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.
I don't know the best way to help all children in a heterogeneous group, and I struggled with it as well. I had gifted students, special needs students (severe with no aids in the room...another story entirely....pretty sure it was illegal), and regular education students in the same class. No matter what differentiation I offered, there was no way to meet everyone's needs. After many years of that experience, I decided that I think it would be best if the kids were ability grouped. It is not fair to have advanced students peer mentoring others, that is not what they are at school to do. At the same time, it is not fair that the special needs students are not getting the one on one, from a trained professional, that they so deserve. I really think it is an injustice to not have the kids attend a class that matches their performance. Not to mention the behavioral issues that could be prevented. The kids can be heterogeneously grouped for their related arts classes, but otherwise the system needs to be revamped.
I lean towards tracking. I'd rather see tracking than kids skipping grades. The risk in skipping a grade is the material the child never saw because they skipped. But, then again, we do a lot of review in this country. We review concepts for 3-7 years compared to only 1-3 in countries like Japan.
Unfortunately, mainstreaming kind of runs against tracking. (Ironically, we used tracking back in the '50's when our schools were among the best in the world.) Some of the better school districts here use tracking.
I do not see a problem with tracking at all, and I think that it is a lot more successful then the mish-mash that we have now. Somewhere along the way and effort was made to "level the playing field", so that everyone could have a fair shot. I hate to say it, but the playing field did not become level, the curriculum just became watered down. When your are teaching to the middle ground you are leaving the lower level kids in the dust, and losing the higher level kids because they are bored.
What we have in our educational system right now is "the everyone gets a trophy effect", and it does not work. There needs to be some way to group kids of similar abilities, so that they can learn at their own level. Why should a kid who can read on grade level participate in a lesson geared for kids who can not read? I just do not agree with the concept of mainstreaming, and I do not think that the students benefit academically from it.
Even the concept of No Child Left Behind, which is a discussion thread in itself, represents an educational Utopia that will not exist. You can not hold everyone back so that you don't leave one child behind?
I do not see a problem with tracking at all, and I think that it is a lot more successful then the mish-mash that we have now. Somewhere along the way and effort was made to "level the playing field", so that everyone could have a fair shot. I hate to say it, but the playing field did not become level, the curriculum just became watered down. When your are teaching to the middle ground you are leaving the lower level kids in the dust, and losing the higher level kids because they are bored.
What we have in our educational system right now is "the everyone gets a trophy effect", and it does not work. There needs to be some way to group kids of similar abilities, so that they can learn at their own level. Why should a kid who can read on grade level participate in a lesson geared for kids who can not read? I just do not agree with the concept of mainstreaming, and I do not think that the students benefit academically from it.
Even the concept of No Child Left Behind, which is a discussion thread in itself, represents an educational Utopia that will not exist. You can not hold everyone back so that you don't leave one child behind?
I agree but given the my child is special mentality parents have today, you'd have parents pushing to get their kids on the G&T track. I know of one district that tracks and they have 1/3 of their parents insisting their children are gifted and belong on the G&T track. Sorry but the top third includes some quite average kids.
NCLB is a disaster. You can't even the playing field. It's simply not even and never will be. Honestly, I think trying to make school "fair" just sets kids up for not being able to deal with life that won't be fair. Like it or not, life tracks us.
This trophy for all mentality needs to stop. It sets our kids up in that they don't learn to deal with disappointment and they don't have a realistic view of their own capabilities. Self esteem without ability won't get you far.
To answer your question, I would say that it's manifestly unfair to make elementary teachers teach one grade to kids whose ability levels are all over the map. It's just not fair. It's like having thirty different preps for each subject.
For starters, I would do this:
1. Group by ability, not by age.
On the first day of kindergarten, I'd test kids in the two core subjects of language arts and math and then place them according to their ability, not according to their age.
Obviously, common sense needs to prevail. It would be problematic, to say the least, to have a kindergarten child who reads at the sixth-grade level be placed with the twelve-year-olds. In those rare cases, I would have the child do a reading pullout with the reading specialist and have him or her taught at their level of challenge.
2. Group by subject.
A child who places in the sixth grade for reading at age 5 is not necessarily holistically gifted. She or he may need (let's say) kindergarten-level math. Fine. Place her in that class.
3. Get used to the idea that ALL core classes will be mixed-age.
That's all for now -- I have to get going. More later, perhaps.
To answer your question, I would say that it's manifestly unfair to make elementary teachers teach one grade to kids whose ability levels are all over the map. It's just not fair. It's like having thirty different preps for each subject.
For starters, I would do this:
1. Group by ability, not by age.
On the first day of kindergarten, I'd test kids in the two core subjects of language arts and math and then place them according to their ability, not according to their age.
Obviously, common sense needs to prevail. It would be problematic, to say the least, to have a kindergarten child who reads at the sixth-grade level be placed with the twelve-year-olds. In those rare cases, I would have the child do a reading pullout with the reading specialist and have him or her taught at their level of challenge.
2. Group by subject.
A child who places in the sixth grade for reading at age 5 is not necessarily holistically gifted. She or he may need (let's say) kindergarten-level math. Fine. Place her in that class.
3. Get used to the idea that ALL core classes will be mixed-age.
That's all for now -- I have to get going. More later, perhaps.
Excellent suggestions. There is no reason that kids need to be grouped strictly by age. The real world does not function that way, and neither should school.
Excellent suggestions. There is no reason that kids need to be grouped strictly by age. The real world does not function that way, and neither should school.
Are you, seriously, comparing children and adults? Look at a child development book, it will list developmental stages by age for a reason. Age and ability at usually tightly tied in children. This is why, particularly, younger children are grouped by age.
The reason adults aren't grouped by age is age has nothing to do with ability. Once you're fully developed, you're fully developed. There is no reason to group by age.
Same age grouping serves most of our kids well. The ones it doesn't could be moved but you also deal with the stigma of the move. That can be tough on kids.
Are you, seriously, comparing children and adults? Look at a child development book, it will list developmental stages by age for a reason. Age and ability at usually tightly tied in children. This is why, particularly, younger children are grouped by age.
The reason adults aren't grouped by age is age has nothing to do with ability. Once you're fully developed, you're fully developed. There is no reason to group by age.
Same age grouping serves most of our kids well. The ones it doesn't could be moved but you also deal with the stigma of the move. That can be tough on kids.
The thing is, if it were common to group kids by ability, not age, then it would by far diminish any sense of "stigma" and start being known as "regular." It's getting more common, for example, to have split 1/2 or 2/3 grade classes; this isn't that wildly different. Most kids will be close to their age/grade level, and for the ones who are substantially different, special arrangements might have to be made, but even those will generally tend to be within two grade levels. Again, if it were the norm to have mixed-age classes, Mrs. Smith might teach first-grade math to a mixed class of 5-7 year-olds; Mr. Jones might teach second-grade reading to a mixed class of 6-8-year-olds, and so on.
Moreover, if you had large enough classes, you could "cluster" (for example) the younger set of students with Teacher A and the older set of students in a given grade/subject with Teacher B. How this would look would be something like this: Mrs. Smith might teach the younger set of students third-grade math, and her students would be 6-8; Ms. Martinez might teach the older students third -grade math and her students would be 7-9. If you had a gifted kindergartner, s/he wouldn't be very much out of place in Mrs. Smith's class with the 6-year-olds, and if you had a developing learner who was 10, s/he wouldn't be very much out of place in Ms. Martinez' room with the 7-9 folks. Everyone would be taught the same material at the same level and reassessed or re-placed as needed by subject.
Last edited by Charles Wallace; 08-07-2009 at 07:01 PM..
Are you, seriously, comparing children and adults? Look at a child development book, it will list developmental stages by age for a reason. Age and ability at usually tightly tied in children. This is why, particularly, younger children are grouped by age.
The reason adults aren't grouped by age is age has nothing to do with ability. Once you're fully developed, you're fully developed. There is no reason to group by age.
Same age grouping serves most of our kids well. The ones it doesn't could be moved but you also deal with the stigma of the move. That can be tough on kids.
Well, apparently age and ability are NOT always tightly tied in children, because if they were, then this problem would not exist, and the thread would be moot.
And, as Charles Wallace pointed out, if there was no stigma of being moved, then there would be, well, no stigma of being moved. Kids accept whatever the status quo is. If classes were grouped by ability and not age, then it would be normal and acceptable to have seven and ten year olds working side by side.
In classes for homeschoolers, there is usually a variation in the ages of the children involved. Instead of basing class placements on the year of birth, parents and co-op leaders place kids based on level and interest. It seems to work quite well, in my experience. It may be different in a public school setting, where student:teacher ratios are different, but it would still probably work out better to group by ability than to stick with what's not working now.
The thing is, if it were common to group kids by ability, not age, then it would by far diminish any sense of "stigma" and start being known as "regular." It's getting more common, for example, to have split 1/2 or 2/3 grade classes; this isn't that wildly different. Most kids will be close to their age/grade level, and for the ones who are substantially different, special arrangements might have to be made, but even those will generally tend to be within two grade levels. Again, if it were the norm to have mixed-age classes, Mrs. Smith might teach first-grade math to a mixed class of 5-7 year-olds; Mr. Jones might teach second-grade reading to a mixed class of 6-8-year-olds, and so on.
Moreover, if you had large enough classes, you could "cluster" (for example) the younger set of students with Teacher A and the older set of students in a given grade/subject with Teacher B. How this would look would be something like this: Mrs. Smith might teach the younger set of students third-grade math, and her students would be 6-8; Ms. Martinez might teach the older students third -grade math and her students would be 7-9. If you had a gifted kindergartner, s/he wouldn't be very much out of place in Mrs. Smith's class with the 6-year-olds, and if you had a developing learner who was 10, s/he wouldn't be very much out of place in Ms. Martinez' room with the 7-9 folks. Everyone would be taught the same material at the same level and reassessed or re-placed as needed by subject.
Have you noticed that parenting is competitive these days? If it were common to group kids by ability, you'd have parents pushing their child onto the higher track. I never realized how competitive motherhood is until I had a child who broke the curve. The hackles go up fast if they think another child is besting their child.
I like what they do in our local elemtary school . They have resources on different levels in the classroom. Kids can work ahead if they wish to but they aren't sent to another class or called out because they do so. However, the kids know who is reading what books. They've taken the competitive cue from their parents.
My dd's school does group by ability and they deal with parents who think their child belongs on a different track all the time. I've also seen some friction between students on different tracks. Mostly the lower track treating the higher track like they're too good for them. My daughter had a very good friend her first year in this school when she was on the lower track. They moved her to the higher track for her second year and a cat fight started between the girls. The other girl had nothing nice to say about my daughter. Just snide remarks about her thinking she was better than everyone else. Her mother tried, in vain, to get her dd switched to the same classroom. The friendship didn't last.
Multiple levels sounds good on the surface but I'm not sure it would work. Such as system would require, constant evaluations to make sure kids were on the correct level. About the only way I see it working would be if the kids were working, independently, on computers equipped with smart testing software that would guide their progress but now we're taking the human interaction element out of the school.
Too bad there's no test to determine how a child will track over the years. My dd tracks different every year. Some years she's fast and some years she's close to average in her progress. Some years it would be appropriate to have her in the next class up. Others it would not. It would be difficult to have her placed at her level all the time. Fortunately, I think you only need to get close. I believe kids, especially bright ones, are capable of adapting.
What I wish were acceptable were multiple levels of assessment. We're too grade conscious. I'd love to raise the bar for my brighter kids but no one wants to risk not getting an A. I wish there were grades for both level and performance so it was apparent they were working to a higher standard.
Well, apparently age and ability are NOT always tightly tied in children, because if they were, then this problem would not exist, and the thread would be moot.
And, as Charles Wallace pointed out, if there was no stigma of being moved, then there would be, well, no stigma of being moved. Kids accept whatever the status quo is. If classes were grouped by ability and not age, then it would be normal and acceptable to have seven and ten year olds working side by side.
In classes for homeschoolers, there is usually a variation in the ages of the children involved. Instead of basing class placements on the year of birth, parents and co-op leaders place kids based on level and interest. It seems to work quite well, in my experience. It may be different in a public school setting, where student:teacher ratios are different, but it would still probably work out better to group by ability than to stick with what's not working now.
For most kids they are. The education system wouldn't be set up the way it is if it didn't serve the majority, and it does. Most kids, like most adults are pretty average. Yes, some parents complain because they think their child is special and deserves special treatiment. You'll always have that. It doesn't prove the system doesn't work. It proves there are anomolies or, at least parents who think their child is an anomoly as seems the the case more often than not.
I'd hazard a guess that the system serves over 50% of kids well. It's the bottom and the top you have issues with not the middle.
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.
