…nope, can’t let that go. Please cite where someone “suggest[ed] a child should skip a test that is already below the level of achievement expected.” It certainly wasn’t in the quote to which you responded, though it seems the quote-er was implying that a child should be able to skip a standardized test.
More importantly, how does someone saying something slightly silly justify a response anything like, “They should just expel the student”? Surely you don’t actually think that? So why say it?
By “delusional” I mean the ramp up in standards over time so that by the middle of this decade even the most demographically challenged kids are expected to have world class achievement levels and “no excuses” from anyone if they fail to make the cut. The embedded expectation that this is even possible is magical thinking on an almost industrial scale.
Rothstein et al explained why they were delusional:
http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/viewpoints/rothstein_20061114.pdf
That’s a great explanation (the bit quoted, at least), and it’s something I’ve been saying all along. Whether nature, nurture, or a combination of the two is responsible, academic achievement follows a standard distribution. By 2014, NCLB requires that 100% of students are passing the test (actually 98%, since 2% can get accommodations). That means one of several things must happen:
3, of course, is unacceptable, but 1 and 2 are done with no shame by most states. I attended a lecture once by our state’s head of education stats. Most of the math was above my head, but the gist of it was that our state was readjusting the “proficient” level downward in order to allow more students to receive a score of proficient. And I’m regularly told that I need to devote ever more time to my low-achieving students, explicitly told to do so at the expense of my high-achieving students, since they’ll do just fine even (read: pass the test) even if I devote no energy to them.
It’s awful.
Cite this “world class achievement” level and then explain what that has to do with the price of rice today.
There is no excuse for lowering the standards for “demographically challenged” children. It’s condescending at a minimum and harms them outright.
Businesses aren’t stupid. As more and more schools hand out bogus HS diplomas they will be met with employment skills tests and the relocation of businesses away from educationally depressed areas.
the obvious solution is to divide students between those who achieve and those who don’t. Less obvious but good solutions are to use the higher achieving students as secondary educators. One of my best teachers did this in science class and it worked quite well. He paired “A” students with those who were struggling. He leveraged his assets to his advantage and essentially created tutors out of thin air.
I’ll pull and cite the testing targets later today when I have time.
The larger point you address, which goes directly to the heart of my OP, is that you apparently believe that setting relatively high achievement levels for poor kids, and not backing down when they show, after intensive effort by the schools, only a limited capacity to meet those targets, is eventually going to yield the high performance results desired.
That’s the same magical thinking that originated the NCLB program and has it mired in the current scenario where it’s performance targets for the “demographically challenged” are proving to be illusory.
There is not an infinite amount of money available to enrich these students lives to the point they are going to be high performing intellectually. Some of the issue may be that some poor people and their kids are less genetically gifted intellectually, but this is a minuscule part of the problem to the extent it even exists. The vast majority of the issue is that middle class, and upper middle class kids live in far more intellectually enriching environments. Poor kids live in an intellectual wasteland.
Short of taking poor kids away from their parent or parents at a very early age and placing them with wealthier families, there is no way to compensate for being poor. Not with in school enrichment, or hot lunch programs, or head start, or field trips, or motivated teachers, or computers, or high tech schools, or academies. A select innately talented few may be helped to the extent they can jump start a life of the mind, but for the large majority of poor kids a few hours of school a days in not going to compensate for an intellectually deprived home life.
The notion that somehow, if only we keep fast to our commitment to these performance goals for the more challenged kids, that this will all eventually turn around is a huge waste or time, money and resources. We need to set more realistic goals. It’s not “condescending” it’s vitally necessary.
I had a conversation with my brother about this idea. He was not for it except for the limited use of lab partners or the like.
Students are there to learn, and they should be getting their information from the teacher and class materials. Having other students teach increases their workload to no benefit to them, may hold back their own grasp of the subject and prevents a stronger student from working ahead.
Remember your own schooling. Even in subjects you did well in there were topics that were harder than others. Constantly matching the same set of weak students to the same set of strong students can lead to stigmtizing and bullying.
I do not favor this.
Sorry, your brother is wrong and your hole post above is based on ‘feeling’ instead of on actual data and research. Research has pretty consistently shown that having students help teach other students benefits both parties in many ways.
We know what works in education, and what doesn’t. Forcing students to sit through lectures and mindless seatwork and expecting them to learn how to think their way to the answers doesn’t work; all you can reasonably expect is kids who can remember discrete facts long enough to pass the test. If anything sticks, it’s a bonus.
On the other hand, pairing up stronger students with weaker ones works very well, and there isn’t nearly as much stigma or bullying as you seem to think there is. Indeed, there is a whole body of research that shows that using “knowledgeable others” – which includes other students – is an excellent way to teach, and that allowing kids to work together is a way to guarantee that everyone will learn. Finally, encouraging kids to work together frees the teacher up to work with kids who really need the extra help. And, frankly, kids like group work because they’re doing something that is usually a lot more interesting than listening to a teacher drone on and on for 45 minutes.
I think a lot of the disconnect is because of attitudes like yours and your brother’s. Those of us who are of a certain age were taught using what are now outmoded methods. Those methods assume that everyone thinks the same way, which is demonstrably not true, and that students who don’t understand the material should fend for themselves. Under these older methods, kids who are not good at math would flounder in math classes, kids who hate reading would flounder in English classes, and just about everyone hated social studies because of all the rote memorization that was required just to pass the class. Under the newer methods, students who aren’t good at math can benefit from being paired with a stronger student who can explain concepts at a one-on-one level. Kids who hate to read can still benefit from group work because they can learn from the others in the group, plus there is the added factor of peer pressure to make sure that all of the group members do the reading. There are now tons of ways to teach history and the other social sciences that actually engage students and encourage them to think critically about the world, their country, and their place in society. If you teach to the test, fine, but make sure it’s productive teaching that ensures that all students understand and can apply the concepts, not “teaching” a bunch of random facts that will be forgotten the minute the student puts the test on the teacher’s desk.
Really? Or am I misreading your intent.
Aren’t you really saying that if you have a certain type of student that for a set of approaches you can predict the effectiveness of those approaches. For everyone else (all the various cohorts sucking wind) the educational community has a bunch of theories (stretching the meaning of the word theory there) about how to get wherever it is various constituencies think they want to get. The theories almost all require more money. And if the money is there (as it is in all these large districts that are performing so poorly and it’s so much per student that nobody can say they need more with a straight face), it’s just not distributed correctly.
Or, if you really meant what you said, is the education community simply withholding these various techniques until we increase teachers’ and administrators’ salaries until they’re the equivalent of a 4th year associate’s in a V100 law firm?
This has nothing to do with money and everything to do with teacher training. As I said, there is a HUGE body of research out there that demonstrates that some theories of education work better than others. The broadest, and therefore most effective for the greatest number is Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach. This approach holds that everyone has what he called a “zone of proximal development”, which is the range of tasks that an individual can complete independently, without additional assistance. In order to move that zone toward more sophisticated tasks, the individual must have the assistance of someone who is more knowledgeable, which can be a teacher, or in some classrooms, other students whose skills in that specific area are stronger. It also sets the expectation that, in order for the individual to make sense of new material, dialogue take place. This is a strong rationale for group work and what some teachers call “think-pair-share” activities, which require students to collaborate and talk through the new material, and which helps both to understand it and make sense of it. Good, effective teachers figure out what will work best for their students and use a combination of theories.
Finally, the best way for teachers to determine what works best for each student is to get to know them and build relationships with them. This helps the teacher figure out what the student’s strengths and weaknesses are, and what makes them tick, so to speak. For example, if a student seems shy, that student may need help with the social dimension of the classroom; otherwise, the student may not be as active a participant and may not learn as effectively. So to answer your question, it’s not possible to just look at a student or a class and automatically know what is the most effective way to teach them. The teacher must get to know them first, then make the appropriate adjustments.
These are not methods that are being withheld until some magical event happens. They’re being used quite effectively in classrooms across the country. But until we get over this attitude that metrics are the only thing that matters, and what worked when we were kids will work now, they’re a tough sell.
“What happens next”? What should happen next?
The question that needs to be asked is, what led to the notion that we needed something like NCLB in the first place? (I for one am worried that the “solution” to NCLB will be “go back to how things were done before NCLB,” completely forgetting that there was a reason NCLB was welcomed with reasonably open arms in the first place.)
IMO, what should be done is, pass laws saying that all taxes earmarked for education within a state (even at the local level) have a percentage that is distributed statewide (that way, the “the rich areas have the best schools because the parents there pay for them with their taxes” problem is reduced).
Here’s another idea; develop a standard of, say, “What is a student entering 9th grade supposed to know?”, and test all incoming (in this case) 9th graders on this; those that fail take courses that teach these things, and once you are proficient in these things, you can replace them with elective courses. (For those of you who just said “teaching to the test,” I believe that, if the test tests for the right things, “teaching to the test” is the object.)
Note that this is different from the tests in, for example, Georgia and California, where it’s “pass this before you leave high school or you don’t get a high school diploma”.
(Speaking of testing, I did have one rather large problem with it; there was no real way of knowing exactly how well you did. Numbers can mean anything - especially “smoothed” numbers. I suggested that no test could be used unless (a) the method for determining the resulting scores was made public, and (b) each student (or at least his/her parents) had access to their answers as well as the correct ones after the test, but of course this is about as likely as the BCS computer polls (well, except Colley) making their algorithms public, as they need to safeguard their “proprietary” systems.)
No, it doesn’t. There’s a huge political movement that opposes homogeneous ability grouping in education and supports heterogeneous ability grouping. Homogeneous grouping–“tracking”–has a pretty sordid history tied into racism and classism, and a lot of folks are justifiably suspicious of it. However, the movement vastly overstates the data that support heterogeneous grouping. I looked into it during my teacher program, and found the following:
-Low students often show significant growth when paired with high students.
-Low students show initial benefits to self-esteem when paired with high students.
-Low students show long-term injury to self-esteem, including long-term decrease in enthusiasm for school, when grouped heterogeneously. (This one makes sense if you think about it: a low-ability student will always be the dumbest kid in the heterogeneous group and will constantly see that everyone else is better at school than her, whereas in a homogeneous group she’ll sometimes get a chance to shine compared to her peers).
-High students show much more significant growth when paired homogeneously, if the instrument can measure growth in high students. This is a fatal flaw with a lot of studies: students achievement is measured using a tool that can “top out,” that high-achieving students can ace, and so it appears that there’s no difference in achievement when they’re paired homogeneously or heterogeneously. Use an instrument that can’t top out, and you see a lot more growth among high students paired with other high students. (For example, in my own admittedly amateurish research project, I measured student performance on a science observation by counting the number of distinct concepts recorded in an observation of an anole; high-performing students recorded something like 30% more distinct concepts when homogeneously paired than when heterogeneously paired).
Magiver, I’m not sure whether this was deliberate, but your two proposed solutions to the educational system’s problems appear to be diametrically opposed: splitting the high-achieving kids from the low-achieving kids is homogeneous grouping, and assigning the smart kids to tutor the dumb ones is heterogeneous pairing. In any case, both of these solutions aren’t much of solutions, since any teacher worth their salt uses both approaches often as appropriate.
Personally, I’m pretty sparing with using student tutors: it’s not the best use of the high-achieving kids’ time, despite what the pedagogical establishment claims. I do it only when the high-achievers blow through my assigned work and my challenge work so quickly that they catch me without a backup plan, or else when a concept proves very difficult for so many students that I can’t continue the lesson without a little extra support (e.g., we were folding paper according to lines of symmetry in order to make some origami structure, and about half the class was bewildered about how to fold their paper; the three kids that had done it beautifully suddenly became my helpers to show it to individual peers).
MsRobyn, the metrics indicate that secondary and, to a lesser extent, primary education in this country is not performing. I understand how someone could feel there’s too much emphasis on the metrics (it’s all you really hear about when education is discussed in the media), but I find it difficult to believe that all that’s stopping the teaching community from breaking through to the other side is the public’s perception that all that matters is metrics.
Test and then obsess about the results is a fairly recent phenomenon. Performance has been declining for around two generations. I would grant it may be a distraction, but it can’t be the explanation.
To start, with, we deliberately lowered the bar by tying a HS diploma to a 10th grade level of proficiency so your premise is wrong.
The notion that handing out diplomas like candy on Halloween has any meaning is a cruel joke to the children. A realistic goal is allowing children to fail so they know they’re failing and their parents know they’re failing. Giving a student an “A” for doing failure level work is counterproductive.
Businesses have already caught on that these diplomas are worthless and are now giving out tests for routine jobs.
I’m not sure we are understanding each other clearly. I’ll blame myself for not being clear enough or possibly I’m missing your point. I’m not in favor of worthless diplomas, or automatic advancement, or coddling under achievers, but I also believe that academic ability falls along a bell curve, and there are real world limits to just how far you are going to push the back end of that curve in terms of intellectual proficiency. Whether we track these under performing kids into vocations that are matched to their intellectual ability, or whatever we do, I think we need to stop kidding ourselves that if only we keep trying, with enough money and effort they will meet standards at some point.
I don’t see this as a retreat to lax standards. Setting up an impossible level of proficiency for the less academically able as a hard target, then dumping massive resources toward that goal, and then (surprise) seeing them fail to meet those targets (which is where we are now) is an insane waste of limited resources.
Just so I’m clear - Are you arguing that we should keep an extraordinarily high volume of resources and funding flowing (current NCLB model) to keep pushing the back end of this bell curve forward because the goal is (in your opinion) achievable for them with a sufficient commitment by the schools, or are you arguing that we let the back end of the bell curve fail out (which is historically what has happened) and focus on those we can reach re achieving higher standards.
What is your position?
Well, I tend to defer to my brother on matters such as this because not only is he a teacher, but he worked for a nonprofit for a few years doing nothing but curriculum development. All of those studies that you and LHoD are referencing he knows backward.
Now, admittedly, the conversation I had with my brother on this subject was some time back and I do not remember all of the details from it. But I do recall clearly that there were significant drawbacks from this approach - such that resorting to its use all of the time could have consequences in the classroom. Using it in small ways like lab partner pairings was a way to limit the drawbacks.
LHoD went into far more detail about this than I can, but it was pretty much along the lines with the concerns my brother had. I don’t see this as some kind of technique that can magically fix the problems in a classroom. Like everything else, it is a tool with limited application and potential drawbacks.
Honestly I don’t see it. I know it gets claimed all the time, and has for years … “kids today …” But given the this thread’s focus on metrics, where is the evidence of this?
High School graduation rates have some recent declines, but are, overall pretty flat since the 60’s. There was moderate spike in the late 60’s to a peak of 77% but otherwise we’ve spent the last 50 years in a narrow range, most clustered a bit below and a bit above 70%, depending on the exact report. Overall we are actually up slightly in recent years.
The first link makes some very important points. Even during the years that overall graduation rates decreased, every individual demographic group made gains. The overall rate decreased because of the shift in demographics:
All demographic cohorts are improving; we just now consist of a larger share of a traditionally lower performing cohort, who are often clustered in lower performing schools.
This even shows on SAT scores. Matched for cohorts average SAT verbal scores have declined only very slightly and SAT math scores have increased slightly.
That brings us to the usual bit about declining SAT and ACT scores as evidence of the decline of American education. Not so fast.
Meanwhile more of those High School graduates are managing to attend college than before.
Ah, but we are “falling behind” compared to other nations. True, other nations are doing better than they used to … but that is because they are getting better, not the US getting worse.
This myth of our educational decline is annoying. Yes we need to invest to do better. Yes, we need to do something about the drop-out factories and get better education to our lower performing demographics while not neglecting to give our best and brightest of all the groups every possible chance to learn and to create. But we aint doin’ so bad.
I had this great response worked out, but I can see that I have to revise it.
DSeid covered the statistics part pretty well, so I won’t belabor that point.
Mr. Moto, I used Vygotsky as an example of something that works better than rote learning. Any teacher worth their salt is going to use a combination of methods that work for their students and in their content area; a science or math teacher is going to do things differently than a social studies or an English teacher would. I do agree that group work isn’t always appropriate; sometimes, you do need to lecture or take some other approach. But the “tried and true” method of lecturing and drilling doesn’t work unless you want kids who can regurgitate facts on an exam. My point is just that encouraging kids to work with each other is more effective than having them fend for themselves.