![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More teaching practice stuff.
Oct. 11th, 2005 07:49 amI am in the midst of a fundamental difference in teaching philosophy from that of the literacy teacher at my school.
I have divided my class into five guided reading groups according to their test scores from last spring. One of this month's jobs is to test them again. I have a group operating in the grade one range, who mostly work with the learning resource teacher. Of the groups I work with, there is basically one for each grade level up - two, three, four, and five. I teach a 20-minute lesson to each group a few times per week while the other kids work independently on centres.
The literacy teacher says that I should be seeing my level-two group every day, my level-three group three times a week, my level-four group twice per week, and my level-five group once. The idea is to give the most attention and help to the kids who need it the most, i.e. the ones scoring the lowest.
This plan drives me absolutely batty.
It requires me, essentially, to ignore the smart kids and spend all my time on those who are least likely to make the most improvement. The smart kids won't say anything, and their parents probably won't realize it's happening. They know that the other kids need more help than they do, and they're nice kids so they put up with it. But inside, they're not going to be too happy about it. They won't progress as fast as they might, if I gave them more attention; being smart doesn't mean they don't need teaching, it just means they'll get more benefit from it. So by seeing them only once a week, I'm effectively holding them back from learning as quickly as they could.
How will I feel when it's Elizabeth's turn to be ignored by her teachers because she's already ahead of the class? First of all, as though my profession is betraying my daughter. Secondly, as though it's up to me to pick up the slack and do her teachers' job for them by reading with her and encouraging her to excel. Thirdly, as though I should find a way to put her in a school that will not do this - for example, a Montessori school, which I doubt I'll ever be able to afford.
I've been the kid at the top who was ignored. I remember never asking the teacher for anything, because I could get it myself. I've spoken to an awful lot of bright people who all say that school didn't teach them anything - they learned it mostly on their own. These are the same people, often, who are quite bitter about having lost out on the attention they craved. They're the people who claim teachers are overpaid babysitters, because all their teachers ever did was babysit them while they solved problems on their own. They're the people who eventually run for school boards and get involved in other ways in their kids' education - and they do it with a big chip on their shoulders, left over from when they were ignored for being smart.
In other words, the reason governments have beefs with education is because WE SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORE THEIR KIDS in favour of the ones who "need us more."
Now, I'm not saying we should ignore the lower ones. Absolutely not. They should get about the same amount of attention as the higher ones. The theory is that fair is not everyone getting the same thing; it's everyone getting what they need to succeed. So I teach my lower ones at a lower level, because that's where they're at, and they succeed at that and then go on. But in my own head, I cannot justify also giving them more time and energy at the expense of the kids who will excel on their own. Not to the extent suggested by the literacy teacher.
I might be able to justify fifteen minutes for the high groups and twenty-five for the lower groups, at least one of the two lessons per week. Even that, I'm not crazy about.
But when she pushes me to set up my literacy time this way, I will resist on the grounds that when it's Elizabeth's turn, I will demand that she get equal attention with her less-able peers, because school is supposed to help every child achieve their fullest potential, and she needs teacher attention to do that. I will not allow her, or my bright lights, be ignored because her potential is higher than average.
It's long-term politically stupid, it's fundamentally unfair, and it's bad teaching to favour one over another.
I feel better having that off my chest.
I have divided my class into five guided reading groups according to their test scores from last spring. One of this month's jobs is to test them again. I have a group operating in the grade one range, who mostly work with the learning resource teacher. Of the groups I work with, there is basically one for each grade level up - two, three, four, and five. I teach a 20-minute lesson to each group a few times per week while the other kids work independently on centres.
The literacy teacher says that I should be seeing my level-two group every day, my level-three group three times a week, my level-four group twice per week, and my level-five group once. The idea is to give the most attention and help to the kids who need it the most, i.e. the ones scoring the lowest.
This plan drives me absolutely batty.
It requires me, essentially, to ignore the smart kids and spend all my time on those who are least likely to make the most improvement. The smart kids won't say anything, and their parents probably won't realize it's happening. They know that the other kids need more help than they do, and they're nice kids so they put up with it. But inside, they're not going to be too happy about it. They won't progress as fast as they might, if I gave them more attention; being smart doesn't mean they don't need teaching, it just means they'll get more benefit from it. So by seeing them only once a week, I'm effectively holding them back from learning as quickly as they could.
How will I feel when it's Elizabeth's turn to be ignored by her teachers because she's already ahead of the class? First of all, as though my profession is betraying my daughter. Secondly, as though it's up to me to pick up the slack and do her teachers' job for them by reading with her and encouraging her to excel. Thirdly, as though I should find a way to put her in a school that will not do this - for example, a Montessori school, which I doubt I'll ever be able to afford.
I've been the kid at the top who was ignored. I remember never asking the teacher for anything, because I could get it myself. I've spoken to an awful lot of bright people who all say that school didn't teach them anything - they learned it mostly on their own. These are the same people, often, who are quite bitter about having lost out on the attention they craved. They're the people who claim teachers are overpaid babysitters, because all their teachers ever did was babysit them while they solved problems on their own. They're the people who eventually run for school boards and get involved in other ways in their kids' education - and they do it with a big chip on their shoulders, left over from when they were ignored for being smart.
In other words, the reason governments have beefs with education is because WE SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORE THEIR KIDS in favour of the ones who "need us more."
Now, I'm not saying we should ignore the lower ones. Absolutely not. They should get about the same amount of attention as the higher ones. The theory is that fair is not everyone getting the same thing; it's everyone getting what they need to succeed. So I teach my lower ones at a lower level, because that's where they're at, and they succeed at that and then go on. But in my own head, I cannot justify also giving them more time and energy at the expense of the kids who will excel on their own. Not to the extent suggested by the literacy teacher.
I might be able to justify fifteen minutes for the high groups and twenty-five for the lower groups, at least one of the two lessons per week. Even that, I'm not crazy about.
But when she pushes me to set up my literacy time this way, I will resist on the grounds that when it's Elizabeth's turn, I will demand that she get equal attention with her less-able peers, because school is supposed to help every child achieve their fullest potential, and she needs teacher attention to do that. I will not allow her, or my bright lights, be ignored because her potential is higher than average.
It's long-term politically stupid, it's fundamentally unfair, and it's bad teaching to favour one over another.
I feel better having that off my chest.