I teach HS science, and I have two students who do seem to actually try, and don’t make waves, but who just don’t get it. Everyone tells me it’s the same in their other classes, so it’s not just science, it’s them.
One of them is behind enough that I don’t think he’s really putting in much effort, but I think he wants to. I’m going to ask him to come in for tutoring, and maybe we can get him back to speed with specific attention.
The other one is lost upon lost. One of the math teachers speculates that he had oxygen deprivation during birth because he’s so bad with abstractions while his sister did quite well. He’s given me answers in chemistry tutoring that were so wrong they were barely on the subject at all. I couldn’t even think of how he’d come to that conclusion, they were so wrong. I couldn’t show him the error of his process because I couldn’t imagine what it had been.
So, flunking this kid (and maybe the other one) I’m afraid isn’t going to send a message about getting his act together, like a few others will get and need. I’m thinking of giving him a barely passing grade and just helping him get out of here. The poor kid is probably going to have a career stocking shelves overnight in a grocery, and I think that’s “punishment” enough.
The counselor has only now been able to get his parents to admit there might even be a problem and promise to show up for an IEP meeting. I wonder if he passed the state graduation test we have now in CA.
But yeah, just passing them along for pity’s sake isn’t the best solution. The kid who is behind but functional probably just needs some hard-core tutoring. Summer work, I think, is preferable to being held back for a year. Being held back might make him go into a depression and reject schooling all together.
Interesting thing about special ed. Learning disabilities are defined as a signifigant discrepancy in a specific area: a kid that can read and write and spell but can’t process spacially, or a kid is great in reading and math but can’t write. Mental retardation is defined a variety of ways, but one requirement is an IQ below 70.
What this means is that a kid with an IQ of 75 or 80–and that is often (but not always) a very slow kid–doesn’t qualify for anything. They aren’t learning disabled because there is no discrepancy–they are slow at everything–and they aren’t MR, so that’s out. It’s a very frustrating place to be.
I don’t have any good answers to the problem, Cardinal. I know exactly the kind of kid you are talking about, and I’ve probably passed them more often than I ever would have believed before I started teaching. I tend to use “effort” and “improvment” as guidelines: if both those things are in evidence, I don’t feel bad about bumping a 65 to a 70. I’ve never had a kid so low that effort couldn’t at least get them to a 65. But it’s not a solution I am really happy about, it’s just the lesser of two evils.
But they do qualify for retention. Many of them just need more time, more repetition, another year spent doing the same stuff. Will they “catch up” and go on to great colleges and white collar careers? No, probably not. But they might master *some *things, instead of being clueless at nearly everything.
sighThis isn’t really an answer to this particular OP, I know. It’s more a general sadness at the state of education and parental and educator fear of “failure” and “social stigma” caused by retention. By high school, the game is pretty much lost, I fear - spending three years in sophomore chemistry isn’t going to help matters much. Spending two years in second grade might have helped, though.
I am not sure that more of the same would have done much for these kids–special ed isn’t just more, it’s different, and I think a lot of these kids would benefit greatly from different approaches.
I really do think that kids like this are the most underserved of the system, and you are right that there are no solutions that don’t carry a stigma.
My high school had a program set up so that the first 2 years (grade 7 and 8, actually…HS in Quebec is gr. 7-11) were completed in 3 years for students like you describe. By then, the kids are (almost) 16 and can legally stop attending high school, but at least the program gave them a better chance of catching up, or at least a little more time to learn some of the basics. I think a lot of these students were then funneled towards the Technical Institute, where they could earn a high school diploma in a trade rather than a regular diploma. It was generally considered to be a successful program. There was a stigma attached to it, but given as how there were 30-40 kids in each year of the program, it wasn’t as bad as the stigma that could be attached to a single kid that everyone learns has to stay behind or do summer school. ISTR that they had a slightly different routine, so their breaks/lunch hour didn’t coincide exactly with everyone else’s to prevent trouble.
That doesn’t really help the OP, but I think it’s an interesting way to deal with those in-between kids who just never really had a chance. I have a friend whose brother fell through the cracks to to speak… he didn’t get diagnosed with severe dyslexia until he was 15, and by then it was way too late. So many years of being treated like an idiot, and he ended up believing it. He dropped out, and is a drug user and drunk, without any motivation at all. And yet I’ve seen him do fairly complex math quickly in his head (in the grocery store) and is a brilliant musician (IMHO). The parents weren’t on top of things, obviously, but neither were any of his teachers. He could have had such a different life. Is it possible the students in the OP have a learning disability that just hasn’t been identified yet?
Going strictly by the standards, did the student meet the standard for a D? Passing a kid along results in high school student that read at a 5th grade level do math at a 4th grade level and writes at a 3rd grade level. Don’t believe me? Come by my school sometime and I can show you at least a thousand.
What justification do you have for passing the student? Moving him on so he’s someone else’s problem (because he will be even if that not what you intended)? And if you’re favoring social promotion, then why have any standards at all?
[former teacher, current guidance counselor hat on]
OK, I call these kids “80s kids”, and they are sad cases. Hard workers, but they just never quite get it. I’m not sure that they are candidates for retention either, and here’s why:
Most curriculum is written with a “normal” student (students whose IQs are around 100) in mind. Given the fact that these students’ IQs are 20 points below, is it really fair to have them repeat a curriculum they will probably never master, no matter how hard they try?
I’ve had these students when I was teaching (I’ve only worked in Middle School). I always gave them Ds just because of how hard they worked. From a Guidance standpoint, I think there needs to be more vocational programs for these students. By the time they reach the age that the programs start, the frustration is showing and they are acting out.
Then again, my state (FL) just cut funding for Education, so we know those programs won’t exist anytime soon here.
[former teacher, current guidance counselor hat off]
“Who ever said life is fair? Where is that written? Life isn’t always fair.”
Is it “fair” to the other students to promote “the 80s” when they haven’t mastered the material? Is it fair to the 80s, or their parents*, to let them think they’ve mastered enough of the material successfully to move on? Is it fair to the future teachers to give them students who haven’t mastered the prerequisites for their classes? Is it fair for their fellow college chemistry students to have to sit through an explanation of negative numbers because the 80s in the class never really successfully learned basic addition and yet they’re in a community college chem class? (Real life example.)
All the “fair” in the world isn’t helping. It’s setting them up to fail, really fail, when they’re older and it’s even more harmful - socially, academically and self-esteemally. How is that fair?
But yes, I agree with you that bringing back (or increasing) vocational education and making it start earlier would be a good idea. But part and parcel of that is honesty in education. Teachers have to stop giving Ds for effort and be honest with themselves, the students and the guidance counselors and stop playing the precious self-esteem game.
*My son (not an 80s kid, just a lazy one) made honor roll one semester because his teachers thought it would make him feel better about himself. Imagine my delight when he was failing at midterm and they were shocked - shocked! - that this was the first I’d heard he was having trouble. Because they inflated his grades, that’s why! How the hell was I supposed to know he was struggling if they were lying to the both of us?!
This is a 2-part problem. Part 1 is to make the parents understand that they are raising a door knob. Part 2 is to establish a goal that is achievable and work with the parents to make that happen.
I suppose I don’t understand why an 80 isn’t considered handicapped and thus entitled to the same resources mandated by law. Sounds like a huge crack in the system. Are these kids smart enough to learn a trade such as plumbing?
Because in order to qualify for Learning Disabled, you have to have a discrepancy between Reading and Math performance… 80s kids are low all around. However, in order to qualify for Educable Mentally Handicapped, you have to have an IQ below 80. Therefore, 80s kids end up in Intensive classes (placement based on performance on standardized tests) with the bad kids. Because 80s kids are easily influenced, they end up picking up the bad kids’ habits.
The upshot is in order to get into the Vocational programs, you have to have good behavior and attendance (at least where I am you do)… stuff these impressionable and frustrated kids don’t have by the time they come of age to qualify for the programs.
Yes, it is a crack in the system, but until it affect the Powers that Be, nothing will be done.
It’s not a self-esteem game. Self-esteem has nothing to do with it. It’s the realization that if they don’t get a high school diploma, they are shut out of all their best opportunities: the military (the best vocational education program in the country) and a lot of mid-level management positions in retail and food service (jobs these kids are capable of holding)
If I have a kid who has passed the state graduation exams on the third or fourth try and they have a 67 in Economics for the semester after completing all assignments and coming in for tutoring, I do not see how is it in that child’s best interest to deny them graduation. Nor do I see how bumping those three points is unfair to any other child, since anyone who turns in all their assignments and comes to tutoring is going to pass.
Perhaps not in high school. My son decided to get his act together, so I haven’t had to deal with the high school on these issues. Plus, his high school *does *operate under the idea that lots - the majority - of the students there aren’t going to college, and that a substantial number of them - 27%, last I knew - won’t graduate at all. They do have a strong vocational program starting right off the bat freshman year. They have two entirely separate college prep tracks for the few (coughwhite) students who can be funneled that way (one with a science focus and one with a humanities focus), and he’s in one of them, thank goodness. The Chicago Public Schools are a total mess, but IMHO, they’re actually on the vanguard of this sort of work - they’ve already been forced to see how their system was broken, and they are, slowly, working things out for the betterment of the students, beginning with redefining “betterment”.
But in grade school it’s *totally *a self esteem game, although “self esteem” is going by other names these days - “social development” being a big one. Not just in my kids’ schools, but in the ones I attended and the ones my mother’s (sixth grade) taught in for 25 years.
And yes, 3 points for an almost-there kid probably isn’t the end of the world. But that’s not the “lost upon lost” kid, that’s the “maybe we can get him back to speed with specific attention” kid.
In grade school gaining some mastery before moving on is important, because you are learning the three Rs. Don’t figure out addition and you are screwed.
But why do we make one of the “80s” take high school science at all? Conceptually, HS Science is difficult (I’m sure my IQ is above 100 and I found Chemistry in particular to create a sense of ‘huh?’). They aren’t going to need Biology to stock shelves, become the shift lead at McDonalds or become a mechanic. Its frustrating for them, it creates resource issues for the teachers, and its a bad use of resources for society.
I’m not talking about a kid that could get up to speed with specific attention. I am talking about a kid who has gotten specific attention, come to class every day, attempted every assignment, come to tutoring, and still hasn’t passed a single test. In most “regular” high school classes, that kid could probably be earning a 65 or so: there are always completion grades and group projects and extra credit–a kid you can’t say has actually come to understand the subject can almost pass if they don’t leave a point on the table. Those are the kids that break your heart, and holding them back from graduation just seems like it doesn’t help anyone. On the other hand, it feels like lying to give them the credit. I really don’t know what the right answer is there. I am not sure there is one.
In a weird way, HS graduation exams make me feel better about bumping those students. If the state has decided those tests cover the essential skills of a graduate, than I feel like I have more wiggle room on the classroom level.
The 3 R’s don’t stop at grade school, at least not math. And you’ve never worked as a mechanic. It’s hard mental work to diagnose a modern car. Definitely not a job for the 80’s crowd.
I’d like to see these kids steered toward vocational training where they’ll pick up some skills. If the kids have trouble with algebra then concentrate on geometry and apply that to carpentry skills.
IMO, the biggest obstacle to success is getting the parents of these kids to understand where their child stands on the ladder of life.
Right, but my very first point in the thread was that by high school, it’s pretty much too late. I don’t HAVE a direct opinion for the OP for his “lost upon lost” kid because I think he’s already basically screwed. I have lots of opinions about “social promotion” as a whole concept. And I’m no more in favor of it in high school than in elementary school, for the truly low functioning.
Because most of us think that our kid shouldn’t be the one becoming the shift lead at McDonald’s (on anything more than a temporary basis, of course). That’s the fundamental thing that needs to change before we can return to vocational training tracks - we need to change the idea that being “just” a blue collar or service worker is shameful.
We’ve got notions in this country that we’re all good and capable and intelligent enough to succeed (meaning get good grades, go to college and get a job requiring a suit or pumps) with a little effort. And if we fail that would mean we’re bad. Obviously, our kids can’t be bad, so if we’re not good enough or smart enough or trying hard enough, we just lower the standards so that they don’t fail after all. I think we need to retool our collective idea of “fail” and “bad” so that retaining a kid who isn’t mastering the material isn’t shameful, it’s just what needs to be done.
In grade school, we shouldn’t be so afraid to retain kids who just need more time to catch up. In high school, we should encourage those who still really haven’t caught up to go into vocational training, because yes, they’re not going to need chemistry anyway. We should implement programs that support and encourage people to do what they’re good at, even if that doesn’t ever involve a suit and tie.
