Well, far from having kids fend for themselves, the tack my brother and his group have been taking is using technological tools (everything from ipods to PCs) to allow students to learn the material at their pace, with the practice and repetition that they individually require.
The tools also can provide real-time tracking of learning by the teaching professional - feedback can show how many times the student had to go through an assignment before becoming comfortable with it, or which segments of an online quiz caused problems. This will allow a teacher to either reiterate these points in class or address the problem with the student individually.
Seems like a good idea to me, both from the point of view of the student and the enhancement of the teacher’s ability to teach.
Honestly, there are pros and cons with anything you do in a classroom. As I said, different approaches work well in different. I would use technology differently, but that’s more of a preference than anything else.
OK, cards on the table, I feel that the demographically challenged student is riding a sinking ship of culturally driven roadblocks. No amount of money will make this collective horse drink water. That is the problem that needs to be addressed. It is the hole in the titanic.
We should address the culture of failure and that starts by showing students where they really stand and then holding them to the same level of standards we have always held. Because frankly, an educationally dysfunctional child is tomorrows dysfunctional adult. I have to believe there is at least one school system in a demographically challenged area that is successful in breaking down the roadblocks. Find it, duplicate it and bring our kids back from the last 40 years of wandering in the educational desert.
I’m not really sure what we’re talking about in reference to the lower end of the bell curve. We’ve always had people on that end of the scale and while college may not be in their future there is no reason why they can’t succeed on a HS level. All trades require some level of skill-sets.
The “demographically challenged” are indeed on a ship that has some water, but the data is clear: it is rising not sinking. Scores for those demographics are still not as high as those of the traditional high achievers, but they are going up.
Again, more of these demographically challenged kids are taking the standardized tests than before, no longer just the brightest of them, and yet the test scores for those challenged groups have still gone up. More of them are going to college.
You repeat yet again the myth of an educational desert but the facts belie that assertion. They have been held to the same standards we have always held, and more of them are passing those standards than before.
Teachers being free to not have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.
Meaningful assessments, not the silly NCLB metrics.
So on, high emphasis on informative writing skills and multiple teachers exchanging papers but scoring to consistent guidelines. More details in the article. Not so difficult a secret sauce.
I love Vygotsky as much as the next creatively inclined psychology geek, but…the zone of proximal development (which isn’t what the kid can do independently, but the difference between what she can do independently and what she can do with help) isn’t present for the high functioning student if the high functioning student is constantly used as a classroom tutor. Sure, it may benefit the lower functioning student and the teacher (although LHoD brings up some interesting points about long term negative effects on the lower functioning student) but it totally sucks after about 10 minutes if you’re the higher functioning student. True, “you don’t know it until you can teach it,” and being forced to explain the content to another student can reinforce, clarify and cement the content in the mind of the higher achieving student, but then what? You’ve explained it, you know it, and yet the lower functioning student still doesn’t get it - not because you’re not being clear or because you lack understanding, but because they do. So you explain it again, and they still don’t get it, and now you’re wasting classroom time you could be using learning new information instead of trying to be a teacher, which you’re not.
Yeah, I was that kid. I hated it. I’d much rather have been learning new stuff, even if it was alone in the LRC with a computer instead of in the classroom with the other students.
I feel like a lot of the problems of NCLB **and **our educational system would go away if we simply did away with social promotion and grade levels. If you can’t be proficient at 8th grade math, then what the hell are you doing in 8th grade math? And worse, why will you be in 9th grade math next year? Get rid of grade levels and teach elementary and high school the way we do college - with prerequisites which must be mastered before more challenging classes can be taken. If a kid is working at “an 8th grade level” in reading but “a 6th grade level” in math, then she should be in those classes, grade levels and ages be damned. And then, because the students have demonstrated proficiency by mastering the prereqs and they’re actually placed appropriately for their current ability, they’re going to be proficient on the NCLB tests, too, so that problem goes away. Students who simply need more time and repetition to become proficient can get it by taking the class more than once, but they’ll stay within a class of “proficient”, rather than being completely snowed under and many, many concepts behind. School can still be mandatory until age 16 and optional until 18 or a high school diploma is earned, not handed out because you still have a pulse.
i’m not repeating any myth. We’re discussing the reality of failed school systems.
Great, apply the non-magical techniques and move on. Problem solved.
Now we get to the often quoted educational myth. If only the teachers didn’t have to adhere to a curriculum rigidly but could adjust as the students needs required. Let’s apply that to… anything.
“If only medical teachers didn’t have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.”
“If only engineering teachers didn’t have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.”
“If only trade teachers didn’t have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.”
The world would be a chaos of useless degrees and certifications.
The myth is that NCLB is not a standard to teach up to, it is the lowest level of recognizable skill that justifies the certification of High School proficiency. There is ZERO requirement to “teach to the test”. It is a default level of achievement that normal coursework produces. Students who are not in depressed areas easily pass the test in their Sophomore or Junior years.
Since there are schools that are successful in depressed areas their techniques should duplicated as needed so that no child is left behind.
You know Magiver repeating that something is a reality in the face of documentation that the statement is demonstrably false does not make it any less untrue.
As to the rest of your post - you put in a request: find “one” school that is successful despite the challenges of teaching to a poor minority population and figure out what they do. Again, there are a whole bunch of them, and that is what they do. You don’t like what they do that has been associated with success? A shame that.
What? Either there is a problem with schools in poor districts or there’s not. What point are you trying to make?
Again, what? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. I’ve only stated the obvious. The standards set by NCLB are easily met and are not intended to be a lofty achievement. You parroted a standard excuse used to dismiss NCLB about “teaching to the test” when in fact the test is far below the normal academic achievement associated with a HS diploma.