More teaching practice stuff.

[velvetpage]

I 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.

Comments

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

You make very good points about the neglect of the smarter kids in the class... and the political ramifications of such. And every teacher knows the frustration of trying to keep the kids who are having trouble up to grade-speed while there's the keeners who want to push ahead. Far too often, their requests are downplayed, because they're already making grade level and teachers are under more pressure to help those who aren't succeed. (I can't imagine how much worse that must be under the NCLB stuff that's going on down in the US...)

The smart kids tend to do one of two things... disengage from class and quietly find something else to do, or become a behaviour problem because they are bored. Neither of those is a healthy reaction and both tend to get the student into trouble of one kind or another. Teachers prefere the first however, because it doesn't disrupt the classroom.

This is definately something that a thoughtful teacher needs to examine as part of their practice. And try and reach some kind of balance whereby all kids get a fair amount of the teacher's attention. (And not necessarily equal... a lot of the bright ones mostly need a little guidance, to be shown the right direction and then checked in on regularily as they discover things to make sure they are staying on track and to have the teacher ask them questions or provide them with answers). A lot of bright kids tend to be very good independent workers - although this by no means says we should abandon them purely to independent work

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I've heard from many of the people on my friends list that they tended to disengage. There were probably a few behaviour-problem smart kids, too. My brother did some of that. His opinion is that he was ignored, he was not taught the study skills he needed because he learned content so quickly that everyone thought he didn't need the study skills, and when he got to university, the lack of work habits combined with burgeoning depression resulted in the eight years he's spent getting a three-year degree. The school system did very poorly by him, and I understand why he's down on teachers in general for that.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I tested smart but was regarded by most of my teachers as stupid, and I STILL didn't learn very much in school. I think that about the ONLY thing I took with me out of school was Spanish, and that's only because all of the classes were taught in Spanish.

I took emotional scarring out of my junior high experience.

Like many of the 'ignored' kids, I've come to the conclusion that the primary function of school is to socialize kids in such a way that they can get along more or less with a large swathe of the population. Babysitting becomes a secondary function, with learning coming in a distant third. I look at a lot of the things that I was taught, and the knowledge was bad or useless. You can't teach history to third graders! They're not ready, in terms of their ability to comprehend, to grasp more than the very basics, and if you teach the sanitized basics of history, you're going to HAVE to teach what amount to lies. Now, if school focused for the first six years on building VERY firmly in children skills that children can learn (the three R's, as well as things like language studies -- children absorb languages better than adults do -- and music and art) I think there'd be more time to give the kids who are behind more attention without sacrificing the kids who are ahead.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I agree. In grade four, I'm expected to teach Medieval Times. But I can get in big trouble teaching the bloody bits, especially considering how many of my kids are Muslim or come from the Middle East. How do I teach the Crusades? Do I dare mention that knightly code broke down dramatically and led to the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, when five of my kids are Serbian Orthodox? And how does it look when I DON'T mention it? How do I deal with slavery and maintain what parents consider to be reasonable things for kids that age to know?

I'd be more comfortable with the kind of social studies that teaches things like holidays, map reading, these-are-the-people-in-your-neighbourhood, etc, all with the goal of improving the students' vocabulary and language faculties. Content is not that important until at least grade five.

[thoughtsdriftby.livejournal.com]

would be better if ability rather than age separated levels
your top students likely fit better up one (grade)
important too moving up requires more than just growing older
options/prerequisites rather than the conformity/grade levels

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Well, last year, our school divided up its literacy classes according to reading scores. I had the second-highest group, which included kids from grades five to three, all reading at a grade-four level. So I have some experience with leveling things that way.

I found it didn't work, for several reasons. The fives I had were average kids, doing just about what they should have been doing; the fours were high-average; and the threes were the bright lights of their grade. And yet, developmentally, the three grades are very different. The class didn't mix well for group work, and the grade four girls were getting bullied quite badly by the grade five girls. The grade threes didn't get enough encouragement and reinforcement, and the grade fives didn't get as challenged as they should have.

Now, at least I'm dealing with fewer developmental differences in my class, and fewer specific learning expectations (just legends and mysteries, whereas last year I had one other format I was supposed to teach - each grade is supposed to learn a different kind of writing, and it made the year seem much too full.)

I can see the benefits to dividing a class by ability. I can see the benefits to a heterogeneous mix of abilities, too. My complaint is that I don't get enough support for the people at the bottom that would allow me the time to enrich the people at the top.

I would like to see streaming start, officially, in grade seven - two years earlier than it does now - for subjects that are geared to university-bound kids, like history and geography and some science. But I'm not likely to get my way in that - it's not politically correct to stream by ability for the most part.

[thoughtsdriftby.livejournal.com]

Yes, combined social engineering and teaching is a bit much
Breaching the walls between age groups nearly impossible
It sounds like major changes are made year to year adding to the confusion.

Though I think sooner is better, streaming at grade seven would be a very positive change
---
Sadly, US schools underline conformity over education for the majority of students. Politically expedient being more important than correct. Fitting all towards one streamlined educational vision and hoping collage might sort things out later.

It all but abandons those that don't make it to collage.

[ymf.livejournal.com]

hmm apparently different countries have different systems. i was at the top of my classes for most of my academic life, and usually felt that the teachers paid too much attention to us. of course, some acknowledgement and encourage is good, but i think that it sometimes led the weaker students to feel that the teacher praises and fusses over the better ones too much. the imbalance isn't quite as lop-sided as what your system suggests, but it feels like the teachers are really concerned that the top students excel and are just satisfied as long as the weaker students manage along, not expecting much effort from them, nor giving equal or more encouragement.

sorry, that was a really long sentence. /=

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

That would be unbalanced in the other direction. Our system prioritizes having everyone reach a basic level, even though there are a certain percentage that can't do it and a larger percentage who could do much better with more encouragement. I think our system is better overall, because many advanced students will find their own way in spite of a poor education system, but the kids at the bottom don't have a prayer without a lot of help.

On the other hand, there's a reason why Singapore's well-educated people do so much better overall than North America's. I think both places need to come up with a happy medium.

[ymf.livejournal.com]

Hmmm yea that's true, most advanced students would be fairly self-motivated. Though neither are really what I would consider an ideal education system. It's hard to balance too, given the tight budgeting and shortage of resources.

This opinion may be biased on account of me still studying, but I think the reason why Singaporeans excel overseas is because our system is very much grade-obsessed, and heavily content-based. It's a rat race even in primary school.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine that a rat race before kids have learned to read properly is advantageous to learning, unless you're pretty smart to begin with. The competition would encourage failure as much as success.

[ymf.livejournal.com]

Maybe not a rat race in learning how to read. But there's a lot of competition within, and among schools here. There's too much ranking in my opinion.