ITA. While it would seem to make sense to allow kids at elementary level to progress according to ability and not age (which can be irrelevant to ability)–I think you run into snags b/c primary school is set up to do more than just impart learning.
ALOT of time in primary grades is spent in social behaviors–teaching what is appropriate and what not, for example, learning to budget time and organize work etc.
I think that an excellent teacher makes the difference for both ends of the achievement spectrum. IMO, the “forgotten” kids are the average ones. The bright ones are bored and find their own way to learn or entertain themselves, the slow ones usually have a state mandated program to help them (if it actually does is another thread), but the “C” kids, the average ones–what do they get?
Tracking works in different ways. For example, when I went to high school, everyone had to pass two math courses to graduate with a Regents diploma. In the “normal track”, that took two years. There was a slower track in which it took three years, and an advanced class which covered material that wouldn’t be on the Regent’s exam. My son now attends a school with three to four levels of each class. In some classes, there is some difference in the material- each level of say, ninth grade English reads different books depending on the abilty of the students. In others, the speed is the main difference, one track finishes Math A in a year, while another takes a year and a half. Sometimes it is the exact same material from the next year- the eighth grade honors math class learns what would normally be taught in ninth grade.
I absolutely agree with you, but I don’t see how appropriate behavior, organization and other social skills won’t be taught in this model. They’d be taught throughout all the classes, as they are now. A child with poor social skills who can’t keep his homework in order is unlikely to be granted a passing grade in lower level courses, and will repeat these classes until he or she gets his act together.
In fact, although I think the OP was mostly focused on academics, I think this model would be more conducive to teaching social skills and real world work habits, as we are not placed in homogeneous groups when we leave school. None of my co-workers are exactly my age, with exactly my interests and exactly the social graces I learned. Wouldn’t it have been nice to learn how to deal with the co-worker (or co-student) who came from a completely different social or philisophic background when we were younger? To learn how to address differences between social groups as children would (presumably) mean we’d be better at it as adults.
I’ve argued for this model of education for years, and to date have heard not a single good reason why it wouldn’t be more effective academically and socially and, in the long run, cheaper than today’s model.
All I can point to is a kid named Raymond (not his real name)-a friend of my son’s. This kid is bright, bright, bright. All well and good. He WAS allowed to progress according to his academic abilities–which are formidable.
Unfortunately, he is emotionally immature and physically immature–for the grade he is now in (7th). He is about 4’10, acts like a 7 y/o and has become more “odd” than he needs to be–because he doesn’t fit in with his intellectual/academic peers.
Now, I know that 7th grade is the worst for alot of people–there is a huge spectrum of developement present in both girls and boys at that age. But in him, b/c he is sooo not ready for the social demands placed on him–it’s a shame. Sadly, he is only one year younger than his grade–but he wouldn’t do well even in 6th grade.
Maturity-wise, he’s like a 3rd grader.
What to do with folks like him? I don’t see how progressing as your own rate helps this problem. (of course, he’s not being helped much now…sad).
Schools of this type, like Montessori, seem to only work when the school can pick their students, and/or the parents can afford the high extra cost to keep the “slower” students up with the program.
I rather see my two straight A granddaughters “held back” a little (they’re not, really) than to see less fortunate kids abandoned. If done right, the brighter kids can bring the slower ones along, and all the kids will benefit equally from the mix.
I’m not talking about prodigy vs impared, but an average group with differing abilities.
If done right, the brighter kids can bring the slower ones along, and all the kids will benefit equally from the mix.
Actually, this is not true. It is a commonly held belief, but it is mistaken. Sorry, I don’t have a cite, but I did hear someone speak on NPR re: gifted education a few years back. One think he said stuck with me–'there is as much difference in comprehension and academic ability in the point spread between an IQ of 100-120(or 120-140) as there is in one that is 80-100."
IOW, they really are apples and oranges. And why are the brighter ones looked to to “help” the slower? The brighter ones need as much enrichment and challenge as the slower ones need encouragement and review.
ITA about benfitting from the mix. Especially the brighter ones, who can get into rarified atmospheres and lose touch with “ordinary” people (it can also lead to arrogance on their part and they need to know that there are many kinds of intelligence and aptitude). But htere is no reason to hold the brighter ones back in order to spare feelings of the slower ones or to use the brighter ones as unpaid tutors. I speak from experience (my own and my kid’s)–to force bright kids to sit and listen to concepts that they got last year/month whatever–it’s as hard as it is for a slower kid to be peppered with questions that he cannot answer…
I don’t remember exactly how the IQ numbers work, but I’m talking about the 100-120 kids as a group. They make up the majority of kids in a classroom, but aren’t that far apart in comprehension.
No cites here either, but the idea that all can benefit is popular is because experience bears it out.
Both the 140’s and the 80’s, definitely the minority, can benefit from extra help. But few will really benefit from isolation. All need at least a touch of the core which reflects society as a whole.
The biggest issue with education in the US is poverty, not the mixing of students.
I think it would be a lot to monitor. My mom works for ETS, the company that makes the SAT, GMAT, etc., duiring her summer breaks. The amount of work that goes into making and grading these tests is astounding. Any kind of testing that had that kind of gravity would be difficult to administer. If the tests were too specific, students would all be learning at too many different levels. A system that is too specific would be a nightmare. It is hard enough scheduling classes for the student body of a large normal high school already.
If the tests covered more material, they would need to be heavily regulated and would have to conform to some county, state, or national standard. Parents wouldn’t tolerate anything less. In fact, even with regulation, you would have a hard time convincing parents that their kid should be left back. Leaving a kid back is often more trouble than its worth. All you need is a few parents to sue, and you will have a disaster on your hands. A big reason why schools don’t end things like grade inflation and undeserved grade promotion is because of the troubles that will likely arise. Education as it exists today is less about maximum utility and more about trying not to piss anybody off. Even if you figured out a way to do this at minimal cost, you would have to contend with the legitimate argument that testing does not always accurately refllect a student’s knowledge of, or ability in a subject.
I wish we had this. I’ve got classes where people are at tons at different levels which makes the class harder to function if some people are already finished with the assigned reading, while others are still on page one. This also doesn’t motivate people who can comprehend things faster then others. They simply aren’t motivated to try if they won’t really get rewarded with something harder.
If the 6 year old has much brains the 6 year old would realise that the 14 year cutting class is probably responsible for their situation of being forced to repeat subjects. BTW, those who fail (and repeat) subjects would probably be in different classes to those who pass the first time. Also, I don’t think classes should be compulsory, at least if you’re passing.
This could actually cause drinking to be seen in a negative light… rather than the 17 year old drinker going somewhere in life, they are kind of a loser, being left behind in school with 13 year olds.
BTW, http://www.healthscotland.com/alcohol/alcohol/facts.cfm
“About one third of 13 year olds and a half of 15 year olds reported that they drank alcohol in the week before the survey. There was no difference between girls and boys.”
“One third of 13 year olds and one quarter of 15 year olds who drank alcohol had been drunk at least once. While 1 in 7 of 13 year olds and a third of 15 year olds had been drunk 4 times or more.”
I guess kids would usually already know of older brothers and sisters who can get them alcohol.
I get the impression that “Raymond” is better academically that the average kid that is one year older than him… if so, he probably learnt a lot of material separate to the class. In my idea everyone learns exactly the same material. (Though there could be classes for people who have a history of failing that might use different teaching methods and perhaps ignore some things that aren’t prerequisites for later subjects)
So since they’d learn together you’d be involved together more. Maybe study groups (pairs or triplets) could be encouraged which would allow people to socialize a bit with their academic peers. The increased maturity of his peers should rub off a bit onto him while they’re studying. Though the gaps in maturity could grow too bit… to deal with that I guess for some subjects (physical education) should have people with the same age group in them. Then the bright kids could put the snippets of mature stuff they’ve learnt to use with their same-age peers. There could be times when they get the kids to bond with those in their age group and/or in their subject. I mean the class could tell everyone stuff about themselves, etc.
Well maybe social development could somehow be a subject where you practice having conservations with people and groups, etc, and it could deal with issues that are increasingly mature - so that at least by the time you’ve graduated from high school you’d have good social skills - even if you fail if initially and are behind in that department… I mean if social skill development is a goal for schools, why not just make it an assessable subject as well? Drama teachers would be good tutors/assessors - they could see how good the “performance” is (how interesting, genuine, etc). Since there would be tutors the kids would have help to pass the subject… though some kids, like “Raymond” might fail a lot of the subjects, and maybe go into the “special” versions of those classes. His peers in those classes would have about the same social skills though they’d have different ages.
A six year old who figures that out surely doesn’t belong in a class of average six year olds. At any rate, what does a concern about a six year old cutting class have to do with compulsory classes? Where I come from “cutting” exclusively means an absence without parental knowledge , and I wouldn’t like my six year old to get the idea to cut from his 14 year old classmates and be roaming the streets during school hours- especially when you consider most six year olds have very limited roaming privileges after school. If those who fail and must repeat classes are to be separated from those taking them for the first time, I don’t see why they couldn’t be further separated by age- the 6,7 and 8 year olds in this second grade level class (or classes), the 9, and 10 year olds in another. The 11, 12, and13 year olds in a second grade level class located in a middle school, and those above 14 in one located in a high school
Maybe ( but I’m not at all sure). But what about the lone 13 year old in a class of 17 year olds? They’re not losers- they’re right on schedule. And the 13 year old wants to fit in.
BTW, http://www.healthscotland.com/alcohol/alcohol/facts.cfm
“About one third of 13 year olds and a half of 15 year olds reported that they drank alcohol in the week before the survey. There was no difference between girls and boys.”
“One third of 13 year olds and one quarter of 15 year olds who drank alcohol had been drunk at least once. While 1 in 7 of 13 year olds and a third of 15 year olds had been drunk 4 times or more.”
I guess kids would usually already know of older brothers and sisters who can get them alcohol.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t know many children well, or that the ones you do know are very young. Social development in kids isn’t really about conversations. Depending on the age of the kids, it has more to do with learning to get along with others- very young children may just be learning the concepts of taking turns (especially if they have no close in age siblings) , and learning to control your emotional reactions ( it’s one thing for a five year old to burst into tears, it’s quite another for a ten year old) or shared activities or interests. A 9 year old who still plays with Barbies or Hot Wheels is not likely to have much in common with the 15 year old classmates whose main interest is in being attractive to those who fit their sexual orientation. Even if the interest is the same, they very likely won’t be doing them together- both nine year old and fifteen year old boys are interested in baseball, but they would never be on the same team.
The testing would be for individual subjects. Basically each subject would have material that has to be covered and from that, exams, etc, are thought up (perhaps by the subject’s head teacher). The subject’s head teacher would organise the time and venue for the assessments.
Those monitoring the students could just look at the results of the assessments, which would be either a pass or a fail. If it is a fail, the student would just be repeating ONE subject - it’s not like it is a matter of repeating all of the subjects or not.
Yeah, they’re learning at lots of levels…
Well my idea might involve the state or nation changing…
If a kid fails a subject, they have to repeat one subject… I’m not talking about them being left back and repeating all of the subjects (unless they failed all of the subjects). The parents should be told how the school works in advance and if they’re told that if kids fail a subject, they have to repeat it until it is passed, then I don’t think parents have much of a case. (unless the assessment is unfair… but even then I guess the kid could take a retest)
If the subject is maths 3, then all that matters is the kid’s knowledge of maths 3. It doesn’t matter if they know about stuff from maths 10, etc. Surely a test would be able to find out what they know about maths 3.
Well the subjects would be reformed a lot.
The assessable subjects could be divided into 4 streams.
e.g.
Maths, English, History/Social Studies, Science
If all of the subject classes are repeated 4 times each week, then students would be guaranteed to get to all 4 of their streams.
Say they all had 20 parts. There would be 80 sets of lectures/tutorials/quizes during the week for each subject, up to 20 of them could be at the same time.
There could also be another stream called “social skills” - that could only have 10 parts and only be repeated twice - and kids wouldn’t be guaranteed of finding a class that doesn’t conflict with the other schedules.
It’s hard to try and fit physical education in there too (which could include non-assessable sex education).
If the subject segments last for a term each and only are available every second term, then it would halve the number of parts that would need to be taught each term. So on odd terms, the odd numbered parts could be taught, and on the even terms, the even numbered parts could be taught.
Say there were 6 independent streams of subjects to guarantee you’d be able to do each subject. There would only be 10 parts of maths, science, english, etc, per term but the lectures/classes would be repeated 6 times.
In smaller schools P.E. could have combined age groups (with people that have 2-3 years difference between them) since only 1/6 of an age group would be in a particular P.E. class.
Well those are just ideas. BTW, I’m aware that if subjects are only available every second term then people can fall behind quickly… but that is the idea. I don’t expect most people to consistently pass the first time after hearing the material once in a lecture and practising a bit… if they did, everyone would graduate from the combination middle elementary/high school in the minimum possible time (5 years).
Well they could be explicitly told that they might have older kids in their classes, and if they copy the behaviour of those older kids, e.g. by not taking school seriously, then they’d remain in school a long time and be in classes with younger kids.
Ideally, if kids don’t attend classes they should go to the library, etc - they shouldn’t roam the streets. I guess it’s hard to make sure kids don’t escape. If classes are very regular and compulsory then it is easy to see if someone disappeared… (though that mightn’t be compatible with my idea)
BTW, in my idea it would begin when the kid is fairly responsible… e.g. age 8 or 10. If the kid is a genius, they can skip ahead in some subjects (e.g. maths/english/science - probably having to do the exams first).
That doubles the number of classes needed for the subject - which might only be suitable for very large schools. But it sounds good.
Well if they go along to the drinking parties at least they might learn about how to relate to other kids in a somewhat mature way, unlike some child prodigies. Like that link said, it is already quite common anyway despite the school’s attempts to segregate age groups.
Conversations involve taking turns, getting along with others and finding shared interests. It is also a shared activity in itself - especially if the focus of a class is for people to have conversations. The teacher could make people converse with every single person. (i.e. in a group of 20 people, there are 19 people that each person can talk to) They could also learn to tell stories to groups of people (which seems to be a common social skill). BTW, note that in the school I’m talking about, the kids would be at least maybe 8 or 10. (There could be an intensive class for those whose social skills are below other 8 to 10 year olds)
I said the subject could deal with issues that are increasingly mature… that could be one of the final sections of the subject… the 9 year old in your example mightn’t have been capable of passing the prerequisites and so not be able to attempt that subject. Maybe in that subject (“social skills”) not all of the content would be taught… e.g. kids with difficulties could be encouraged to watch pop media… including in advanced stages - Dr. Phil, PG13+ college comedies, soapies, etc.
That’s because the game is more even if the ages are the same since then they’d be more likely to have similar abilities. I mean pro’s don’t often play with people who can barely play the game.
I didn’t say a nine year old wouldn’t want to play baseball witht he fifteen year olds, or even that the fifteen year olds wouldn’t let him. But they simply wouldn’t be put on any sort of team together, becasue they are different sizes.
About subjects again… though I talked about maths 1, maths 2, etc, you don’t necessarily need to do them in that order. The names would be more specific, but the number just involves a approximate order in which the subjects need to be done.
There would be a complex prerequisite system.
e.g.
maths 1 - no prerequisites
maths 2 - no prerequisites
maths 3 - needs maths 1
maths 4 - needs maths 2
maths 5 - needs maths 1 and 2
maths 6 - needs maths 2 and 3
etc
You’d be able to do multiple maths subjects at a time, but you wouldn’t necessarily be able to get to all of the lectures/tutorials for the valid subjects you have chosen if you are doing an unusually large number of subjects. (see my time table post)
Having prerequisites that work like that means that if subjects are only available every second term, then failing students would at least probably have subjects they can do in that stream while they wait until they can repeat that failed subject.