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.
From what I've seen with the kids in her program (about 60 kids), ahead in 2nd grade does not equate with being ahead in 8th grade. It seems that many of these kids were just fast out of the gate but then slow down and the other horses catch up.
So? Why should you then deny any of them an appropriate education? Teach them where they are each year, in classes where the pace is suited to the students. They do assessments all the time in school, it shouldn't be hard to put kids in the right class each year.
So? Why should you then deny any of them an appropriate education? Teach them where they are each year, in classes where the pace is suited to the students. They do assessments all the time in school, it shouldn't be hard to put kids in the right class each year.
Because it's not necessary and it doesn't yeild results if they just end up where the other kids are by middle school. The playing field tends to level for kids who were just taught early by the end of elementary school. We'd just be wasting our efforts since they are not going to stay ahead.
Have you not heard of NCLB??? Tracking is a BAD, BAD word. We're not allowed to hold kids back or group them by ability and why would we if the playing field is just going to level anyway. That's an awful lot of effort to go through for no results.
I'm, seriously, questioning what was appropriate for the kids in dd's group. I'm questioning what good any of it did. If they just end up where the other kids are, it's not worth the effort.
Am I allowed to say NCLB is a load of horse manure? And it's time to bring back tracking? Speaking from my own experience, the playing field did not level. The smart kids continued to be the smart kids. Most of my old friends from the math team now either hold advanced science degrees or are physicians.
Re my kids, I am not desperate; I feel like I am put in the position to defend my observations of them. Wherever they end up fitting on the gifted spectrum doesn't really impact how I treat them now. The possibility that their results are accurate does make me worry about making the best possible choice for their schooling. For now, I just want them to be happy, healthy, curious three year olds.
Because it's not necessary and it doesn't yeild results if they just end up where the other kids are by middle school. The playing field tends to level for kids who were just taught early by the end of elementary school. We'd just be wasting our efforts since they are not going to stay ahead.
Have you not heard of NCLB??? Tracking is a BAD, BAD word. We're not allowed to hold kids back or group them by ability and why would we if the playing field is just going to level anyway. That's an awful lot of effort to go through for no results.
I'm, seriously, questioning what was appropriate for the kids in dd's group. I'm questioning what good any of it did. If they just end up where the other kids are, it's not worth the effort.
Why have them at school at all then? Why not test for IQ, and for achievement, and if you're less than profoundly gifted you get called to start school when everyone else reaches the level you're at. It would be much much cheaper, think how many teachers you could fire!
In fact, why not farm the bright kids out for a few years, too. If you wait until they're fifteen to teach them to read it only takes a few months to learn it all anyway.
You are comparing a class that is usually taught in one hour to one that is usually taught in two, where the one hour course is a pre-requisite for the two hour course and you think the material is the same and it could be taught to the bottom of the class in one hour with differentiation???
Of course I don't! I'm not the one who thinks they can differentiate everything. Matter of fact , I'm the one who thinks it doesn't really work much at all for the high end kids. I was responding to your posts. I was noting that what you said gave some credence to her point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Here's what I have done so far:
I teach chemistry. I differentiate every time we do a lab with the questions I ask of each group. I know who needs their hands held and I know who to tell to figure it out. I know who to ask the higher level questions of and who to lead through the lab step by step (except someone needs to tell my principal that because he says I give too many orders...well, some kids NEED orders.).
I've also found, in chemistry, that if I pace fast, the majority of my students will march to keep up. It's when I back off that they get lazy. If they feel they can't miss a step, they'll stay in step. I will have to pull my floundering students aside and work with them after school to catch them up but I have to do that anyway.
I'm working on question sets to go with the labs that the students can discuss in groups. I was introduced to the jigsaw earlier this year and I like it. I use it this way: I assign students, randomly, to groups and give them a question to answer. Then I regroup and each person in the new group gives the answer the old group came up with and they then are tasked with agreeing on the best answer or writing a new one. It's time consuming but I find it works for all levels as long as the students are putting in some effort.
In math, I try to leave, at least 30 minutes of work time in class so I can go around and help students individually on their level. I am trying to use the guide on the side model here. Next year, I'm going to flip the class to appease those who think I need to do more showing the students how to do things as opposed to assisting them in finding their way (they won't watch the videos but I can stop the whining). I've also found that grouping kids so that the higher performers help their peers helps them reinforce what they know.
Lecture is an issue. There's only so much I can do here. My lower performing students do set the pace there but I try to include more advanced topics in my discussion even though I don't test them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
Could you teach AP Chemistry and Basic Chemistry in the same classroom simply by differentiating instruction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
No. They're different classes with different content. It is not differentiation to teach solution by induction (what my dd is learning in pre calc right now) and properties of similar polygons (what I'm teaching in geometry right now) in the same lesson. Obviously, you do not know what differentiation is. It is NOT teaching multiple, disperate, subjects in the same class.
Chem and AP chem also do not compare. AP chem is, usually, taught as a two hour block because of the sheer amount of content and the lenght of the 24 required labs. I could not differentiate a class with both chem and AP chem because the average student couldn't get through the labs. That's why the average student doesn't take AP chem.
You might want to do some research on what differentiation is and is not. It is not a way to teach multiple subjects. It's practices that help you teach the SAME subject to kids of varying ability.
Why have them at school at all then? Why not test for IQ, and for achievement, and if you're less than profoundly gifted you get called to start school when everyone else reaches the level you're at. It would be much much cheaper, think how many teachers you could fire!
In fact, why not farm the bright kids out for a few years, too. If you wait until they're fifteen to teach them to read it only takes a few months to learn it all anyway.
Because they still need to learn. They just don't need a special track because giving them one does not produce special results.
Go ahead, try that. See how well it works. (this is not all or nothing)
I have no idea why you're throwing everything out because what you want happens to not work. Bright kids still need to learn. They still need to be taught. There's just no value in giving them special classes. They're still bright kids whether they have them or not and their presence in the classroom actually helps the middle.
As a parent of a "gifted" child, in retrospect, I see no value in her G&T classes. If the end result is the same, why bother? Those classes really allowed her to jump ahead but now her peers are catching up and she's a social outcast. Tell me, exactly, what you think we accomlished. How is it she's better off for this? I don't see it.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 04-28-2013 at 03:55 AM..
Of course I don't! I'm not the one who thinks they can differentiate everything. Matter of fact , I'm the one who thinks it doesn't really work much at all for the high end kids. I was responding to your posts. I was noting that what you said gave some credence to her point.
Good question.
The labs that are required prevent any possibility of AP chemistry and chemistry being taught in the same class. Why don't you look at them and get back to me. I can't differentiate advanced level labs for below average learners. That's not what differentiation is intended for. Differentiation doesn't mean that every student can take every class. When it comes to AP classes, there is self selection process because there needs to be as the material becomes adavnced.
I stand by my statements that IF you get the struggling students out of classes like chemistry, I can differentiate the rest. The need is to pull the bottom out not the top. It is the student who has no hope of keeping up who slows the class down. You either need to find a way to speed up that child or you need to take that child and put them in an appropriate learning environment (we can't as we must allow all students to be taught in the least restrictive environment so this whole argument is really moot). It is getting that child out of the classroom what will allow differentiation to work AND allow for more content to be taught. The push, right now, in education is to teach less but teach deeper and that I can differentiate. However, that DOES NOT describe an AP class where teaching less in order to teach deeper won't work.
Differentiation works for the top of the class. It doesn't work if you have too much range between the top and the bottom and that tends to be the case in required courses like chemistry and algebra II. We teach two levels of chemistry and algebra II because we recognize that the bottom can't handle the classes. My comlaint is they leave too many in the regular class. They take out the bottom 30% but need to take a few more. Every year, it's a half dozen students to determine the pace of my classes out of necessity. Since I can't change who is in the class, I enrich for the top while scaffolding the bottom on the topics I do teach. That, however, does not mean I think we need homogeneous classrooms (BTW, homogeneous classrooms would make my job MUCH easier). I just think we need to recognize that it's the struggling learner at the bottom who sets the pace and address that issue. Fix that and you fix the pace of the class issue.
I would argue that if you track the bottom well, the middle/top will have an appropriate education. Unfortunately, even with a lower level chem class, too many parents think THEIR child belongs in regular chem when they don't. That leaves me with 2-3 students per class who are setting the pace for the class because they cannot keep up. The problem isn't that the top 3 need to be taken out of the class, it's that the bottome 3 need to be taken out of the class. If you allowed kids to self select and then took the bottom 10% of the group that chooses the upper level chemistry class, you'd fix this.
Parents are a problem here. In math, we send a letter home recommending the math track for a student. Time and time again, parents over ride the recommendation of the math department. I'll have a student who got C's in algebra and who failed the placement test and the parents will have excuses for the low grade and the failure and insist the student go onto the high track. These are the kids who slow everyone else down. Because they lack the prerequisite knowledge to handle the class they are going into, differentiation won't work here. It will work if they are correctly placed. My argument is you don't need special classes for the top. You need them for the bottom, unfortunately, least restrictive environment prevents that from happening.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 04-28-2013 at 04:48 AM..
Experinced AP teachers I know, regardless of content area, complain that when you allow average kids in AP classes it destroys the pace and the depth. This trend, according to them, has resulted in more students taking the classes and tests but, not only aren't a larger number of students passing the exams, there are less scores of 5's. One English teacher told me she convinced the counselor a one year to only put the top teir in one of her three AP classes and she had more 5's that year than she had in the preceding 4 years combined. She said in that class, for once, it wasn't a struggle to get all the material in.
Experinced AP teachers I know, regardless of content area, complain that when you allow average kids in AP classes it destroys the pace and the depth. This trend, according to them, has resulted in more students taking the classes and tests but, not only aren't a larger number of students passing the exams, there are less scores of 5's. One English teacher told me she convinced the counselor a one year to only put the top teir in one of her three AP classes and she had more 5's that year than she had in the preceding 4 years combined. She said in that class, for once, it wasn't a struggle to get all the material in.
Where is your evidence that the top need a special class? All I see here is support for the idea I've been saying all along that you need to not let the bottom kids take classes they are not ready for. I see no evidence that the top ever needed that AP class in the first place.
I do support the idea of not letting kids take classes they are not ready for. However, that doesn't mean I think the top needs special classes. I don't think they do. I think if you stop letting kids take classes they are not ready for, the classes can be differentiated for the remaining students. You are not reading my posts.
Where is your evidence that the top need a special class?
This part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
One English teacher told me she convinced the counselor one year to only put the top teir in one of her three AP classes and she had more 5's that year than she had in the preceding 4 years combined. She said in that class, for once, it wasn't a struggle to get all the material in.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-28-2013 at 07:46 AM..
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.
Do you even read your own posts???
(this is not all or nothing)
