=Seldom demonstrates
What does it take to pass? A 4, 3 or a 2?
I think you can do this at the elementary level because kids will, usually, do what the teacher wants. By high school, too many of them simply want to do the minimum to get by. I don't see getting my barely passing group up to mastery if you want to define mastery as complete mastery. That would be today's A student. Also I have 150+ students. How am I supposed to give them all different work to do? Just keeping track of who gets what work would be a nightmare. I can't imagine doing it for 30 students.
The only way I see this working is with computerized learning at the high school level and then we'll have the issue of the unmotivated student to deal with. Personally, I like "When you're done you can leave" but our society makes schools and teachers parents in the absence of parents so we can't do that. We have to keep them in class even if they got it in the first 10 minutes. I like the flip side too "You keep coming until you get it". I like the idea of Saturday school for kids who are behind in achieving mastery. However, if you define mastery as demonstration of complete mastery, there will always be a subset of kids who cannot achieve it. What are we to do with them?
Elementary school lends itself more easily to this model because the material is so basic. It's also more critical that they know it before they go on because it is basic. I would assume the student is held back until they've achieved mastery. That's one thing a mastery model must have.
Middle elementary. The number was too high. There were kids who were being pulled who probably would have been better served staying in the classroom.
That is questionable. It's been a while, but I've read research that suggests that including the group just below G&T in G&T classes benefits them. It also benefits the kids left in the classroom because the teacher can focus more on their level. It does not, however, make them G&T. It just asks them to stretch a bit. I haven't seen any research that suggests there is a long term benefit. Heck, I haven't seen research that says there's a long term benefit to G&T pull outs for kids who really are G&T. It seems that the G&T kids mostely disappear when they become adults. I don't know whether others just catch up to them or what but the number of gifted adults I've met pales by comparison to the number of gifted kids I've met.
The real question is do these programs help teachers better manage the classroom. There is reason to believe they do.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 08-13-2012 at 01:37 PM..
Shame on you. How you can call yourself a science teacher when you misrepresent science is beyond me. It is disgusting to pretend that theory is fact and abhorrent to the ideal of science itself.
Fact, the flynn has been ongoing for a century, not two generations.
Fact, the nutrition hypothesis is just that a hypothesis, AND it does not negate the fact that children are showing gain in IQ of 3 points per decade ACROSS ALL DEMOGRAPHICS. If nutrition ALONE could explain the Flynn effect, it would be simple to regress it to specific malnourished populations. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Additionally, nutrition hypothesis is just one of many possible including more stimulating environment, epigenetics causes, etc. Pretending we KNOW why Flynn is occurring is a LIE.
As per the bold, plain old BS. Genetics says no such thing. Additionally FLYNN IS A FACT. Average IQ is going up, even in this country. Based on this simple, statistically supported FACT, if your children have kids at the age of 20, odds put their non-normalized IQ at 6 points higher than their parents. If they wait until 30, its going to be pushing 10. I am not saying what the causative factor is but pretending it is not happening is a lie.
Please don't speak about what you know nothing about. The ONLY reason Average IQ isn't increasing is because it is normalized based on each set of test takers. Flynn effect refers to comparing raw scores of current test takers to prior test takers and then it does go up. Again, simple observable fact. Lying about it is wrong.
Except that it is, even in this country, and has continued to increase over 100 years. So it is ongoing in this country as shown by primary research. Pretending it isnt is a LIE.
It took all of 5 minutes searching the web to debunk that the average IQ is increasing (it is, apparently, decreaseing after an increase due to the Flynn effect). In part, the decrease is due to reasons I noted. For one, the higher the mother's IQ, the fewer children she tends to have. IQ is, somewhat, genetic.
I looked up the Flynn effect. It is thought to be due to increased nutrition, educational enrichment and the teaching of test taking skills (so it's questionable how much of the past increase actually is an increase). These types of increases would be seen once. Once good nutrition and educational enrichment were in place, one would not, logically, expect to see a jump in the next generation. You need to do a little research in the causes of the Flynn effect. It's not a continual increase generation over generation. It's an increase with cause that ocucrs when changes are made between generations. It continues because there are still segments of the population where these changes have not yet been made!! (Remember we're talking about averages here).
My kids had better nutrition than I did and a more enriched environment than I did so it makes sense they'd score higher than I did on IQ tests, however, their kids will likely have similar nutrition and similar enrichment so it makes sense their kids would not see an increase. You need to look at the causes of the Flynn effect. Unless you have changes generation over generation, you're not likely to see increases in IQ generation over generation.
Where one would expect to see the Flynn effect would be in children whose environements are, significantly, better than their parents environments were. That is still happening in segments of the population but it has already happened to other segments of the population and they are leveling off and it is not happening in other segments of the population. Unfortunately, here is where you tend to see most of the births to young mothers who lack the resources to provide well for their children.
Your mistake is thinking the increase just continues generation after generation. It doesn't. It's a causal increase. Once the cause is in place, there is a leveling.
Looks like IQ in the US didn't move at all from 1998 - 2010. Now, that is NOT to say that the Flynn effect was not impacting segments of the population. I am arguing that the Flynn effect has not created a bunch of genius kids because it hasn't. It's a slight increase in IQ from one generation to the next, believed to be due to factors like increased nutrition, increased educational enrichment and increased test taking skills. It's not something that just keeps on going. As a matter of fact, all things held equal, from a genetic point of view, we can expect our children to be closer to average IQ than we are.
I linked to the articles on the decreasing world IQ because the united states has a considerable immigrant population that would be expected to have a lowering effect on the average IQ...BUT...their children would see the impact of the Flynn effect as their environement could be more enriched than their parent's environments were.
The point, however, is that the Flynn effect is NOT responsible for the fact that, something rediculous like, 94% of mothers of 4 year olds consider their child gifted. That one can be chalked up to mothers wearing rose colored glasses when it comes to their kids.
The genetic component to IQ has been discussed in many pieces of research. However, it doesn't work like eye color or height. If it did, Einstein would have had, at least one genius child. With IQ, there is a tendency for our kids to be more average than we are. Which is more reason to think that there is no generation over generation increase in IQ that just keeps on going like the everready bunny.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 08-13-2012 at 01:44 PM..
I think you can do this at the elementary level because kids will, usually, do what the teacher wants. By high school, too many of them simply want to do the minimum to get by. I don't see getting my barely passing group up to mastery if you want to define mastery as complete mastery. That would be today's A student. Also I have 150+ students. How am I supposed to give them all different work to do? Just keeping track of who gets what work would be a nightmare. I can't imagine doing it for 30 students.
Elementary school lends itself more easily to this model because the material is so basic. It's also more critical that they know it before they go on because it is basic. I would assume the student is held back until they've achieved mastery. That's one thing a mastery model must have.
A 4 or a 3.
It's difficult to plan and keep track of, yet this is what the district wants. They tell us that this will be moving its way up to the middle and high schools. You don't have all 150 at one time. Just like I don't have all 56 students at one time. It is a nightmare keeping track of who gets what work. The past couple years (not under the upcoming reporting system), we had scheduled enrichment and remediation blocks during the school day. The amount of time it took to just plan and record just those blocks was cumbersome.
It's difficult to plan and keep track of, yet this is what the district wants. They tell us that this will be moving its way up to the middle and high schools. You don't have all 150 at one time. Just like I don't have all 56 students at one time. It is a nightmare keeping track of who gets what work. The past couple years (not under the upcoming reporting system), we had scheduled enrichment and remediation blocks during the school day. The amount of time it took to just plan and record just those blocks was cumbersome.
The material is age appropriate.
I do have all 150 every day. This would require individualized lessons for all 150 of my students. THAT would be an issue unless we're sitting them in front of a computer that will pace the way they want to pace. The problem with this is kids need to be self motivated.
I do not know how I could track mastery of 143 CCE's for 150 students. There would have to be some kind of automatic accounting. I'd need a computer program for generating and evaluating tests (which means multiple choice testing) which carried over any material a particular student had not yet mastered. I really can't think of how I would do this otherwise.
Do keep us posted on how this is working and any tricks you find to making it work. I can't envision it working for us. I have too many students and too many standards. You're correct I don't see my students all at once, but I do see them every day and when I see them, I see them in 50 minute blocks. I have less than 2 minutes per student by the time you let me take attendance. I think it is going to be very difficult to individualize education and give feedback on 143 CCE's for all of these students without much of the process being automated.
In a true mastery model, the material isn't age appropriate. It's level appropriate. You should end up with kids of different ages in each level. Kids who would have normally gotten A's or B's, will reach mastery the first time through. Those who would have gotten C's or D's will need multiple teaching of the material. Those who would have failed, will need major remeidation (possibly those in the D range too). I see the kids separarting before the first unit is taught. I would expect more kids to be held back in a mastery model as we are passing kids who are not achieving mastery now. If you use a 3 or 4 as mastery, MAYBE half of the kids I passed last year would have passed. The others would still be in my class this year trying again.
I've been kind of moving this direction in that I give my students remediation packets that are required of any student who does not score a C on a test but I can't get them to do them. Half of them just don't bother so it becomes another failing grade. I was allowing retakes on tests but I have found that more I offered them (this didn't happen the first time), the less they study for the original test. I was heartsick with the last test I gave last year. Before they even saw it, I had over a dozen kids ask/state "There's going to be a retake on this, right??". All the retakes did, in most cases, was tank the first grade and I find most kids don't do better on the retake because they don't study for the retake.
I'm thinking that this year I'll give my students one retake pass to use when they think they really need it. Retake grades will be capped at 80% as they are now.
If we want mastery learning, we need to bring back tracking.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 08-13-2012 at 04:49 PM..
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.
In part, the decrease is due to reasons I noted. For one, the higher the mother's IQ, the fewer children she tends to have. IQ is, somewhat, genetic. 
