Look at banks. If they need a new building or need new equipment for their staff, they get it. Look at insurance companies. Yes, those huge new, beautiful buildings. Look at schools. Even the fairly new one have trailers alongside the classrooms. Some of the older ones have significant structural problems.
I am a sub, so I see a lot of different schools. One of the places I sub at is a fairly new school - with 3 double wide mobile classrooms outside of it. Another of these fairly new schools has 2 double wide trailers and more classes per grade level than they can accommodate, even with classes of 32 and more. But at least some of the classrooms in the newer schools are spacious.
I also subbed in a new high school. There were 40 kids in the AP Calc class I taught.
Not so with many of the older school classrooms. One classroom was so crowded that there was no way I could get to every child's desk. Another classroom had kids sharing desks, because they couldn't fit any more in the room.
These crowded classrooms are fire hazards. The mobile classrooms have other problems - security as children go to special classes or the restroom without teacher accompaniment.
I am no expert on school finances, but I asked why all these new schools were built with too few classrooms, even the day they opened. The teachers said that that was as much as the school board thought the public would support as a bond issue for building these much needed new schools. They were probably correct and therein lies part of the problem. Does your bank ask you if they should build a new branch facility? Does your insurance company have to hold a public referendum to build a new headquarters?
The way American schools are financed almost guarantees inequities. Most schools are dependent on property taxes and voter approval. So, school districts in wealthier areas almost by definition have more money to spend. Of course, the buildings don't tell the whole story - just the beginning part of it.
Showing posts with label class_size. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class_size. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Monday, May 05, 2014
Classroom Physical Arrangements
Mark Phillips' post A Place for Learning: the Physical Environment of Classrooms has prompted me to write out some of my thoughts as a sub about different classrooms. He relates the story of one of his mentors taking the job of custodian, so that he get a firsthand look at the physical environments of classrooms. Well, I can do his mentor one better: take the job of substitute teaching. Then you can get a sense of the physical environments of not only multiple classrooms in one school, but also of the vast differences between schools and the differences between elementary, middle school, and high schools.
I do most of my subbing nowadays in elementary schools, especially third through fifth grades. From what I can see of most elementary schools, the physical environment is very busy and almost overwhelming. Walls are COVERED with posters, student work, number lines, job charts, attendance/leave-the-room boards, reminder lists, even decorations on the windows, etc., in addition to the white boards, the Smart boards, and the cupboards.
I have often wondered how much of this is really necessary. Do students actually USE the information on those posters? In most cases, the print on the poster is too small for students to see, unless they are close to the poster. Displaying student writing projects may be motivating, but no one can actually read the essays posted on the walls. To me, it is visually distracting. It doesn't seem so to the kids, who seem used to it, but I wonder how much it contributes to too much visual stimulation.
Personally, if I were to decide on the classroom decorations, I would remove most of the posters and charts with small print. They are useless and distracting. I like a display for student art work, but the student written work would be better in a three ring binder in the library. And replace some of the posters with beautiful pictures and professional art work. One school district I worked in was in a state where public buildings were to spend one percent of their construction budget on professional art work. Some of the art work thus added to the buildings was amazing. And, to me, it seemed as though, surrounded by this gorgeous art, the students actually produced better art of their own. The buildings themselves seemed to say, we value art and creative expression.
Unlike Mr. Phillips' mentor, though, I don't feel that the classroom desk layouts are designed for the custodians. In most cases now, the classrooms I go to seem set up for the ubiquitous group work. "Table groups" of 3 to 6 or more desks are arranged throughout the classroom and are often numbered/named for ease of reference: "Table 4" or the "Purple Ninja Unicorns". Some classrooms are so crowded that it is difficult to walk to be next to each student's desk. Other classrooms have sufficient space, so that the teacher can also set up a library corner, a meeting area, and a (largely unused) computer area.
One 4th grade teacher I subbed for was there when I arrived for a part day job. I was quite impressed with his arrangement. He proceeded to demonstrate how his classroom could switch configurations at the snap of his fingers. For one of his subjects he was going to have the students watch a video, where they all needed to be able to see the projection screen. After that, they were going to work on a small group task related to the video. In a different subject, they were scheduled to take a test individually. Each of these arrangements had a number. He would snap his fingers, call out a number and the students would rapidly change their desks around to match the needed configuration - less than a minute transition time.
Middle schools and high schools seem to have fewer job charts and instructionally related charts and posters. Many of the rooms are functional and plain. This is especially true if the rooms are shared by multiple teachers. No teacher seems to own the space, so it is left undecorated. This too-little can be as stifling as the elementary school's too-much. And, as Mr. Phillips noted, the classrooms are often arranged in rows. Sometimes, this is necessitated by the size of the classroom. I taught one calculus class with 40 students who were all crammed into a too small room with multiple tables. In truth, it was a fire hazard. There was no way for the teacher to get to students at the end of the rows which abutted the walls. Middle school and high school science classes, on the other hand, usually have large tables for the students to work on, demonstrating that sometimes the arrangement of the classroom depends significantly not only on the teaching style of the teacher, but also on the necessities of the subject matter. Math often works in rows, science at tables, and social studies, English, or world languages in semi-circles for discussions. Unfortunately, with class sizes surging, the semi-circles for discussions are becoming rare. There simply isn't enough room.
I have long been interested in floor plans for schools and, for a while, I got publications from a professional society that gave awards to new school building designs. One of the key factors in good design seems to be sufficient space for the activities. Many of the elementary schools are very limited in this respect. Even high schools sometimes are feeling the pinch, as in the example of the calculus class above. That was in a building that was less that 10 years old, but some of the classrooms were simply too small for the numbers of students they needed to accommodate. With school budgets stripped to the bone, many of the newer schools are being "underbuilt" - they are too small from the moment they open their doors. Many of them rely on mobile trailers for their overflowing numbers. These classrooms, in my experience, are very much less than ideal - no running water, no bathrooms, security problems, and feeling like an outcasts from the rest of the school.
The physical environment of the classroom can have a big effect on the students. Crowding seems to lead to more interaction problems. There is no place where the student can go to get away from it all.
I do most of my subbing nowadays in elementary schools, especially third through fifth grades. From what I can see of most elementary schools, the physical environment is very busy and almost overwhelming. Walls are COVERED with posters, student work, number lines, job charts, attendance/leave-the-room boards, reminder lists, even decorations on the windows, etc., in addition to the white boards, the Smart boards, and the cupboards.
I have often wondered how much of this is really necessary. Do students actually USE the information on those posters? In most cases, the print on the poster is too small for students to see, unless they are close to the poster. Displaying student writing projects may be motivating, but no one can actually read the essays posted on the walls. To me, it is visually distracting. It doesn't seem so to the kids, who seem used to it, but I wonder how much it contributes to too much visual stimulation.
Personally, if I were to decide on the classroom decorations, I would remove most of the posters and charts with small print. They are useless and distracting. I like a display for student art work, but the student written work would be better in a three ring binder in the library. And replace some of the posters with beautiful pictures and professional art work. One school district I worked in was in a state where public buildings were to spend one percent of their construction budget on professional art work. Some of the art work thus added to the buildings was amazing. And, to me, it seemed as though, surrounded by this gorgeous art, the students actually produced better art of their own. The buildings themselves seemed to say, we value art and creative expression.
Unlike Mr. Phillips' mentor, though, I don't feel that the classroom desk layouts are designed for the custodians. In most cases now, the classrooms I go to seem set up for the ubiquitous group work. "Table groups" of 3 to 6 or more desks are arranged throughout the classroom and are often numbered/named for ease of reference: "Table 4" or the "Purple Ninja Unicorns". Some classrooms are so crowded that it is difficult to walk to be next to each student's desk. Other classrooms have sufficient space, so that the teacher can also set up a library corner, a meeting area, and a (largely unused) computer area.
One 4th grade teacher I subbed for was there when I arrived for a part day job. I was quite impressed with his arrangement. He proceeded to demonstrate how his classroom could switch configurations at the snap of his fingers. For one of his subjects he was going to have the students watch a video, where they all needed to be able to see the projection screen. After that, they were going to work on a small group task related to the video. In a different subject, they were scheduled to take a test individually. Each of these arrangements had a number. He would snap his fingers, call out a number and the students would rapidly change their desks around to match the needed configuration - less than a minute transition time.
Middle schools and high schools seem to have fewer job charts and instructionally related charts and posters. Many of the rooms are functional and plain. This is especially true if the rooms are shared by multiple teachers. No teacher seems to own the space, so it is left undecorated. This too-little can be as stifling as the elementary school's too-much. And, as Mr. Phillips noted, the classrooms are often arranged in rows. Sometimes, this is necessitated by the size of the classroom. I taught one calculus class with 40 students who were all crammed into a too small room with multiple tables. In truth, it was a fire hazard. There was no way for the teacher to get to students at the end of the rows which abutted the walls. Middle school and high school science classes, on the other hand, usually have large tables for the students to work on, demonstrating that sometimes the arrangement of the classroom depends significantly not only on the teaching style of the teacher, but also on the necessities of the subject matter. Math often works in rows, science at tables, and social studies, English, or world languages in semi-circles for discussions. Unfortunately, with class sizes surging, the semi-circles for discussions are becoming rare. There simply isn't enough room.
I have long been interested in floor plans for schools and, for a while, I got publications from a professional society that gave awards to new school building designs. One of the key factors in good design seems to be sufficient space for the activities. Many of the elementary schools are very limited in this respect. Even high schools sometimes are feeling the pinch, as in the example of the calculus class above. That was in a building that was less that 10 years old, but some of the classrooms were simply too small for the numbers of students they needed to accommodate. With school budgets stripped to the bone, many of the newer schools are being "underbuilt" - they are too small from the moment they open their doors. Many of them rely on mobile trailers for their overflowing numbers. These classrooms, in my experience, are very much less than ideal - no running water, no bathrooms, security problems, and feeling like an outcasts from the rest of the school.
The physical environment of the classroom can have a big effect on the students. Crowding seems to lead to more interaction problems. There is no place where the student can go to get away from it all.
Friday, April 18, 2014
No Room to Move
I had two classes this week that have 31 students. Both were 5th grades. The other class (of the three I taught this week) was around 20. The room size was perfectly adequate for the 20 student classroom - it is a charter school. The room size was also adequate for the 31 students in an upper socio-economic school. The room in the lower socio-economic school was cramped to absolute capacity. I don't know where they would fit another desk, should a new 5th grader move into the district.
Managing a class of 31 students, several of which have special needs, is a challenge, no matter what the room size. As a sub, it is nearly impossible for me to get to know any of the students. It makes substitute teaching more like being a clerk (or a prison warden). The job is to make sure the kids are accounted for; that they pretend to do some work; and that they make it to the end of the day without any major disasters. There is little time for connecting to students.
But worst of all, for the students who have to be there every day, the crowded classroom is very uncomfortable for several of the students. One student was physically very large - just moving around the classroom must remind him several times a day that he is much bigger than most of the others. Another child seemed uncomfortable sitting - but standing means he blocks someone else's path. One student was on a behavior plan - and has temper issues. How do you make sure the other students can be away from him, if he has a melt-down?
Then there was the terribly quiet girl. I couldn't tell if she was shy or just completely overwhelmed with all the people. What pain she must be in every week day, with no place where she can get away from all the kids and not be constantly on guard. And what about a few of the others, who also seemed introverted. There was no place to escape from the overwhelming crush of other students.
And, I suppose it is equally painful for students who need to move. With 31 students in a packed classroom, any movement is disruptive.
The students were actually pretty nice, and I was only there for a half day, so it didn't overwhelm me. But it is painful for me to think about the situation we are putting those children in. Imagine adults in that situation. They would find it intolerable. Why do we do this to kids?
Because we can.
Managing a class of 31 students, several of which have special needs, is a challenge, no matter what the room size. As a sub, it is nearly impossible for me to get to know any of the students. It makes substitute teaching more like being a clerk (or a prison warden). The job is to make sure the kids are accounted for; that they pretend to do some work; and that they make it to the end of the day without any major disasters. There is little time for connecting to students.
But worst of all, for the students who have to be there every day, the crowded classroom is very uncomfortable for several of the students. One student was physically very large - just moving around the classroom must remind him several times a day that he is much bigger than most of the others. Another child seemed uncomfortable sitting - but standing means he blocks someone else's path. One student was on a behavior plan - and has temper issues. How do you make sure the other students can be away from him, if he has a melt-down?
Then there was the terribly quiet girl. I couldn't tell if she was shy or just completely overwhelmed with all the people. What pain she must be in every week day, with no place where she can get away from all the kids and not be constantly on guard. And what about a few of the others, who also seemed introverted. There was no place to escape from the overwhelming crush of other students.
And, I suppose it is equally painful for students who need to move. With 31 students in a packed classroom, any movement is disruptive.
The students were actually pretty nice, and I was only there for a half day, so it didn't overwhelm me. But it is painful for me to think about the situation we are putting those children in. Imagine adults in that situation. They would find it intolerable. Why do we do this to kids?
Because we can.
Saturday, April 05, 2014
Class List Rant, Again
Yesterday, I had a class with 31 or 32 students. Why am I not sure how many I actually had? Because the teacher didn't leave me a class list. I found a seating chart - it was outdated. She said in her note to me that two of her students were in the special education classroom and would be in and out with their aides all day. She didn't give me their names, so I didn't know if they were included on the seating chart or not. One girl was mentioned in her note as a person to ask to do a specific task, but her name wasn't anywhere on the seating chart or in the emergency folder. The kids said there were 32 students in the class, but even if I counted the extra girl and the two "in and out" students, I only got 31.
When the students went off to music, I went to the office to get a class list. The secretary hid her impatience with the request pretty well. The district has class list forms that subs are often required to sign and date, avowing that the attendance so marked is correct. But these class lists are also very often NOT given to subs, especially in elementary schools. They rely on teachers to give the subs class lists - and they often don't.
Then came math time. The students switched around for math. This time, the class swelled to 34 students - I think. There was no class list for this class either. Good thing we didn't have a fire drill or other emergency. And, 34 students was more than there was room for - not enough desks, so some kids had to double up.
There were 4 or 5 fifth grades in this school. Let's say 4. If each class had 31 students, that is 124 students, more than enough for 5 normal, large classes. Part of the problem is though, that this school, like 4 others that I go to, even though it is fairly new, was not built large enough for the growing population around it. The school already has mobile classrooms and there is limited space for more. Each time they build a new school, they seem to under-build.
I like this school. I enjoyed the kids. I just wish there weren't so many of them at a time and I had an accurate class list, so I have a hope of learning who they are. Subbing doesn't have a lot of rewards, but getting to know kids is an important part of it. It is hard to get to know them when there are SO many and you don't have a list with their names - preferably one you can keep and not send to the office, so you can write notes about them during the day.
Sigh.
When the students went off to music, I went to the office to get a class list. The secretary hid her impatience with the request pretty well. The district has class list forms that subs are often required to sign and date, avowing that the attendance so marked is correct. But these class lists are also very often NOT given to subs, especially in elementary schools. They rely on teachers to give the subs class lists - and they often don't.
Then came math time. The students switched around for math. This time, the class swelled to 34 students - I think. There was no class list for this class either. Good thing we didn't have a fire drill or other emergency. And, 34 students was more than there was room for - not enough desks, so some kids had to double up.
There were 4 or 5 fifth grades in this school. Let's say 4. If each class had 31 students, that is 124 students, more than enough for 5 normal, large classes. Part of the problem is though, that this school, like 4 others that I go to, even though it is fairly new, was not built large enough for the growing population around it. The school already has mobile classrooms and there is limited space for more. Each time they build a new school, they seem to under-build.
I like this school. I enjoyed the kids. I just wish there weren't so many of them at a time and I had an accurate class list, so I have a hope of learning who they are. Subbing doesn't have a lot of rewards, but getting to know kids is an important part of it. It is hard to get to know them when there are SO many and you don't have a list with their names - preferably one you can keep and not send to the office, so you can write notes about them during the day.
Sigh.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Difficult Day
I had a really difficult day today. The job I took said it was third grade, which is the youngest grade I usually sub for. But it turned out to be a second grade. OK, I can deal with second grade for a day, I thought.
Wrong.
This was one of the most difficult classes I have had all year. It wasn't that large - only 24 students and one was absent, but about one-third of the class had huge problems in focusing on their work. And about two-thirds of the class could best focus on which rules the other kids were breaking and which rules they could get away with breaking because I was a sub. Talk about tattling. Sigh.
The morning wasn't terrible - they started out with a "social studies" assignment, drawing food groups on plates. Indoor recess was not great, and then came their literacy block. They were supposed to write a summary of a book they read yesterday, then move on to a list of activities (spelling, read to self, computer work, read to partner, read to teacher). They all insisted that they had read the book yesterday and we went over how to write a summary. Only half of the class wasn't listening - they were busy trying to kick their neighbors. And by the time they got to their seats to start writing, most of them couldn't remember anything about the story they insisted they knew. Fifteen minutes later, they were finally settling down to writing, and then some students started finishing - everyone was distracted again.
The afternoon was worse. I was supposed to teach a math lesson to a smaller group, when the better math students left for a different math class. Only this group of about a dozen couldn't focus on anything. Even more of a disaster. One kid kept putting his hat on as an ammo belt. Another kid kept putting his shirt over his head like a hoodie. One girl kept moving around and annoying everyone, then complained that they were "mean to her". One boy who was supposed to sit next to me to work, insisted on sitting by himself. A girl who was supposed to sit next to me got NOTHING done, unless I was working with her directly. And on and on. I finally had to send Mr Shirt Over His Head Distracting Everyone to the office. Another gigantic sigh.
Then came library. I was relieved to see that the library teacher also had trouble getting them to settle down and pay attention - even for a short time. And finally computers. Over half of the class had trouble logging on (and I had no passwords to help them). Some finally managed to do so, but 8 students never could log on.
Back to class to get ready for dismissal. Little Miss Get Everyone Angry at Her is hitting people, because they said something unkind about her sister. They, of course, insist that they didn't say that. Little Miss Get Everyone Angry at Her then gets mad at me, because I tried to do something fun for dismissal. Sigh.
Never again. Their regular teacher is a saint.
Wrong.
This was one of the most difficult classes I have had all year. It wasn't that large - only 24 students and one was absent, but about one-third of the class had huge problems in focusing on their work. And about two-thirds of the class could best focus on which rules the other kids were breaking and which rules they could get away with breaking because I was a sub. Talk about tattling. Sigh.
The morning wasn't terrible - they started out with a "social studies" assignment, drawing food groups on plates. Indoor recess was not great, and then came their literacy block. They were supposed to write a summary of a book they read yesterday, then move on to a list of activities (spelling, read to self, computer work, read to partner, read to teacher). They all insisted that they had read the book yesterday and we went over how to write a summary. Only half of the class wasn't listening - they were busy trying to kick their neighbors. And by the time they got to their seats to start writing, most of them couldn't remember anything about the story they insisted they knew. Fifteen minutes later, they were finally settling down to writing, and then some students started finishing - everyone was distracted again.
The afternoon was worse. I was supposed to teach a math lesson to a smaller group, when the better math students left for a different math class. Only this group of about a dozen couldn't focus on anything. Even more of a disaster. One kid kept putting his hat on as an ammo belt. Another kid kept putting his shirt over his head like a hoodie. One girl kept moving around and annoying everyone, then complained that they were "mean to her". One boy who was supposed to sit next to me to work, insisted on sitting by himself. A girl who was supposed to sit next to me got NOTHING done, unless I was working with her directly. And on and on. I finally had to send Mr Shirt Over His Head Distracting Everyone to the office. Another gigantic sigh.
Then came library. I was relieved to see that the library teacher also had trouble getting them to settle down and pay attention - even for a short time. And finally computers. Over half of the class had trouble logging on (and I had no passwords to help them). Some finally managed to do so, but 8 students never could log on.
Back to class to get ready for dismissal. Little Miss Get Everyone Angry at Her is hitting people, because they said something unkind about her sister. They, of course, insist that they didn't say that. Little Miss Get Everyone Angry at Her then gets mad at me, because I tried to do something fun for dismissal. Sigh.
Never again. Their regular teacher is a saint.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Re: Intensive Small-Group Tutoring and Counseling - NY Times Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/education/intensive-tutoring-and-counseling-found-to-help-struggling-teenagers.html
This is a great and effective idea, except for one major flaw: they are paying the tutors $17,000 per year to do this job. This is well below poverty level in most urban areas. Why is it that a lot of "solutions" to problems in our culture mean creating new, part-time jobs at poverty level pay?
I guess I get frustrated when solutions to educational problems include having people volunteer or accept very low wages - like substitute teachers. One principal said to me once, "Oh, but don't you get $100 a day?" I said, "Yes, so the maximum amount I could get in a school year, even if I were lucky enough to get jobs EVERY DAY, would be $100 * 180 = $18,000."
Sure, these tutors could get part time jobs during the summer or weekends - if such jobs were available. So, as soon as something better turns up, the tutor leaves and the students get a new one.
The tutors do well. Yes, people should not be greatly surprised that, with 2 to 1 help, plus counseling, these students do markedly better. That is a good, even great, thing. But, does it scale up? I am not so sure.
I hear repeatedly the claim that you can't just "throw money" at education. No, you can't. But there are effective and less effective uses of money. Millions of dollars spent on standardized testing? Questionable. Millions spent on adequate staffing? More likely. People cost money; really good people cost a bit more.
__________
Addendum: The school districts I work for are also increasing the number of half day jobs that are available for subs. Since it is often very difficult to coordinate the ending time of one half day job with the beginning of another half day job, taking into account driving times between schools, subs frequently take only one half day job. This cuts sub pay even further. I suppose, to be fair, it does make it easier to take another regular part time job. If a sub has another regular part time job that starts some time in the afternoon, that sub could take only morning half day jobs. Still, it does make transportation costs a larger issue in relation to pay.
This is a great and effective idea, except for one major flaw: they are paying the tutors $17,000 per year to do this job. This is well below poverty level in most urban areas. Why is it that a lot of "solutions" to problems in our culture mean creating new, part-time jobs at poverty level pay?
I guess I get frustrated when solutions to educational problems include having people volunteer or accept very low wages - like substitute teachers. One principal said to me once, "Oh, but don't you get $100 a day?" I said, "Yes, so the maximum amount I could get in a school year, even if I were lucky enough to get jobs EVERY DAY, would be $100 * 180 = $18,000."
Sure, these tutors could get part time jobs during the summer or weekends - if such jobs were available. So, as soon as something better turns up, the tutor leaves and the students get a new one.
The tutors do well. Yes, people should not be greatly surprised that, with 2 to 1 help, plus counseling, these students do markedly better. That is a good, even great, thing. But, does it scale up? I am not so sure.
I hear repeatedly the claim that you can't just "throw money" at education. No, you can't. But there are effective and less effective uses of money. Millions of dollars spent on standardized testing? Questionable. Millions spent on adequate staffing? More likely. People cost money; really good people cost a bit more.
__________
Addendum: The school districts I work for are also increasing the number of half day jobs that are available for subs. Since it is often very difficult to coordinate the ending time of one half day job with the beginning of another half day job, taking into account driving times between schools, subs frequently take only one half day job. This cuts sub pay even further. I suppose, to be fair, it does make it easier to take another regular part time job. If a sub has another regular part time job that starts some time in the afternoon, that sub could take only morning half day jobs. Still, it does make transportation costs a larger issue in relation to pay.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Higher Grouped Classes Larger
I was subbing for a 4th grade with around 25 students. The kids switch classes for math and I had a group of 30 students. I was not explicitly told that they were the higher group, but this is the common way of dividing kids when they switch classes. Usually the top group gets more students, the middle group has an average number, and the low group gets fewer students.
And now I am pondering what the effects of this are for gifted and highly gifted students. On the one hand, the level of the whole class can be somewhat higher. Generally, these groups use exactly the same textbooks, but sometimes their homework or side activities are a bit different. And, if there are exceptionally able students in the class, the teacher could possibly cluster group them (though I have never seen any indication that teachers have done so). On the other hand, the classes are larger, which means more grading, more classroom management challenges (even finding enough places for the extra students to sit), and more communication duties (parents, homeroom teachers).
So, is it helpful? Probably. Is it sufficient? Probably not, in some cases.
And now I am pondering what the effects of this are for gifted and highly gifted students. On the one hand, the level of the whole class can be somewhat higher. Generally, these groups use exactly the same textbooks, but sometimes their homework or side activities are a bit different. And, if there are exceptionally able students in the class, the teacher could possibly cluster group them (though I have never seen any indication that teachers have done so). On the other hand, the classes are larger, which means more grading, more classroom management challenges (even finding enough places for the extra students to sit), and more communication duties (parents, homeroom teachers).
So, is it helpful? Probably. Is it sufficient? Probably not, in some cases.
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Big Class - Fewer Hands On Activities
I was subbing in a fourth grade class the other day. The teacher's homeroom class was 30 students, but all of the fourth grade teachers teach math at the same time and they switch around, based on ability, I assume. The math class I had was 34 students. The assignment was to cut out math "code" cards. There were pieces for hundreds (100 through 900), tens, ones, tenths, hundredths, and thousandths. I am not sure if there were also pieces for thousands. But, even so, not only is that a lot of cutting, it is a huge task to keep track of all those pieces. I eventually found enough baggies for each student to put his/her pieces in, but the cutting and bagging took WAY more time than was allotted for the lesson. We didn't even begin using the pieces, because most of the students were still cutting - and losing pieces on the floor. A few students forgot or didn't have the appropriate workbooks, quite a few students didn't have scissors.
The lesson is actually an interesting one. The cards overlap, so that to form the number 264.25, you would use the 200 piece, the 60 piece, the 4 piece, the 0.2 piece, and the 0.05 piece. Then, to change to expanded form, you just expand the cards and you see right away: 200 + 60 + 4 + 0.2 + 0.05. But doing this with 34 students is a challenge.
One of the other (regular) teachers asked me how the lesson went and I was explaining to her that I had a hard time getting through even the cutting out part, because of all of the logistical difficulties. She teaches one of the lower ability classes and has a slightly smaller group, but she says that she doesn't do those activities, because they are way too much hassle for their worth.
I have subbed in a LOT of elementary classes and I am finding this to be almost universally true. The beautiful, well-thought out manipulatives collect dust (or languish in unopened shrink wrap) and the hands-on lessons are simply skipped. It is a shame. Kids often really like the manipulatives and, even though they are a lot of work, I think some kids really need them. But using or making manipulatives with 34 nine and ten year olds is daunting.
I wonder if there are Montessori materials that do the same lesson. It would be nice to have more solid pieces than the flimsy paper ones. But, of course, that would be horrendously expensive for such a class, even if two kids shared.
The lesson is actually an interesting one. The cards overlap, so that to form the number 264.25, you would use the 200 piece, the 60 piece, the 4 piece, the 0.2 piece, and the 0.05 piece. Then, to change to expanded form, you just expand the cards and you see right away: 200 + 60 + 4 + 0.2 + 0.05. But doing this with 34 students is a challenge.
One of the other (regular) teachers asked me how the lesson went and I was explaining to her that I had a hard time getting through even the cutting out part, because of all of the logistical difficulties. She teaches one of the lower ability classes and has a slightly smaller group, but she says that she doesn't do those activities, because they are way too much hassle for their worth.
I have subbed in a LOT of elementary classes and I am finding this to be almost universally true. The beautiful, well-thought out manipulatives collect dust (or languish in unopened shrink wrap) and the hands-on lessons are simply skipped. It is a shame. Kids often really like the manipulatives and, even though they are a lot of work, I think some kids really need them. But using or making manipulatives with 34 nine and ten year olds is daunting.
I wonder if there are Montessori materials that do the same lesson. It would be nice to have more solid pieces than the flimsy paper ones. But, of course, that would be horrendously expensive for such a class, even if two kids shared.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Re: Things We Should Stop Doing to High-Ability Students
Original article by Tamar Wyschogrod
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw
I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments.
First of all, a minor complaint: in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things. I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving. And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability. That last statement needs to be explained a bit more. While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.
Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids. I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students. Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).
I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement: differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids. There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it. There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates. But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance. They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass". And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out). Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work. Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.
Now for the rest of the article.
Group Projects. Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students. This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student. High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work. What does the low ability student learn? That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice. One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem. It is the make-up of the groups. She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students. Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students. That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).
Crappy Differentiation. Already discussed.
Contests instead of Curriculum. I like contests. They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids. But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum. But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough. It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough. High-ability kids need real and regular work. It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast. They don't learn good work habits. They don't learn how to react to difficulties. They don't learn how to learn. That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation. It isn't working. High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities. The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping. I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub, I have yet to see it in action.
Ignoring Their Achievements
This isn't a biggie with me. I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids. Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.
Low Standards
It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom. We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve. We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids). We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences. We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A. (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education). And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards. You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers. 30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject. That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw
I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments.
First of all, a minor complaint: in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things. I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving. And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability. That last statement needs to be explained a bit more. While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.
Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids. I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students. Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).
I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement: differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids. There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it. There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates. But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance. They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass". And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out). Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work. Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.
Now for the rest of the article.
Group Projects. Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students. This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student. High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work. What does the low ability student learn? That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice. One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem. It is the make-up of the groups. She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students. Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students. That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).
Crappy Differentiation. Already discussed.
Contests instead of Curriculum. I like contests. They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids. But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum. But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough. It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough. High-ability kids need real and regular work. It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast. They don't learn good work habits. They don't learn how to react to difficulties. They don't learn how to learn. That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation. It isn't working. High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities. The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping. I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub, I have yet to see it in action.
Ignoring Their Achievements
This isn't a biggie with me. I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids. Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.
Low Standards
It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom. We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve. We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids). We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences. We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A. (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education). And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards. You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers. 30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject. That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Re: Before Reading or Watching Videos, Students Should Experiment First by David Plotnikoff
Thoughts about this article:
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/before-reading-or-watching-videos-students-should-first-experiment/
General conclusion: it is more effective for students to experiment BEFORE learning about something through text or video than doing the same lessons in the opposite sequence (text or video first, then experimentation).
My thoughts:
I think this is true for a lot of science. When I was a kid (100+ years ago), kids had lots of active experience with science - collecting rocks, growing vegetables, building dams in the creek, using a teeter-totter. When they came to school, the science lesson used practical experience to build the theory on. Nowadays, kids have lots of virtual and digital experience, but much less hands-on experience - many have never hammered nails or fixed a bicycle or made cakes from scratch. So the theoretical lessons often aren't rooted in personal knowledge.
In school, many teachers have found that manipulatives are difficult to manage with large classes, so those lessons have disappeared - at least it appears so to me. I am a sub and I often find unopened manipulatives and shrink-wrapped science kits in teachers' classrooms at the end of the school year.
Many years ago, I was tasked to teach gifted classes, with no specific curriculum and few materials. I did have a hot plate and some beakers, though, so I decided to teach a Kitchen Physics-like set of lessons - with sugar cubes, food dye, water, and the beakers and hot plate (and a thermometer). The kids were skeptical at first. They wanted me to tell them what to do. So, I started with a simple experiment on how long it would take the sugar cube to dissolve in the water. And I asked them what else they needed to know. I helped them frame a group experiment in a scientific way. Hypothesis, test, explain, discuss what is still unclear. The first few times through the cycle, they didn't even know how to ask questions, but soon they caught on and were completely surprised at how interesting the simple system could be.
Kids enjoy the hands-on lessons, but I fully agree with teachers that they are harder to manage with ever increasing class sizes and substantially less time that can be devoted to science.
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/before-reading-or-watching-videos-students-should-first-experiment/
General conclusion: it is more effective for students to experiment BEFORE learning about something through text or video than doing the same lessons in the opposite sequence (text or video first, then experimentation).
My thoughts:
I think this is true for a lot of science. When I was a kid (100+ years ago), kids had lots of active experience with science - collecting rocks, growing vegetables, building dams in the creek, using a teeter-totter. When they came to school, the science lesson used practical experience to build the theory on. Nowadays, kids have lots of virtual and digital experience, but much less hands-on experience - many have never hammered nails or fixed a bicycle or made cakes from scratch. So the theoretical lessons often aren't rooted in personal knowledge.
In school, many teachers have found that manipulatives are difficult to manage with large classes, so those lessons have disappeared - at least it appears so to me. I am a sub and I often find unopened manipulatives and shrink-wrapped science kits in teachers' classrooms at the end of the school year.
Many years ago, I was tasked to teach gifted classes, with no specific curriculum and few materials. I did have a hot plate and some beakers, though, so I decided to teach a Kitchen Physics-like set of lessons - with sugar cubes, food dye, water, and the beakers and hot plate (and a thermometer). The kids were skeptical at first. They wanted me to tell them what to do. So, I started with a simple experiment on how long it would take the sugar cube to dissolve in the water. And I asked them what else they needed to know. I helped them frame a group experiment in a scientific way. Hypothesis, test, explain, discuss what is still unclear. The first few times through the cycle, they didn't even know how to ask questions, but soon they caught on and were completely surprised at how interesting the simple system could be.
Kids enjoy the hands-on lessons, but I fully agree with teachers that they are harder to manage with ever increasing class sizes and substantially less time that can be devoted to science.
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Ideal Class Size - Opinions
On Linked In, in the Elementary Education group, there has been an ongoing discussion of what the ideal class size would be. This question hasn't addressed, for the most part, funding or teacher quality, but simply the straightforward question, about IDEAL class size. Interestingly, the answer seems to hover around 12 students. As most people know, this number is between one-third and one-half of the currently common classroom sizes, which range from 20 to 36 students.
My own comment was, "The best classes I have taught have had from 4 to 12 students. What fun they are! You can actually talk with the kids and enjoy the teachable moments. You can treat each child as an individual and not just as members of a huge group."
The key for me is the teachable moment. In a class of 24 or more, there is little opportunity to take advantage of the teachable moment. Teachable moments are directly applicable to individual children. Sometimes these teachable moments extend to quite a few individual children at a time, but the real focus is on getting individual children excited about their learning. Children are quite different in what really excites them. Novelty, of course, will excite many of them at a time, but true interest in something usually is much more specific. With classes of 20 or more, this becomes a time and classroom management issue, especially when there are specific curricular goals to cover - and there almost always are specific learning goals mandated for the day.
Intuitively, I think most classroom teachers know that small group instruction is better than large group. That is why most classrooms I have subbed in have small reading groups for reading instruction. Very rarely, is reading taught as whole group instruction. A bit less frequently, but still often, math is also grouped. And sometimes spelling lists are individualized or grouped. But rarely does grouping extend to any other subject areas. This is especially noticeable for science and social studies. The most content-oriented (as opposed to skill-oriented) subjects are the least likely to be taught in small groups.
What is so great about 12 students? 12 is enough to provide a lot of variety. 4 probably isn't - variety in terms of viewpoint, gender, personality, background, etc. 12 is a good number to provide interaction. It is also a good number for dividing into even smaller groups, pairs, triads, quartets, and hexads. 12 means that talking is manageable. 12 children talking all at once isn't an aural assault. A class of 24 or 36 is. A class of 12 means that the teacher can talk to each child in a reasonable time, close to when they need it. In a class of 12, you are dealing with individuals as often as you are dealing with a group. There is time for the teacher to ask questions that will excite specific students, but not, perhaps, the whole group. The teacher can ask a student about a project and go in depth, where this isn't possible with large groups. The whole quality of the classroom changes.
I think groups up to 20 can operate like this, but with groups larger than this, the instruction seems to change. What do you think?
My own comment was, "The best classes I have taught have had from 4 to 12 students. What fun they are! You can actually talk with the kids and enjoy the teachable moments. You can treat each child as an individual and not just as members of a huge group."
The key for me is the teachable moment. In a class of 24 or more, there is little opportunity to take advantage of the teachable moment. Teachable moments are directly applicable to individual children. Sometimes these teachable moments extend to quite a few individual children at a time, but the real focus is on getting individual children excited about their learning. Children are quite different in what really excites them. Novelty, of course, will excite many of them at a time, but true interest in something usually is much more specific. With classes of 20 or more, this becomes a time and classroom management issue, especially when there are specific curricular goals to cover - and there almost always are specific learning goals mandated for the day.
Intuitively, I think most classroom teachers know that small group instruction is better than large group. That is why most classrooms I have subbed in have small reading groups for reading instruction. Very rarely, is reading taught as whole group instruction. A bit less frequently, but still often, math is also grouped. And sometimes spelling lists are individualized or grouped. But rarely does grouping extend to any other subject areas. This is especially noticeable for science and social studies. The most content-oriented (as opposed to skill-oriented) subjects are the least likely to be taught in small groups.
What is so great about 12 students? 12 is enough to provide a lot of variety. 4 probably isn't - variety in terms of viewpoint, gender, personality, background, etc. 12 is a good number to provide interaction. It is also a good number for dividing into even smaller groups, pairs, triads, quartets, and hexads. 12 means that talking is manageable. 12 children talking all at once isn't an aural assault. A class of 24 or 36 is. A class of 12 means that the teacher can talk to each child in a reasonable time, close to when they need it. In a class of 12, you are dealing with individuals as often as you are dealing with a group. There is time for the teacher to ask questions that will excite specific students, but not, perhaps, the whole group. The teacher can ask a student about a project and go in depth, where this isn't possible with large groups. The whole quality of the classroom changes.
I think groups up to 20 can operate like this, but with groups larger than this, the instruction seems to change. What do you think?
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Politically Incorrect
I subbed in a school today that had a significant number of special needs students. These students came to the classroom I was in for math. There were 3 or 4 classes at the grade level I was teaching and this teacher had the lowest group of students. There were approximately 26 students in the class, 4 of whom were special needs students. An additional special needs student was absent. There were 4 aides. Three of the special needs students required one on one aides and the other two (normally including the absent student), evidently could be helped with just one aide. One of the special needs students could do part of the day's lesson, with help from the aide; the rest could not and were working on things that were unrelated (one was working on days of the week; one was counting dots on a die and trying to say the number; the third did nothing, as far as I could tell).
I have no objection to special needs students being in the room when aides are provided for those who need them, and most especially, I think they belong there if they can do all or part of the lesson with adaptations. But I am not sure why the students who were utterly unable to do the lesson - or anything even close - were there. The special needs students sit separately and don't/can't interact with the other students. Even that would be fine, except one of the students was evidently unhappy about something. He spent most of the class period moaning and groaning very loudly, and occasionally emitting a high pitched, drawn out whine. It was very disconcerting to me and it was extremely difficult for the other students to hear me talk above the nearly constant groaning and whining. I was supposed to lead the students through one worksheet/hands-on exercise and then teach them how to play a game.
I feel the other students were short-changed - at least today. Perhaps they could concentrate better than I could, because they were used to the constant noise. But it left me with nerves jangling and feeling that I couldn't adequately help the other students, when they couldn't hear me. 26 or so students in a classroom is a lot, anyway, and when they need more support than other students, the addition of the special needs students seemed a bit much. I feel that the class should somehow have been significantly smaller or the students who were unable to participate in the lesson and were making nearly constant noise should have been removed.
I guess I am completely politically incorrect. And the regular teacher must be a saint.
________________________________________
Additional thoughts, upon further reflection:
How do we determine what is fair in the classroom? Treatment of students can NEVER be equal, since each child is unique and has unique needs and experiences. Do we attempt to treat them all the same and say we were fair? What does the "least restrictive environment" mean in terms of children with severe disabilities? What does it mean in terms of the rest of the children in the classroom?
I have no objection to special needs students being in the room when aides are provided for those who need them, and most especially, I think they belong there if they can do all or part of the lesson with adaptations. But I am not sure why the students who were utterly unable to do the lesson - or anything even close - were there. The special needs students sit separately and don't/can't interact with the other students. Even that would be fine, except one of the students was evidently unhappy about something. He spent most of the class period moaning and groaning very loudly, and occasionally emitting a high pitched, drawn out whine. It was very disconcerting to me and it was extremely difficult for the other students to hear me talk above the nearly constant groaning and whining. I was supposed to lead the students through one worksheet/hands-on exercise and then teach them how to play a game.
I feel the other students were short-changed - at least today. Perhaps they could concentrate better than I could, because they were used to the constant noise. But it left me with nerves jangling and feeling that I couldn't adequately help the other students, when they couldn't hear me. 26 or so students in a classroom is a lot, anyway, and when they need more support than other students, the addition of the special needs students seemed a bit much. I feel that the class should somehow have been significantly smaller or the students who were unable to participate in the lesson and were making nearly constant noise should have been removed.
I guess I am completely politically incorrect. And the regular teacher must be a saint.
________________________________________
Additional thoughts, upon further reflection:
How do we determine what is fair in the classroom? Treatment of students can NEVER be equal, since each child is unique and has unique needs and experiences. Do we attempt to treat them all the same and say we were fair? What does the "least restrictive environment" mean in terms of children with severe disabilities? What does it mean in terms of the rest of the children in the classroom?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper, found at:
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
- Children are not naturally good. They need firm, tactful discipline from parents and teachers with clear standards. Too much freedom for children breeds selfishness, vandalism and personal unhappiness.
- If the non-competitive ethos of progressive education is allowed to dominate our schools, we shall produce a generation unable to maintain our standards of living when opposed by fierce rivalry from overseas competitors.
- It is the quality of teachers that matters, rather than their numbers or their equipment. We have sacrificed quality for numbers, and the result has been a lowering of standards. We need high-quality, higher-paid teachers in the classroom, not as counsellors or administrators.
- Schools are for schooling, not social engineering.
- The best way to help children in deprived areas is to teach them to be literate and numerate, and to develop all their potential abilities.
- Every normal child should be able to read by the age of seven. This can be achieved by the hard work of teachers who use a structured approach.
- Without selection the clever working-class child in a deprived area stands little chance of a real academic education.
- External examinations are essential for schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. Without such checks, standards decline. Working-class children suffer when applying for jobs if they cannot bring forward proof of their worth achieved in authoritative examinations.
- Freedom of speech must be preserved in universities. Institutions which cannot maintain proper standards of open debate should be closed.
- You can have equality or equality of opportunity; you cannot have both. Equality will be the holding back (or the new deprivation) of the brighter children.
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Just Coincidence?
I was in a top-rated school today and enjoyed the students. But, there is one thing that seems a bit odd. I have been ranting about large class sizes in most schools. This class was only 22 students. That is the smallest class I have had for a long time. It could be just a fluke of numbers and classes, but it seems odd that a top-rated school would have a smaller class and the struggling schools have much larger classes.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Each One Counts
For a long time now, I have been harping about class size and today, I would like to compare two of the classes I have had this week. They aren't strictly comparable - they were different grade levels and in different districts, but since I am not going to make a statistical appeal today, it doesn't really matter that they are not as comparable as one might wish. Both classes were in relatively well-to-do neighborhoods, with fairly privileged children. One class had around 24 students, the other had around 32.
In the first case, as a sub, I had 24 names to learn and 24 new students to interact with. Learning 24 new names each day is doable, though difficult. Learning 32 names is probably not doable for most subs. How would you feel if your child was one of the ones the teacher couldn't learn the name of? Probably, most people would let it slide. But during the course of his/her schooling each child will have nearly a full year of subs. One year of being nameless?
In the first class, I could spend a couple of minutes talking to a boy who wanted to tell me about his project; I could spend another few minutes with the know-it-all girl, who needed to show me how competent she was as a teacher's helper; I could talk individually to each child during the literacy block. In the second school, I got to talk individually to some of the students, but not most of them.
You know what kids remember most about their schooling? - how the teachers made them feel. I could feel so much better about my interactions with the class of 24 students than with the class of 32 students. 24 is still a bit bigger than I would like, but 32 is definitely past the point where it is possible to have a significant number of personal interactions. With 32, there is a lot more time spent keeping kids on task, correcting behavior, and take care of administrative tasks. With 24, there is room in the classroom to move around to different areas for different types of activities. With 32, the room is so packed with desks and chairs that there is frequently very little room to maneuver. With 24, it is easier to get to each student to answer a question or to point out a problem. With 32, it is much harder.
Each child counts. Each interaction counts. When people say that class size doesn't matter, according to research, they are looking at test scores. Maybe there, it doesn't matter. I don't really believe that, but that isn't my point today. Children are much more than test scores. They are real people who need personal interactions, even the surly kid who doesn't want to talk to the teacher. Each one needs to know that the teacher cares. Even if that teacher is "just a sub".
In the first case, as a sub, I had 24 names to learn and 24 new students to interact with. Learning 24 new names each day is doable, though difficult. Learning 32 names is probably not doable for most subs. How would you feel if your child was one of the ones the teacher couldn't learn the name of? Probably, most people would let it slide. But during the course of his/her schooling each child will have nearly a full year of subs. One year of being nameless?
In the first class, I could spend a couple of minutes talking to a boy who wanted to tell me about his project; I could spend another few minutes with the know-it-all girl, who needed to show me how competent she was as a teacher's helper; I could talk individually to each child during the literacy block. In the second school, I got to talk individually to some of the students, but not most of them.
You know what kids remember most about their schooling? - how the teachers made them feel. I could feel so much better about my interactions with the class of 24 students than with the class of 32 students. 24 is still a bit bigger than I would like, but 32 is definitely past the point where it is possible to have a significant number of personal interactions. With 32, there is a lot more time spent keeping kids on task, correcting behavior, and take care of administrative tasks. With 24, there is room in the classroom to move around to different areas for different types of activities. With 32, the room is so packed with desks and chairs that there is frequently very little room to maneuver. With 24, it is easier to get to each student to answer a question or to point out a problem. With 32, it is much harder.
Each child counts. Each interaction counts. When people say that class size doesn't matter, according to research, they are looking at test scores. Maybe there, it doesn't matter. I don't really believe that, but that isn't my point today. Children are much more than test scores. They are real people who need personal interactions, even the surly kid who doesn't want to talk to the teacher. Each one needs to know that the teacher cares. Even if that teacher is "just a sub".
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Gerald Coles: Why Bother Educating the Poor? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher
Gerald Coles: Why Bother Educating the Poor? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher
Reforming education has been a national pastime since my mother first started teaching - and my mother is now 97 years old. But the recent (past 15 years) of reforms have been the meanest spirited at all. In the guise of improving education, they have made it virtually impossible for teachers to enjoy being in the classroom. There are ever increasing demands to cover ever more "standards"; there are significantly larger classes and therefore a much increased work load; teachers are required to accommodate an ever increasing list of special education students and practices; there is less provision for kids who are at the extremes of "normal". It would almost seem as though people are determined to eradicate creativity and caring from the classroom. Creativity is a waste of time and caring is monumentally difficult, with so many students to take care of.
People who would have made excellent teachers are driven away from teaching or don't even consider it as a profession, because of low pay, low prestige, uncertainty in working conditions, and heavy work loads. People who enter the profession with hope soon encounter the reality of the job and drop out of teaching in droves. I read recently that teaching loses half of the teachers that enter the profession in 5 years.
The increased testing regime has been discussed extensively in many places, so I am not going to address that. I am going to discuss what I consider the most insidious of the reforms: differentiation. On paper and in theory, this looks great. Teachers are taught simple techniques for making lesson plans adaptable to the various ability levels of all of the students in the classroom. What proponents of differentiation often fail to consider is the amount of extra time required to plan for a differentiated classroom and the fact that this increases with the increase in ability levels in the classroom. A simple 5th grade lesson on the rock cycle can be an example. There is a standard textbook, which is probably written at a 5th grade reading level. Most of the students will be able to read it, but there will be a few who cannot. The teacher has to find other ways of teaching the rock cycle for the students who cannot read the text - maybe an audio recording, maybe partner reading, maybe a movie, maybe a simpler book. Each of these have to be checked to make sure they cover the standards and objectives for the lesson. Then, there are the kids in the classroom who have special needs. Each of their needs must be accommodated in the lesson plan. And finally, there are probably a few gifted kids in the class, maybe even a highly gifted kid, who has studied the rock cycle extensively on his own, has a large rock collection at home, and is interested in comparing the difference in microscopic structure of granite and marble. The teacher knows nothing about high school or college level geology and would have to struggle to find appropriate materials for this child.
All this might be do-able, if the class size were under 20, or if the teacher could count on teaching the same thing several years in a row and could gradually amass materials to use with outlier kids, or if there were a curriculum specialist would could gather appropriate materials or find a mentor. But the recent budget cuts have boosted class sizes into the mid 30s, teachers are often reassigned year after year, depending on class numbers, the curriculum itself is redesigned on a regular basis, and the curriculum specialists have been eliminated by budgeting problems.
And, the fact of the matter is, elementary teachers are almost universally responsible for multiple lessons in one day. When I was teaching full time, I counted 34 different lessons that I was responsible for in one week (grades K through 8, for me). Planning for these lessons, teaching them, and assessing student progress took much more than the 30 minutes planning time I was allotted each day.
Simply put, the job of teaching has become too much. Teachers pay lip service to differentiation, to standards, to new technologies, but in my experience, they can't do it all. Perhaps I see a biased sample of what most teachers are doing. I am a substitute teacher, so teachers might, in fact, simplify the lessons they leave for me, so that a sub can handle them. But, I look carefully for signs of differentiation or individualization or indications that the students think that the lessons I am given to teach are somehow different from what they usually do, and I don't see very much evidence for those things. It seems to me that most of the teachers end up following the textbooks and "covering" the content they are responsible for. There simply isn't enough time to do anything else. Parents then wonder why their students' needs aren't considered. They decide that the teacher is lacking or doesn't care. And the stress piles up on the teachers.
So what do the 1% do? They send their kids to private schools. I recently read the blog of a teacher who chose to teach in private schools. She originally planned to teach in public schools, but couldn't find a job there, so took a job in a private school - and stayed in those schools. She claimed in the blog that she was grateful for having stayed there, because they allowed her the creativity and autonomy to mold her work into an enjoyable career.
Monica Edinger's Blog
I am one of the co-founders of a private school and I helped establish that school because the public school wasn't serving the needs of my highly gifted child. It isn't entirely in keeping with my support of public schooling, but, when it is your child, you do what you can to get them the best education you can afford. And, people who can afford those schools often do - schools which often have smaller classes and more autonomy for the teachers. Meanwhile, the public schools are suffering.
Reforming education has been a national pastime since my mother first started teaching - and my mother is now 97 years old. But the recent (past 15 years) of reforms have been the meanest spirited at all. In the guise of improving education, they have made it virtually impossible for teachers to enjoy being in the classroom. There are ever increasing demands to cover ever more "standards"; there are significantly larger classes and therefore a much increased work load; teachers are required to accommodate an ever increasing list of special education students and practices; there is less provision for kids who are at the extremes of "normal". It would almost seem as though people are determined to eradicate creativity and caring from the classroom. Creativity is a waste of time and caring is monumentally difficult, with so many students to take care of.
People who would have made excellent teachers are driven away from teaching or don't even consider it as a profession, because of low pay, low prestige, uncertainty in working conditions, and heavy work loads. People who enter the profession with hope soon encounter the reality of the job and drop out of teaching in droves. I read recently that teaching loses half of the teachers that enter the profession in 5 years.
The increased testing regime has been discussed extensively in many places, so I am not going to address that. I am going to discuss what I consider the most insidious of the reforms: differentiation. On paper and in theory, this looks great. Teachers are taught simple techniques for making lesson plans adaptable to the various ability levels of all of the students in the classroom. What proponents of differentiation often fail to consider is the amount of extra time required to plan for a differentiated classroom and the fact that this increases with the increase in ability levels in the classroom. A simple 5th grade lesson on the rock cycle can be an example. There is a standard textbook, which is probably written at a 5th grade reading level. Most of the students will be able to read it, but there will be a few who cannot. The teacher has to find other ways of teaching the rock cycle for the students who cannot read the text - maybe an audio recording, maybe partner reading, maybe a movie, maybe a simpler book. Each of these have to be checked to make sure they cover the standards and objectives for the lesson. Then, there are the kids in the classroom who have special needs. Each of their needs must be accommodated in the lesson plan. And finally, there are probably a few gifted kids in the class, maybe even a highly gifted kid, who has studied the rock cycle extensively on his own, has a large rock collection at home, and is interested in comparing the difference in microscopic structure of granite and marble. The teacher knows nothing about high school or college level geology and would have to struggle to find appropriate materials for this child.
All this might be do-able, if the class size were under 20, or if the teacher could count on teaching the same thing several years in a row and could gradually amass materials to use with outlier kids, or if there were a curriculum specialist would could gather appropriate materials or find a mentor. But the recent budget cuts have boosted class sizes into the mid 30s, teachers are often reassigned year after year, depending on class numbers, the curriculum itself is redesigned on a regular basis, and the curriculum specialists have been eliminated by budgeting problems.
And, the fact of the matter is, elementary teachers are almost universally responsible for multiple lessons in one day. When I was teaching full time, I counted 34 different lessons that I was responsible for in one week (grades K through 8, for me). Planning for these lessons, teaching them, and assessing student progress took much more than the 30 minutes planning time I was allotted each day.
Simply put, the job of teaching has become too much. Teachers pay lip service to differentiation, to standards, to new technologies, but in my experience, they can't do it all. Perhaps I see a biased sample of what most teachers are doing. I am a substitute teacher, so teachers might, in fact, simplify the lessons they leave for me, so that a sub can handle them. But, I look carefully for signs of differentiation or individualization or indications that the students think that the lessons I am given to teach are somehow different from what they usually do, and I don't see very much evidence for those things. It seems to me that most of the teachers end up following the textbooks and "covering" the content they are responsible for. There simply isn't enough time to do anything else. Parents then wonder why their students' needs aren't considered. They decide that the teacher is lacking or doesn't care. And the stress piles up on the teachers.
So what do the 1% do? They send their kids to private schools. I recently read the blog of a teacher who chose to teach in private schools. She originally planned to teach in public schools, but couldn't find a job there, so took a job in a private school - and stayed in those schools. She claimed in the blog that she was grateful for having stayed there, because they allowed her the creativity and autonomy to mold her work into an enjoyable career.
Monica Edinger's Blog
I am one of the co-founders of a private school and I helped establish that school because the public school wasn't serving the needs of my highly gifted child. It isn't entirely in keeping with my support of public schooling, but, when it is your child, you do what you can to get them the best education you can afford. And, people who can afford those schools often do - schools which often have smaller classes and more autonomy for the teachers. Meanwhile, the public schools are suffering.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Another Class Size Rant
The other day I took a subbing job for math in a middle school. I taught 6 classes that day: 4 classes of 7th graders and 2 classes of 8th graders. The lesson for the 7th graders was particularly interesting. It consisted of two rather complicated word problems that the students had to figure out. But even more interesting than the actual assignment was the difference that class size made. 3 of the classes were normal size and one was exceptionally small, approximately 25 to 28 students vs. 9. I have no idea why this was so. The students didn't actually seem much different individually from the students in the other classes - that is, they didn't seem to have any special characteristics that were notable. They weren't exceptionally brilliant; they didn't seem to have any disabilities. Perhaps it was just a fluke of scheduling.
At any rate, I can't complain about the classes (well, maybe the 8th graders, but everyone complains about 8th graders). They all worked well on the assignment. The difference was the tenor of the classes. The small class just seemed to be much more personal. How much more fun it would be to always have classes of 9 to 15 students! Too bad it can't always be so.
At any rate, I can't complain about the classes (well, maybe the 8th graders, but everyone complains about 8th graders). They all worked well on the assignment. The difference was the tenor of the classes. The small class just seemed to be much more personal. How much more fun it would be to always have classes of 9 to 15 students! Too bad it can't always be so.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Class Sizes
I have read some of the research that says that class sizes don't effect learning outcomes substantially and I just don't believe it. I have taught school off and on from 1971, in public schools, in private schools, in charter schools. I have taught in inner city schools with racial problems, in rural schools, in relatively wealthy suburban schools. I have taught and subbed in 4 widely differing states (Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado, and Alaska). I have subbed in classes of 15 students and taught classes of 35 students. From what I see, numbers make a difference. There seem to be several major ways that numbers make a difference: discipline, content, ability to differentiate, personal connection.
No matter how well-trained a class is, 35 students inevitably are harder to organize than 15. Just figuring out where to put all the desks/tables/chairs is a huge logistical task for a class with 35 students. And young people are not miniature robots, or, for that matter, miniature adults. They haven't yet learned all of the social behaviors that adults can usually manage to bring forth in large group situations.
Part of getting students involved in their own education is to make a personal connection of what they are learning to what they already know and ways that they can use the new knowledge in their lives. If you are trying to have a personal conversation with 15 students about this, it is possible to touch on each of the students in the group. With 35 students, you have to have recourse to other methods - e.g., dividing up the group into smaller sub-groups, then reporting back to the whole group. With 15 students, you can alter the content of the lesson to address particular facets of the topic that impact members of the group. With 35 students, this is rarely possible.
In the many years that I subbed, about 8 years, I only ran across one teacher who
tried to individualize students' learning completely. I don't know how successful she was, but as a sub, it was extremely difficult. But not all of the students in any given class are in the middle of the ability/readiness range for the lesson. There are ALWAYS some outliers, ones who may already know the "new" material and ones who haven't yet mastered the prerequisites. With a class of 15, it is possible to individually support both ends of the outlier spectrum. With a class of 35, it is rarely done. Yes, teachers are taught about differentiation in college, yes, they say they understand how to do it; no, I don't see them actually doing it. It is simply too hard. Imagine a college professor teaching chemistry. Do we give him/her a class that needs to cover elements and atoms, acids and bases, all the way through to quantum mechanics? Of course not, that would be absurd. We set up a general sequence of learning chemistry and apportion the students into classes based on what they each need to learn next. Yet, we give an elementary school teacher 25 to 30 students, some of whom can barely read and some of whom are reading 4 or 5 grade levels above their nominal grade placement. With 15 students, and say 3 sub-groups, it is possible to reach more children than with 25 students. It is also a matter of simple math. If I have 50 minutes with 15 students, 20 minutes of which is spent in whole group instruction, there is a possibility of 2 minutes per student of individual help. With 30 students, there is 1 minute. How much can you get done in 60 seconds?
In a class of 15 students, a teacher can really get to know the students. With 30, it is much more difficult. That personal connection between teacher and student is what makes much of teaching and learning intimately fulfilling. Without it, teachers begin to feel like simple curriculum delivery vehicles and students begin to feel like insignificant cogs in the information factory.
Years ago, I read a research report that consolidated observations from different sized classes, from tiny classes of 6 or 7 through huge classes of 50 or 60. From what I remember, there seemed to be several breaking points in class size and class dynamics. With extremely small classes, children often had trouble finding kids who were similar to them in learning stage. At 12 to 15 students, there seemed to be change in classroom dynamic - enough diversity for different types of interactions depending on learning activities. Class dynamics changed again around 18 to 24 students, with more whole group instruction and fewer individually tailored assignments. With 25 or more students, the classes were largely given over to whole group instruction and standard assignments. There was some support for students with difficulties, but little or no accommodation for students who already knew the material. I would love to find that research again, but haven't been able to locate it.
The politicians now are bent on cutting funding for education and class sizes almost certainly will increase in many schools across the country. I can't help but feel this will make teachers jobs even more difficult than they already are. I suppose, if the research study above is correct, increasing class sizes from 25 to 30 students might not substantially change how the classroom functions. It does substantially increase teacher work load - but what do the politicians care about that - teachers have a long summer vacation to recover.
No matter how well-trained a class is, 35 students inevitably are harder to organize than 15. Just figuring out where to put all the desks/tables/chairs is a huge logistical task for a class with 35 students. And young people are not miniature robots, or, for that matter, miniature adults. They haven't yet learned all of the social behaviors that adults can usually manage to bring forth in large group situations.
Part of getting students involved in their own education is to make a personal connection of what they are learning to what they already know and ways that they can use the new knowledge in their lives. If you are trying to have a personal conversation with 15 students about this, it is possible to touch on each of the students in the group. With 35 students, you have to have recourse to other methods - e.g., dividing up the group into smaller sub-groups, then reporting back to the whole group. With 15 students, you can alter the content of the lesson to address particular facets of the topic that impact members of the group. With 35 students, this is rarely possible.
In the many years that I subbed, about 8 years, I only ran across one teacher who
tried to individualize students' learning completely. I don't know how successful she was, but as a sub, it was extremely difficult. But not all of the students in any given class are in the middle of the ability/readiness range for the lesson. There are ALWAYS some outliers, ones who may already know the "new" material and ones who haven't yet mastered the prerequisites. With a class of 15, it is possible to individually support both ends of the outlier spectrum. With a class of 35, it is rarely done. Yes, teachers are taught about differentiation in college, yes, they say they understand how to do it; no, I don't see them actually doing it. It is simply too hard. Imagine a college professor teaching chemistry. Do we give him/her a class that needs to cover elements and atoms, acids and bases, all the way through to quantum mechanics? Of course not, that would be absurd. We set up a general sequence of learning chemistry and apportion the students into classes based on what they each need to learn next. Yet, we give an elementary school teacher 25 to 30 students, some of whom can barely read and some of whom are reading 4 or 5 grade levels above their nominal grade placement. With 15 students, and say 3 sub-groups, it is possible to reach more children than with 25 students. It is also a matter of simple math. If I have 50 minutes with 15 students, 20 minutes of which is spent in whole group instruction, there is a possibility of 2 minutes per student of individual help. With 30 students, there is 1 minute. How much can you get done in 60 seconds?
In a class of 15 students, a teacher can really get to know the students. With 30, it is much more difficult. That personal connection between teacher and student is what makes much of teaching and learning intimately fulfilling. Without it, teachers begin to feel like simple curriculum delivery vehicles and students begin to feel like insignificant cogs in the information factory.
Years ago, I read a research report that consolidated observations from different sized classes, from tiny classes of 6 or 7 through huge classes of 50 or 60. From what I remember, there seemed to be several breaking points in class size and class dynamics. With extremely small classes, children often had trouble finding kids who were similar to them in learning stage. At 12 to 15 students, there seemed to be change in classroom dynamic - enough diversity for different types of interactions depending on learning activities. Class dynamics changed again around 18 to 24 students, with more whole group instruction and fewer individually tailored assignments. With 25 or more students, the classes were largely given over to whole group instruction and standard assignments. There was some support for students with difficulties, but little or no accommodation for students who already knew the material. I would love to find that research again, but haven't been able to locate it.
The politicians now are bent on cutting funding for education and class sizes almost certainly will increase in many schools across the country. I can't help but feel this will make teachers jobs even more difficult than they already are. I suppose, if the research study above is correct, increasing class sizes from 25 to 30 students might not substantially change how the classroom functions. It does substantially increase teacher work load - but what do the politicians care about that - teachers have a long summer vacation to recover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)