I taught a 4th grade math lesson the other day and enjoyed it a lot. I don't know how the particular group I had was chosen, but I suspect that they were selected on the basis of their above grade level achievement. Since I have been on the look out for explicit instructions in the teachers' manuals for dealing with kids who have no trouble with the grade level material, I looked carefully at the teachers' manual for this lesson.
In this particular lesson, there were instructions for how to deal with students who could readily do the types of word problems the lesson was addressing. "Give them multi-step problems to solve." The problem is, the teachers' manual did not include any examples of such multi-step problems. And the question I have is, why weren't example problems included in the teachers' manual or perhaps an extension worksheet? Why does each teacher need to re-invent the wheel for their gifted students?
The teacher I subbed for teaches some remedial reading groups, in addition to this math class. There are huge boxes of materials for use with students with reading difficulties. There are step-by-step goals for these kids. Why aren't there analogous materials for kids who can do MORE than the standard curriculum?
Why is the only help for differentiating for gifted kids, "Give them multi-step problems to solve." with no indications of what such problems might look like?
Sigh.
Showing posts with label differentiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label differentiation. Show all posts
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Why Should Each Teacher Differentiate for Gifted Students?
Differentiation is hard. It is even harder to differentiate for gifted students. (Why Differentiating for Gifted Kids Is Harder) But a key question is also, why do we depend on classroom teachers to differentiate for gifted kids? Why aren't measures in place in the schools to accommodate gifted students?
When kids with a wide array of distinctly different learning needs must have different instructional support, their teachers get significant help from extensive full-time staff, including teachers and aides. When teachers are asked to differentiate for gifted students, there is frequently NOTHING available for the teacher to use and no one to ask. There isn't usually anything in their own education and training to fall back on. They may have had one or two lectures in their teacher training coursework addressing the needs of gifted students. But what do they actually TEACH when one of their students is way beyond everyone else in her knowledge of the fundamentals of biology? And, the question for this post, why should each teacher differentiate for their gifted student(s)? Why isn't someone in the district already responsible for drawing up objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities for these children? Why is each teacher charged with re-inventing the wheel for each gifted child?
It is true that each gifted child might be vastly different from another one. But, that just makes it harder for each individual classroom teacher. School districts, on the other hand, will usually have at least a few students with roughly similar needs. Why shouldn't the school district already have materials, objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities available for teachers to use? Or better yet, why don't schools have teachers available who are responsible for delivering these things to the gifted students?
Most of the students with special needs receive at least part of their instruction - the part that specifically addresses their learning needs - from a special teacher. Gifted students should be no exception. Their needs should be addressed specifically by a special teacher who is prepared to deal with them.
When kids with a wide array of distinctly different learning needs must have different instructional support, their teachers get significant help from extensive full-time staff, including teachers and aides. When teachers are asked to differentiate for gifted students, there is frequently NOTHING available for the teacher to use and no one to ask. There isn't usually anything in their own education and training to fall back on. They may have had one or two lectures in their teacher training coursework addressing the needs of gifted students. But what do they actually TEACH when one of their students is way beyond everyone else in her knowledge of the fundamentals of biology? And, the question for this post, why should each teacher differentiate for their gifted student(s)? Why isn't someone in the district already responsible for drawing up objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities for these children? Why is each teacher charged with re-inventing the wheel for each gifted child?
It is true that each gifted child might be vastly different from another one. But, that just makes it harder for each individual classroom teacher. School districts, on the other hand, will usually have at least a few students with roughly similar needs. Why shouldn't the school district already have materials, objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities available for teachers to use? Or better yet, why don't schools have teachers available who are responsible for delivering these things to the gifted students?
Most of the students with special needs receive at least part of their instruction - the part that specifically addresses their learning needs - from a special teacher. Gifted students should be no exception. Their needs should be addressed specifically by a special teacher who is prepared to deal with them.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Why Differentiating for Gifted Kids Is Harder
Every once in a while, someone, usually a parent, will complain that teachers don't care about their gifted child or else they would provide appropriate learning experiences for them. They know that teachers don't have a lot of time, but they insist that, if they really cared, they would MAKE time for them. While I don't disagree with the idea, the fact is, it does take time - a LOT of time. It takes more time to differentiate for the gifted child than it does for the learning disabled child, and here is why.
1) No Appropriate Materials
Materials for teaching are always in short supply. Many teachers resort to buying some of their own supplies of things they find especially useful in the classroom - extra books, markers, colored pencils, rock collections for a geology unit, costumes for a social studies play, etc. Even textbooks are often in short supply. There is one set of science textbooks for 3 classrooms, or the social studies textbooks haven't been updated for 10 years. Materials to use with gifted kids are usually non-existent, unless the teacher has purchased them him/herself. This leads to several of the other problems.
2) No Appropriate Learning Objectives
The goals and learning objectives for your regular students are published and explicit (usually). There are resources to help with struggling students, both materials and people. But what about the gifted students? In my long years of teaching, both regular and substitute, I have rarely found any serious effort to address goals and learning objectives for gifted students.
Developing appropriate goals and learning objectives takes a LOT of time and expertise. That is why they have curriculum committees and textbook selection committees. How many districts have a "Gifted Student Standards" Committee? A learning goal committee for gifted students? Part of the problem is that gifted students are often widely varying in abilities and needs. Another part of the problem is that it requires not only knowledge of gifted students, but also extensive knowledge of the subject matter. This subject matter can be far beyond what most classroom teachers are familiar with. They are adept at breaking down subject matter for which they are responsible. But extending subject matter beyond what they are familiar with is far more difficult.
I have worked with a few mathematics curricula that have explicitly developed activities for "extended" learning. These activities are intended to be used with the gifted students. I have never seen them used, but at least they are there. I have rarely seen objectives for gifted students in other academic subjects.
3) Finding Appropriate Materials
Yes, the Internet is wonderful and yes, there are wonderful lessons out there. Finding those lessons takes a lot of time. Even if teachers have thought long and hard about what additional objectives they would like to have the gifted student(s) achieve, finding appropriate materials and lessons takes time.
There are a lot of bad lesson plans out there; there are a lot of good lesson plans that would be great for most kids; there are fewer lesson plans that would be great for the gifted students, but are not appropriate for everyone. Why is it important that they NOT be appropriate for everyone? Because if everyone in the class can do, enjoy, and learn from the activities, they should be part of the regular curriculum and should not be considered to be differentiation for the gifted student. Too often, activities in pull-out gifted programs turn into "fun and games for smart kids" - activities that most of the kids in the classroom could have done, but they don't get to, because they are not labeled gifted. I know, because my own pull-out classroom sometimes resembled this. There is a danger to this. The danger is that people will push to have kids participate in these fun activities, even if they don't really need gifted education. Why not? They are fun, motivating, and the results don't really matter in terms of grading or learning objectives.
4) Teaching and Presenting to Gifted Students
One parent suggested that, in the age of computers, just allowing the gifted students access to computers could keep them busy, motivated, and learning. Perhaps. Busy and motivated are especially easy. Learning? Possibly. But what are they learning? They are learning that learning is usually just fun and games. That if they have to work hard at it, it isn't as much fun, so why should they do it?
Perhaps it is simply from my own life, but even as a highly gifted child, I would not seek out difficult learning experiences. I would not challenge myself. Perhaps some gifted students do. Many will not. Many will not seek out appropriate learning experiences and may even rebel against being required to do something appropriate for their ability level. Many parents and teachers will defend this as a matter of choice. We could offer algebra to 7th graders, but if Student X, who is ready for algebra, doesn't want to take it, we will just let him stay in the regular classroom, doing work he has already mastered. Why do we let smart kids choose to not work hard? Do we let any other students opt out of difficult material?
If the objectives for the gifted students are well thought out and the materials and lessons planned, when are they presented and by whom? When does the teacher actually teach the gifted student(s)? Book groups are usually easy. The groups can be varying in size and different objectives are generally seamlessly incorporated. Math groups can sometimes be similarly arranged, though the most frequent alteration in presentation is that students actually switch classrooms for math groups, with one teacher taking the bottom group, one teacher taking the middle group, and one teacher taking the usually larger "top" group. This top group is not only usually larger than any of the other groups, but it is also not really adequate for the gifted math students. Typically, the material that is presented is just the standard curriculum that is a bit faster, so they can get ALL of the pages done, not just the bare minimum. Sometimes, it is the standard curriculum accelerated by one year.
If, instead, the teacher is trying to differentiate for the students that are particularly gifted in social studies or science, it is much more difficult. Typically, what will happen is that there will be projects for these subjects. But designing projects that include both the regular curriculum and the learning objectives for the gifted students is difficult. Instead, what usually seems to happen is that teachers hope that students will seek their own level in their projects. The objectives and learning standards are vague enough so that they can be construed to be applicable to all ability levels.
5) Assessing Gifted Students
This shouldn't be a difficult problem, but it often engenders great debate. Should the gifted students be given As just because they have, indeed, mastered the regular curriculum? Or should they be graded on the goals and objectives that were developed for them? On what is a grade to be based? Should it be what would be expected of any age student who attempts the given material or should the age of the student be taken into consideration?
6) School Support Personnel
When asked to differentiate for struggling students, a teacher will generally have many different people in the school to turn to for help. There are literacy specialists, behavior specialists, language learning specialists, learning disability teachers, math specialists, aides, and a number of other people who come to help, both at the school and the district level. When teachers need to differentiate for gifted students, there are rarely people who are designated to help them. There used to be a few gifted specialists, but these are rapidly disappearing from most schools. I worked as a gifted specialist at a middle school. I was hired for 7 hours a week. When the specialists are rarely there and are not considered significant members of the staff, teachers cease to rely on them - or to even know how to use them.
Conclusion:
Differentiating for gifted students is actually HARDER than differentiating for struggling students. There are probably other reasons than just those outlined above. I know this won't satisfy the parent whose child needs something more and isn't getting it. It shouldn't. But we have to support different ways of helping teachers take care of gifted students. Blaming them for not differentiating for their gifted students doesn't mean that they can.
1) No Appropriate Materials
Materials for teaching are always in short supply. Many teachers resort to buying some of their own supplies of things they find especially useful in the classroom - extra books, markers, colored pencils, rock collections for a geology unit, costumes for a social studies play, etc. Even textbooks are often in short supply. There is one set of science textbooks for 3 classrooms, or the social studies textbooks haven't been updated for 10 years. Materials to use with gifted kids are usually non-existent, unless the teacher has purchased them him/herself. This leads to several of the other problems.
2) No Appropriate Learning Objectives
The goals and learning objectives for your regular students are published and explicit (usually). There are resources to help with struggling students, both materials and people. But what about the gifted students? In my long years of teaching, both regular and substitute, I have rarely found any serious effort to address goals and learning objectives for gifted students.
Developing appropriate goals and learning objectives takes a LOT of time and expertise. That is why they have curriculum committees and textbook selection committees. How many districts have a "Gifted Student Standards" Committee? A learning goal committee for gifted students? Part of the problem is that gifted students are often widely varying in abilities and needs. Another part of the problem is that it requires not only knowledge of gifted students, but also extensive knowledge of the subject matter. This subject matter can be far beyond what most classroom teachers are familiar with. They are adept at breaking down subject matter for which they are responsible. But extending subject matter beyond what they are familiar with is far more difficult.
I have worked with a few mathematics curricula that have explicitly developed activities for "extended" learning. These activities are intended to be used with the gifted students. I have never seen them used, but at least they are there. I have rarely seen objectives for gifted students in other academic subjects.
3) Finding Appropriate Materials
Yes, the Internet is wonderful and yes, there are wonderful lessons out there. Finding those lessons takes a lot of time. Even if teachers have thought long and hard about what additional objectives they would like to have the gifted student(s) achieve, finding appropriate materials and lessons takes time.
There are a lot of bad lesson plans out there; there are a lot of good lesson plans that would be great for most kids; there are fewer lesson plans that would be great for the gifted students, but are not appropriate for everyone. Why is it important that they NOT be appropriate for everyone? Because if everyone in the class can do, enjoy, and learn from the activities, they should be part of the regular curriculum and should not be considered to be differentiation for the gifted student. Too often, activities in pull-out gifted programs turn into "fun and games for smart kids" - activities that most of the kids in the classroom could have done, but they don't get to, because they are not labeled gifted. I know, because my own pull-out classroom sometimes resembled this. There is a danger to this. The danger is that people will push to have kids participate in these fun activities, even if they don't really need gifted education. Why not? They are fun, motivating, and the results don't really matter in terms of grading or learning objectives.
4) Teaching and Presenting to Gifted Students
One parent suggested that, in the age of computers, just allowing the gifted students access to computers could keep them busy, motivated, and learning. Perhaps. Busy and motivated are especially easy. Learning? Possibly. But what are they learning? They are learning that learning is usually just fun and games. That if they have to work hard at it, it isn't as much fun, so why should they do it?
Perhaps it is simply from my own life, but even as a highly gifted child, I would not seek out difficult learning experiences. I would not challenge myself. Perhaps some gifted students do. Many will not. Many will not seek out appropriate learning experiences and may even rebel against being required to do something appropriate for their ability level. Many parents and teachers will defend this as a matter of choice. We could offer algebra to 7th graders, but if Student X, who is ready for algebra, doesn't want to take it, we will just let him stay in the regular classroom, doing work he has already mastered. Why do we let smart kids choose to not work hard? Do we let any other students opt out of difficult material?
If the objectives for the gifted students are well thought out and the materials and lessons planned, when are they presented and by whom? When does the teacher actually teach the gifted student(s)? Book groups are usually easy. The groups can be varying in size and different objectives are generally seamlessly incorporated. Math groups can sometimes be similarly arranged, though the most frequent alteration in presentation is that students actually switch classrooms for math groups, with one teacher taking the bottom group, one teacher taking the middle group, and one teacher taking the usually larger "top" group. This top group is not only usually larger than any of the other groups, but it is also not really adequate for the gifted math students. Typically, the material that is presented is just the standard curriculum that is a bit faster, so they can get ALL of the pages done, not just the bare minimum. Sometimes, it is the standard curriculum accelerated by one year.
If, instead, the teacher is trying to differentiate for the students that are particularly gifted in social studies or science, it is much more difficult. Typically, what will happen is that there will be projects for these subjects. But designing projects that include both the regular curriculum and the learning objectives for the gifted students is difficult. Instead, what usually seems to happen is that teachers hope that students will seek their own level in their projects. The objectives and learning standards are vague enough so that they can be construed to be applicable to all ability levels.
5) Assessing Gifted Students
This shouldn't be a difficult problem, but it often engenders great debate. Should the gifted students be given As just because they have, indeed, mastered the regular curriculum? Or should they be graded on the goals and objectives that were developed for them? On what is a grade to be based? Should it be what would be expected of any age student who attempts the given material or should the age of the student be taken into consideration?
6) School Support Personnel
When asked to differentiate for struggling students, a teacher will generally have many different people in the school to turn to for help. There are literacy specialists, behavior specialists, language learning specialists, learning disability teachers, math specialists, aides, and a number of other people who come to help, both at the school and the district level. When teachers need to differentiate for gifted students, there are rarely people who are designated to help them. There used to be a few gifted specialists, but these are rapidly disappearing from most schools. I worked as a gifted specialist at a middle school. I was hired for 7 hours a week. When the specialists are rarely there and are not considered significant members of the staff, teachers cease to rely on them - or to even know how to use them.
Conclusion:
Differentiating for gifted students is actually HARDER than differentiating for struggling students. There are probably other reasons than just those outlined above. I know this won't satisfy the parent whose child needs something more and isn't getting it. It shouldn't. But we have to support different ways of helping teachers take care of gifted students. Blaming them for not differentiating for their gifted students doesn't mean that they can.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Not Job Seeking Any More
So, I have finally made the decision that I am not going to look for a full time teaching job any more. I am too old and my knees are not up to a full time job. So, healthwise, it is probably a good decision.
I think it is extremely unlikely that I would get hired anyway. I have been applying for four years now in Colorado and have had fewer than a dozen interviews. I have two masters' degrees, one in elementary education with a science and math focus, and one in computer science, with applications to biology. I have 199 additional hours toward a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I have many years of teaching experience, with students from pre-school through grad school. I am simply too expensive. No one wants to hire someone like me full time. I cost too much for the questionable benefit. I can still sub, since all they really want for that job is a warm body with a teaching certificate.
In addition, I am too outspoken. I read a while back that many principals and other human resources people google potential candidates for jobs. I have googled myself and it is not hard to find things that I have written that potential bosses would see as red flags. For instance, I have frequently made statements against differentiation as a program option for gifted students (too difficult for teachers to consistently do at the right level and pace). But differentiation is the current mantra for educators. You are supposed to say that you can differentiate for all the kids in the class. As a sub, I just don't see this at all, but I guess potential teachers are supposed to gush about how they developed this differentiated unit for kids and it was fabulous. Maybe. As I said, I don't see it in real classrooms. Good units, yes; differentiated for gifted and learning disabled kids, not really.
So, I have a LOT of teaching materials that I would like to re-home. Any ideas on where they could go? I have a lovely set of Dienes blocks, made of wood. I suppose I can just put them in garage sales, but it seems like a sad end to such high quality materials.
And, a bit of a sad end to a teaching career.
Sigh.
I think it is extremely unlikely that I would get hired anyway. I have been applying for four years now in Colorado and have had fewer than a dozen interviews. I have two masters' degrees, one in elementary education with a science and math focus, and one in computer science, with applications to biology. I have 199 additional hours toward a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I have many years of teaching experience, with students from pre-school through grad school. I am simply too expensive. No one wants to hire someone like me full time. I cost too much for the questionable benefit. I can still sub, since all they really want for that job is a warm body with a teaching certificate.
In addition, I am too outspoken. I read a while back that many principals and other human resources people google potential candidates for jobs. I have googled myself and it is not hard to find things that I have written that potential bosses would see as red flags. For instance, I have frequently made statements against differentiation as a program option for gifted students (too difficult for teachers to consistently do at the right level and pace). But differentiation is the current mantra for educators. You are supposed to say that you can differentiate for all the kids in the class. As a sub, I just don't see this at all, but I guess potential teachers are supposed to gush about how they developed this differentiated unit for kids and it was fabulous. Maybe. As I said, I don't see it in real classrooms. Good units, yes; differentiated for gifted and learning disabled kids, not really.
So, I have a LOT of teaching materials that I would like to re-home. Any ideas on where they could go? I have a lovely set of Dienes blocks, made of wood. I suppose I can just put them in garage sales, but it seems like a sad end to such high quality materials.
And, a bit of a sad end to a teaching career.
Sigh.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Teaching GT Kids
OK. I will just admit it. I love teaching GT kids. I was at a charter school for GT kids today - 5th and 6th grades and I really enjoyed the day.
First of all, the atmosphere of a GT school is different. There is an enjoyment of learning that I don't usually see at other schools. The teacher left some "Plexer" style worksheets for them to do if they had some time and the kids grabbed them enthusiastically. Then later in the day, they were reading aloud from a book with multiple characters and they really enjoyed listening to different kids read their parts. There was a willingness to tackle problems and think about the implications of different aspects of their learning.
And the students are also a bit different - the interest in things; the acceptance of each other; the acceptance of "the sub" as a person of interest and not an adversary.
It was fun.
I suppose this is one reason why teachers in regular classrooms sometimes feel that teaching GT kids is "easy". In general, they WERE more compliant that kids I teach in regular classrooms. Their enthusiasm carries over to their work and it makes teaching more interesting and more fun. And, in general, as this is a charter school, their parents are committed to their education. The parents who picked up the kids seemed genuinely interested in what their children had to say.
As a sub, I can't really tell much about their ability levels. My guess is that most of them were moderately gifted, with a sprinkling of students above and below that. I still didn't see accommodations for kids who would be outliers, even in this environment, the EG and PG kids, but the general attitude that learning is interesting should make it more comfortable and accepting even for those students.
Good day, even though I am coming off of an illness and am not at 100% myself.
First of all, the atmosphere of a GT school is different. There is an enjoyment of learning that I don't usually see at other schools. The teacher left some "Plexer" style worksheets for them to do if they had some time and the kids grabbed them enthusiastically. Then later in the day, they were reading aloud from a book with multiple characters and they really enjoyed listening to different kids read their parts. There was a willingness to tackle problems and think about the implications of different aspects of their learning.
And the students are also a bit different - the interest in things; the acceptance of each other; the acceptance of "the sub" as a person of interest and not an adversary.
It was fun.
I suppose this is one reason why teachers in regular classrooms sometimes feel that teaching GT kids is "easy". In general, they WERE more compliant that kids I teach in regular classrooms. Their enthusiasm carries over to their work and it makes teaching more interesting and more fun. And, in general, as this is a charter school, their parents are committed to their education. The parents who picked up the kids seemed genuinely interested in what their children had to say.
As a sub, I can't really tell much about their ability levels. My guess is that most of them were moderately gifted, with a sprinkling of students above and below that. I still didn't see accommodations for kids who would be outliers, even in this environment, the EG and PG kids, but the general attitude that learning is interesting should make it more comfortable and accepting even for those students.
Good day, even though I am coming off of an illness and am not at 100% myself.
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Montessori Upper Elementary
I got to sub in a Montessori school today - only a half day, but I had wanted to sub in that school for a while. When I lived in Alaska, I subbed several times in a Montessori school and was impressed with it. And I have wondered since then how general the Montessori model was for upper elementary age children. It was interesting to me that several of the things were the same and others different.
Physical characteristics of the room
True to the Montessori model of schooling, there were a lot of wooden materials in both classrooms. But, also in both classrooms, the wooden materials don't seem to be being used much. For instance, today I saw a couple of interesting models of the sun and the planets, including the Earth and its moons, but they were high up on a shelf and not in use, while the students worked on a worksheet packet about phases of the moon. There were a lot of reference books available, but the students seemed to use the information in the packets the most. The room in Alaska had wooden tables of various sizes throughout; this room had standard desks for each student, with small tables at various places around the room. The room in Alaska seemed spacious; this one seemed very crowded. But, in this case, some of the crowding was due to a plethora of large tanks for turtles, lizards, fish, and other creatures. Personally, I would like to have seen some more large tables for their work.
Assignments
In both classes, the students had a work schedule that they filled out. Long term projects were listed in one section, daily work in sections devoted to each day. In both classes, the assignments seemed to be specific to grade levels and not to current achievement levels. The 4th graders had one social studies assignment; the 5th graders had a different assignment. There were two different math books, one for 4th grade, one for 5th grade. In a way, I am a little disappointed that there didn't seem to be much individualization of achievement levels. It may be that the classes are differentiated, since there are multiple 4/5 grades in this school. I really couldn't tell that.
Textbooks/Worksheets
This classroom seemed to use worksheets more than the school in Alaska. In Alaska, they had a lot of laminated assignment materials that the students rotated in using. Since the assignments usually came in 2 or 3 week chunks, there was plenty of time for the students to rotate through the assignment materials. Neither school used textbooks for much of their work, except for math.
Other interesting things
The class had an aide; the one in Alaska did, too. What a difference this makes! Supervision is easier, grading is easier, talking to individual students and small groups is easier. It was a moderately large class, 25 students, but you can get to know the kids better, even in just a half day, with another adult in the room. Your focus doesn't need to be quite as widely scattered.
The academic level of the students in this class seemed average. So perhaps the same work for all of them in each grade was appropriate. It was hard for me to tell.
Final thing
Both Montessori schools address teachers, administrators, and staff by their first names. It must be a characteristic of the Montessori philosophy. I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I think I would prefer some mild honorific, such as Teacher Laura or Ms. Laura. I guess I am not as egalitarian as the Montessori philosophy would have me be. Still, I had a interesting morning. I would go back.
Physical characteristics of the room
True to the Montessori model of schooling, there were a lot of wooden materials in both classrooms. But, also in both classrooms, the wooden materials don't seem to be being used much. For instance, today I saw a couple of interesting models of the sun and the planets, including the Earth and its moons, but they were high up on a shelf and not in use, while the students worked on a worksheet packet about phases of the moon. There were a lot of reference books available, but the students seemed to use the information in the packets the most. The room in Alaska had wooden tables of various sizes throughout; this room had standard desks for each student, with small tables at various places around the room. The room in Alaska seemed spacious; this one seemed very crowded. But, in this case, some of the crowding was due to a plethora of large tanks for turtles, lizards, fish, and other creatures. Personally, I would like to have seen some more large tables for their work.
Assignments
In both classes, the students had a work schedule that they filled out. Long term projects were listed in one section, daily work in sections devoted to each day. In both classes, the assignments seemed to be specific to grade levels and not to current achievement levels. The 4th graders had one social studies assignment; the 5th graders had a different assignment. There were two different math books, one for 4th grade, one for 5th grade. In a way, I am a little disappointed that there didn't seem to be much individualization of achievement levels. It may be that the classes are differentiated, since there are multiple 4/5 grades in this school. I really couldn't tell that.
Textbooks/Worksheets
This classroom seemed to use worksheets more than the school in Alaska. In Alaska, they had a lot of laminated assignment materials that the students rotated in using. Since the assignments usually came in 2 or 3 week chunks, there was plenty of time for the students to rotate through the assignment materials. Neither school used textbooks for much of their work, except for math.
Other interesting things
The class had an aide; the one in Alaska did, too. What a difference this makes! Supervision is easier, grading is easier, talking to individual students and small groups is easier. It was a moderately large class, 25 students, but you can get to know the kids better, even in just a half day, with another adult in the room. Your focus doesn't need to be quite as widely scattered.
The academic level of the students in this class seemed average. So perhaps the same work for all of them in each grade was appropriate. It was hard for me to tell.
Final thing
Both Montessori schools address teachers, administrators, and staff by their first names. It must be a characteristic of the Montessori philosophy. I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I think I would prefer some mild honorific, such as Teacher Laura or Ms. Laura. I guess I am not as egalitarian as the Montessori philosophy would have me be. Still, I had a interesting morning. I would go back.
Monday, December 02, 2013
Interview Question I Won't Ever Ask
At the end of those canned questions that they ask you at an interview, they also usually ask the canned question: Do you have any questions for us? I have some stock questions I generally ask, but there is one question I wish I could ask, but have never had the courage to actually do so.
Most of the people who have read other posts on this blog know that, while I think differentiation for gifted students is a good idea, I think that it isn't a good strategy for gifted educators to tout it as a GIFTED strategy. Teachers just aren't doing it. They may have been trained to do it; they may think they are doing it; but if they are, it isn't having much visible effect.
So here is the interview question: if you truly believe in differentiation, why are there still learning disabilities teachers, reading support teachers, math support teachers, BD teachers, ESL teachers, ELL teachers, etc.? If we accept that these students need more support than the regular classroom teacher can offer, why do we assume that s/he can offer enough support for gifted students? Why is it that the only outlier students with different needs that don't have special teachers are usually the gifted students?
And, no, extending the curriculum isn't easy for teachers. It requires going beyond what they regularly teach, finding resources and materials that they don't normally use.
Most of the people who have read other posts on this blog know that, while I think differentiation for gifted students is a good idea, I think that it isn't a good strategy for gifted educators to tout it as a GIFTED strategy. Teachers just aren't doing it. They may have been trained to do it; they may think they are doing it; but if they are, it isn't having much visible effect.
So here is the interview question: if you truly believe in differentiation, why are there still learning disabilities teachers, reading support teachers, math support teachers, BD teachers, ESL teachers, ELL teachers, etc.? If we accept that these students need more support than the regular classroom teacher can offer, why do we assume that s/he can offer enough support for gifted students? Why is it that the only outlier students with different needs that don't have special teachers are usually the gifted students?
And, no, extending the curriculum isn't easy for teachers. It requires going beyond what they regularly teach, finding resources and materials that they don't normally use.
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.
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.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
End of School Year for Me
To finish off my part in the school year yesterday, I had a combination 5/6 classroom. It was the second day I was there. Most of the day was entirely typical: he stole my pencil, she kicked my chair, I don't have a book to read, my computer doesn't get X, etc. But, for math, which I enjoy, I knew many of the students were finished with the assignments they had been given for the two days. So, I posed three additional challenges: 1) the 9 dots in a square problem (connect the dots with exactly 4 straight continuous lines, 2) show me a piece of paper with only one side, and 3) calculate the numbers 1 through 20, using exactly 4 4's and any operations you know (these kids knew +-*/^!and √).
Most of the kids did not take part in the challenges - either because they still had work to do on their assignment or because they could pretend that they were working on their assignment and just socialize. As long as they were pretending well, I didn't bother them. But there were 3 boys who were fascinated by the challenges and 3 more who were very drawn to them, but a little wary about actually trying them. I had a great time with the three and enjoyed the others. At first, they were very frustrated that I refused to give them hints on how to solve the challenges. One solved the 9 dot problem fairly quickly. I couldn't tell if he had seen it before or just solved it easily. The other two really struggled, but eventually got it. There were several creative and pun-like answers to the paper with one side problem, but eventually two of them got it. Those two also went on to try the 1 through 20 calculations and made significant progress.
My fun was seeing them so motivated and eager. One of the peripheral boys also wanted to see the solution to the paper problem, which I showed him at the end of class.
Great fun and the reason why I sometimes really like this age student. And it makes up for the horrid day I had on Tuesday with unruly and disrespectful 3rd graders.
Most of the kids did not take part in the challenges - either because they still had work to do on their assignment or because they could pretend that they were working on their assignment and just socialize. As long as they were pretending well, I didn't bother them. But there were 3 boys who were fascinated by the challenges and 3 more who were very drawn to them, but a little wary about actually trying them. I had a great time with the three and enjoyed the others. At first, they were very frustrated that I refused to give them hints on how to solve the challenges. One solved the 9 dot problem fairly quickly. I couldn't tell if he had seen it before or just solved it easily. The other two really struggled, but eventually got it. There were several creative and pun-like answers to the paper with one side problem, but eventually two of them got it. Those two also went on to try the 1 through 20 calculations and made significant progress.
My fun was seeing them so motivated and eager. One of the peripheral boys also wanted to see the solution to the paper problem, which I showed him at the end of class.
Great fun and the reason why I sometimes really like this age student. And it makes up for the horrid day I had on Tuesday with unruly and disrespectful 3rd graders.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
New (Old) Direction for Education
My grandmother was a teacher; my mother, who is now 98 years old was a teacher; I am a teacher. In all these years of teaching, what have we seen? Wave after wave of "educational reform". The old was thrown out and the new brought in. But is it better ... or just different?
The best wave I have seen was the federal push to develop outstanding curricula - BSCS Blue, Green, Yellow; Man a Course of Study; The Voyage of the Mimi, etc. I was in one of the classes that got to take BSCS Blue, when it was pretty new. I also was a student when the New Math was the rage. There is some marvelous curriculum out there. As a sub, I have seen bits and pieces of some wonderful lessons - simulations of Columbus' voyages to the Americas, re-enactments of the American Revolutionary debates, with both sides represented. But, far too often, these marvelous lessons are relegated to the back burners, because of the amount of curriculum that the teachers MUST cover. What counts is the students' scores on the standardized tests. Where are the wonderful lesson plans for diverse abilities?
Some people have mentioned that they have just about given up on schools, because it is so hard to agree on what SHOULD be done and not just what should NOT be done. Fewer standardized tests, yes. But, what instead?
I have been thinking about what I saw working at a Montessori school. I sub mainly for 3rd grades through 6th grades and the Montessori school set up was such that the kids worked in 3 week time blocks with assignments in each subject area (some of which incorporated multiple areas). The students planned their days and worked on lessons with teacher-prepared materials. Occasionally, there was some whole group discussion, but most of the time, the kids worked individually, in pairs, or occasionally in groups of 3 or 4 on their own goals. The one exception was math, which was taught in groups of 7 or 8 students, with outliers taught individually by tutors. The teacher met with individual students, taught mini-lessons to small groups of students, or led discussions.
The biggest criticism I had of the arrangement (and I subbed there quite a bit) was that some of the materials could have been differentiated much more. The middle level of materials was great, but the materials for higher and lower ability students weren't as good. With the possibilities of computers allowing for wider ranges of materials to be available, I can actually see this model working. There were two rooms with a wide doorway between them, so kids could actually go back and forth between the rooms, especially for math. It was peaceful and work oriented. The kids really seemed to take responsibility for themselves and the one boy who didn't was guided into trying to make better choices.
There are quite a few lessons where working with someone makes the lesson much better. Students in this Montessori classroom were frequently given introductory lessons about some topic, then given assignments that explored the topic in greater depth, with the unit culminating in presentations of products or large group discussions/debates. Student groupings were varied and flexible.
Interestingly, for me at least, was that there weren't any "specials" teachers. There was an adult (teacher?) supervising the gym at set times, but students showed up in the gym any time during the time blocks, when they needed a break. Each student was required to do some physical exercise several times a week, but it could take a wide variety of forms. Art projects were supervised by the classroom teachers as part of the regular work. I am not sure about music.
This arrangement might actually be an ideal one for me. I like the ability to work with the kids all day, without the interruptions of switching classes. I like knowing what individual students are doing in all of the areas of study. I like the ability to integrate all of the arts into the curriculum. I like many of the Montessori materials. And I like the effects of the structure on the students. They seemed responsible for their own behavior and learning. They were considerate, even to subs.
But that is the only Montessori school I have worked in, so I don't know if it was unique, or if many of them are like that. It would be interesting to find out - one of the advantages of substitute teaching. If a job like that comes up, I will take it.
The best wave I have seen was the federal push to develop outstanding curricula - BSCS Blue, Green, Yellow; Man a Course of Study; The Voyage of the Mimi, etc. I was in one of the classes that got to take BSCS Blue, when it was pretty new. I also was a student when the New Math was the rage. There is some marvelous curriculum out there. As a sub, I have seen bits and pieces of some wonderful lessons - simulations of Columbus' voyages to the Americas, re-enactments of the American Revolutionary debates, with both sides represented. But, far too often, these marvelous lessons are relegated to the back burners, because of the amount of curriculum that the teachers MUST cover. What counts is the students' scores on the standardized tests. Where are the wonderful lesson plans for diverse abilities?
Some people have mentioned that they have just about given up on schools, because it is so hard to agree on what SHOULD be done and not just what should NOT be done. Fewer standardized tests, yes. But, what instead?
I have been thinking about what I saw working at a Montessori school. I sub mainly for 3rd grades through 6th grades and the Montessori school set up was such that the kids worked in 3 week time blocks with assignments in each subject area (some of which incorporated multiple areas). The students planned their days and worked on lessons with teacher-prepared materials. Occasionally, there was some whole group discussion, but most of the time, the kids worked individually, in pairs, or occasionally in groups of 3 or 4 on their own goals. The one exception was math, which was taught in groups of 7 or 8 students, with outliers taught individually by tutors. The teacher met with individual students, taught mini-lessons to small groups of students, or led discussions.
The biggest criticism I had of the arrangement (and I subbed there quite a bit) was that some of the materials could have been differentiated much more. The middle level of materials was great, but the materials for higher and lower ability students weren't as good. With the possibilities of computers allowing for wider ranges of materials to be available, I can actually see this model working. There were two rooms with a wide doorway between them, so kids could actually go back and forth between the rooms, especially for math. It was peaceful and work oriented. The kids really seemed to take responsibility for themselves and the one boy who didn't was guided into trying to make better choices.
There are quite a few lessons where working with someone makes the lesson much better. Students in this Montessori classroom were frequently given introductory lessons about some topic, then given assignments that explored the topic in greater depth, with the unit culminating in presentations of products or large group discussions/debates. Student groupings were varied and flexible.
Interestingly, for me at least, was that there weren't any "specials" teachers. There was an adult (teacher?) supervising the gym at set times, but students showed up in the gym any time during the time blocks, when they needed a break. Each student was required to do some physical exercise several times a week, but it could take a wide variety of forms. Art projects were supervised by the classroom teachers as part of the regular work. I am not sure about music.
This arrangement might actually be an ideal one for me. I like the ability to work with the kids all day, without the interruptions of switching classes. I like knowing what individual students are doing in all of the areas of study. I like the ability to integrate all of the arts into the curriculum. I like many of the Montessori materials. And I like the effects of the structure on the students. They seemed responsible for their own behavior and learning. They were considerate, even to subs.
But that is the only Montessori school I have worked in, so I don't know if it was unique, or if many of them are like that. It would be interesting to find out - one of the advantages of substitute teaching. If a job like that comes up, I will take it.
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?
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Questions about Differentiation
I know I have talked a lot about differentiation - how it is not adequate for highly gifted students, how most teachers don't seem to be able to do it consistently or adequately. So now I have additional questions. Has the gifted field's emphasis on differentiation helped? Are there more accommodations for gifted children or fewer? Are the needs of more gifted children getting addressed at an appropriate level or not?
I don't know if there is research about this, but I do know that one state I lived in, Illinois, dropped funding for all gifted programs. I have also been told that a school district neighboring where I live now has eliminated all gifted teacher positions. The thing that I feared a dozen or so years ago seems to be coming to pass. Educators of educators tout differentiation -> new teachers are all expected to subscribe to the differentiation mantra -> now that all teachers can differentiate, they can take care of the needs of all students in their classrooms -> special programs are no longer needed. Only, there are laws about students with disabilities and there are high stakes tests for students who are struggling with the regular curriculum. So, it turns out that the special teachers who help students with disabilities or those who need extra support are still there - and in even greater numbers. There are literacy support teachers, numeracy support teachers, ELL teachers, LD teachers, special education aides. Do you notice the one group that there is no more? GT teachers.
Don't get me wrong - I think differentiation is a great thing for teachers to learn to do. And, as much as they can in the limited time they have available, all teachers (in my opinion) should be able to differentiate for the students in their classes. But has the gifted field's emphasis on differentiation helped gifted students get the services they need? Convince me.
I don't know if there is research about this, but I do know that one state I lived in, Illinois, dropped funding for all gifted programs. I have also been told that a school district neighboring where I live now has eliminated all gifted teacher positions. The thing that I feared a dozen or so years ago seems to be coming to pass. Educators of educators tout differentiation -> new teachers are all expected to subscribe to the differentiation mantra -> now that all teachers can differentiate, they can take care of the needs of all students in their classrooms -> special programs are no longer needed. Only, there are laws about students with disabilities and there are high stakes tests for students who are struggling with the regular curriculum. So, it turns out that the special teachers who help students with disabilities or those who need extra support are still there - and in even greater numbers. There are literacy support teachers, numeracy support teachers, ELL teachers, LD teachers, special education aides. Do you notice the one group that there is no more? GT teachers.
Don't get me wrong - I think differentiation is a great thing for teachers to learn to do. And, as much as they can in the limited time they have available, all teachers (in my opinion) should be able to differentiate for the students in their classes. But has the gifted field's emphasis on differentiation helped gifted students get the services they need? Convince me.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Good Day
Yesterday, I had a good day subbing. I can't say that for every day, but some days make it worth it. The class was respectful and, above all, NICE. It was an enjoyable day.
One of the highlights of my day was a young boy. As a sub, I have no way of knowing if this student is identified as gifted, but I could see it as if it were written in bold letters across his forehead. He was working on a project about American legends for his reading work. [And I might say, as an aside, that this might, in fact, be one of the very rare instances that I could actually see differentiation occurring for a gifted student in the classroom.] He had a list of American legends that he was making a booklet about. We talked briefly about the ones that he had listed. He told me they could be either real people or not real people and he had included several that were rather interesting, including one Native American legend. I made one additional suggestion, Sacajawea, and that was all the time we had. But it was good.
I had met his teacher when I first arrived there - she was going home sick - and she seemed very nice and competent. I am glad this young boy has such a good regular teacher.
One of the highlights of my day was a young boy. As a sub, I have no way of knowing if this student is identified as gifted, but I could see it as if it were written in bold letters across his forehead. He was working on a project about American legends for his reading work. [And I might say, as an aside, that this might, in fact, be one of the very rare instances that I could actually see differentiation occurring for a gifted student in the classroom.] He had a list of American legends that he was making a booklet about. We talked briefly about the ones that he had listed. He told me they could be either real people or not real people and he had included several that were rather interesting, including one Native American legend. I made one additional suggestion, Sacajawea, and that was all the time we had. But it was good.
I had met his teacher when I first arrived there - she was going home sick - and she seemed very nice and competent. I am glad this young boy has such a good regular teacher.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Differentiation at NAGC
OK, I will admit it - I only went to one day of NAGC this year. I am a substitute teacher, which means I don't make very much money ($95 per day * around 160 days per year = about $15,200, which isn't enough to live on in most places in the US). And there were no single day registrations available, unless you registered as a parent and went to parent day. So, I registered as a parent and then went over to the regular meeting and attended the regular sessions. Maybe that isn't what I was supposed to do, but the woman working the registration desk was the one who recommended it, so I took advantage of it.
I met up with two people I knew for lunch, Sally L. and Carolyn K and we got into a discussion about differentiation. I explained that I am opposed to it. Carolyn K was rather shocked at my assertion, but I further explained that the reason I was and am opposed to emphasizing differentiation for gifted students is that most teachers can't do it. It is a great idea, but it just isn't working. As a substitute teacher, I go to dozens of classrooms a year. As a former teacher of the gifted, I am always looking for evidence that teachers differentiate their instruction for gifted students. I don't see it. Sometimes, I will see different spelling lists for different students; different book groups; or kids moving to a different room for math. But within the individual classrooms, there just isn't much differentiation to be seen.
Some people have told me that, as a sub, I might not see the differentiation that is going on in the classroom on a regular basis. This is true. Oftentimes, teachers will dumb down the lesson plans, so that subs can handle their classes. But, if this were the case, I would expect to see pointers to some indications that this is a different day - kids unsure about assignments; kids with questions different from the majority of other kids' questions; kids with different materials or working on different assignments. I see these things for the kids with disabilities and for the kids who are struggling with regular classroom work. I do not see them for gifted kids.
And, I believe Renzulli himself did a study that showed that teachers he trained thought they weren't doing enough differentiation, that they thought they were doing more than they were, and that observers of their classes saw less differentiation than they even thought they were doing.
As I have said before, I think differentiation within the classroom isn't working - especially for HG+ kids. It isn't consistent enough, it isn't at the correct level, it isn't supported enough, and it isn't at the correct pace.
And now, for Carolyn K, I have an additional question. How many of the sessions that you went to at NAGC were differentiated? For me, it was none. It wouldn't have mattered if I were a newbie GT teacher or a seasoned veteran, none of the talks I went to adjusted for the level(s) of the audience. It is true that the talks specifically scheduled for parent day were differentiated for them. That is the kind of differentiation I support and believe works. But differentiating a single class is hard. Most people can't or don't do it. They can differentiate the offerings, as NAGC does, by having a wide range of choices available. But within each choice, people just don't differentiate what they offer. And these presenters had months to prepare. Regular classroom teachers don't have the luxury of that kind of time.
I will say it again. I think we need to emphasize different offerings, not differentiation within a single teacher's classroom. Most teachers (and NAGC presenters) can't or don't do it.
I met up with two people I knew for lunch, Sally L. and Carolyn K and we got into a discussion about differentiation. I explained that I am opposed to it. Carolyn K was rather shocked at my assertion, but I further explained that the reason I was and am opposed to emphasizing differentiation for gifted students is that most teachers can't do it. It is a great idea, but it just isn't working. As a substitute teacher, I go to dozens of classrooms a year. As a former teacher of the gifted, I am always looking for evidence that teachers differentiate their instruction for gifted students. I don't see it. Sometimes, I will see different spelling lists for different students; different book groups; or kids moving to a different room for math. But within the individual classrooms, there just isn't much differentiation to be seen.
Some people have told me that, as a sub, I might not see the differentiation that is going on in the classroom on a regular basis. This is true. Oftentimes, teachers will dumb down the lesson plans, so that subs can handle their classes. But, if this were the case, I would expect to see pointers to some indications that this is a different day - kids unsure about assignments; kids with questions different from the majority of other kids' questions; kids with different materials or working on different assignments. I see these things for the kids with disabilities and for the kids who are struggling with regular classroom work. I do not see them for gifted kids.
And, I believe Renzulli himself did a study that showed that teachers he trained thought they weren't doing enough differentiation, that they thought they were doing more than they were, and that observers of their classes saw less differentiation than they even thought they were doing.
As I have said before, I think differentiation within the classroom isn't working - especially for HG+ kids. It isn't consistent enough, it isn't at the correct level, it isn't supported enough, and it isn't at the correct pace.
And now, for Carolyn K, I have an additional question. How many of the sessions that you went to at NAGC were differentiated? For me, it was none. It wouldn't have mattered if I were a newbie GT teacher or a seasoned veteran, none of the talks I went to adjusted for the level(s) of the audience. It is true that the talks specifically scheduled for parent day were differentiated for them. That is the kind of differentiation I support and believe works. But differentiating a single class is hard. Most people can't or don't do it. They can differentiate the offerings, as NAGC does, by having a wide range of choices available. But within each choice, people just don't differentiate what they offer. And these presenters had months to prepare. Regular classroom teachers don't have the luxury of that kind of time.
I will say it again. I think we need to emphasize different offerings, not differentiation within a single teacher's classroom. Most teachers (and NAGC presenters) can't or don't do it.
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.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Teachers' Work Schedules
This post comments about the following article and revises some of the material I posted in response to it on Facebook.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159173/70-teachers-nighter-prepare-lessons-according-survey-teaching-magazine-concludes-hours-rest-us.html
The above article, which is from England, has recently been making the rounds on Facebook. My nephew commented and wanted to know if, in my experience, it also applied to teachers in the United States. The article claims an average of 48.3 hours per week for teachers in England. I told him that the teachers I know personally all worked at least that much. My own schedule, in one of my full time jobs was something like this: 7 to 5 at school, M-F. Sat and Sun 4 to 6 hours each. I had to do a lot of the work at school, because I managed the computer lab and all of the computers in the school, in addition to preparing and grading 34 different lessons each week.
I don't know the statistics for K-12 teachers in the US. It would be interesting to find out, though. I know a lot of teachers who put in much more than the 37.5 (or close to that) hours a week that they are nominally contracted to work.
I recently subbed in a class, where the teacher mistakenly entered the work order for a full day, but only needed a half day. So, I ended up in the teacher's lounge for a substantial time, waiting, in case they found something else they needed me to do (sorting the mail was one task I was given). The teachers were discussing the latest round of negotiations with the school board. They were completely fed up with the extra hours, over and above the negotiated work week that they were putting in. They were at the point of resolving, for the next school year, to work only the amount of school hours they were nominally responsible for. They were concerned that it would be hard on the students - to not have extra tutoring time, extra parent conferences, not as much feedback on submitted work, but they reasoned that, in the long run, it was the only way for the public to realize that the services they were getting were so much over and above what they think the teachers are doing.
Imagine for a minute, if it were thought that the only time a lawyer was working was during the time spent in court or the time spent with clients. Or, the only work that a doctor actually could claim was the few minutes spent in direct contact with patients. Teachers are generally in direct contact with students for at least 300 minutes per day. Virtually all of the prep work, the grading, the record keeping, meeting with administration, fellow teachers, and parents takes place outside of the direct contact time. Many professions require a great deal of "behind the scenes" work. Teaching is no exception, but this is rarely considered when talking about teachers' schedules. Teachers are typically allotted 30 to 60 minutes per day to deal with planning, grading, preparing materials, cleaning up, meeting with parents, other teachers, and administrators, record keeping, learning to use new technology, dealing with new curricula, and so on.
Just a brief example. A 6th grade teacher might know that the curriculum specifies studying about Ancient Egypt. There is a textbook, but reading the lesson and answering the questions at the end of the chapter isn't the engaging project that parents and administrators want to see. The teacher can develop her own projects, which takes time; or the teacher can search the Internet for interesting sites to visit or interesting projects to do. Try it. Try searching the Internet for relevant, appropriate, and interesting material, checking out the entire site to make sure it is OK for your students. Make sure that the project covers all of the standards and content you are responsible for. If you can do it successfully in the 30 minutes that is allotted for planning time, congratulations. Now do it for math, science, reading, spelling, writing, and possibly art as well. So, maybe those projects can last a whole week. You still have to develop the grading rubric, write and print the instructions for the students, and perhaps write a note to parents about the projects. Now make those projects all relevant to kids whose abilities range from second grade reading levels to ninth grade reading levels. Modify each of the lessons so that both your students with learning difficulties and that gifted student have challenging things to work on for each of those lessons. Now try individualizing the curriculum for all 30 students in your class.
You can't do that in 30 minutes a day??? You must not care about your students.
Sigh.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159173/70-teachers-nighter-prepare-lessons-according-survey-teaching-magazine-concludes-hours-rest-us.html
The above article, which is from England, has recently been making the rounds on Facebook. My nephew commented and wanted to know if, in my experience, it also applied to teachers in the United States. The article claims an average of 48.3 hours per week for teachers in England. I told him that the teachers I know personally all worked at least that much. My own schedule, in one of my full time jobs was something like this: 7 to 5 at school, M-F. Sat and Sun 4 to 6 hours each. I had to do a lot of the work at school, because I managed the computer lab and all of the computers in the school, in addition to preparing and grading 34 different lessons each week.
I don't know the statistics for K-12 teachers in the US. It would be interesting to find out, though. I know a lot of teachers who put in much more than the 37.5 (or close to that) hours a week that they are nominally contracted to work.
I recently subbed in a class, where the teacher mistakenly entered the work order for a full day, but only needed a half day. So, I ended up in the teacher's lounge for a substantial time, waiting, in case they found something else they needed me to do (sorting the mail was one task I was given). The teachers were discussing the latest round of negotiations with the school board. They were completely fed up with the extra hours, over and above the negotiated work week that they were putting in. They were at the point of resolving, for the next school year, to work only the amount of school hours they were nominally responsible for. They were concerned that it would be hard on the students - to not have extra tutoring time, extra parent conferences, not as much feedback on submitted work, but they reasoned that, in the long run, it was the only way for the public to realize that the services they were getting were so much over and above what they think the teachers are doing.
Imagine for a minute, if it were thought that the only time a lawyer was working was during the time spent in court or the time spent with clients. Or, the only work that a doctor actually could claim was the few minutes spent in direct contact with patients. Teachers are generally in direct contact with students for at least 300 minutes per day. Virtually all of the prep work, the grading, the record keeping, meeting with administration, fellow teachers, and parents takes place outside of the direct contact time. Many professions require a great deal of "behind the scenes" work. Teaching is no exception, but this is rarely considered when talking about teachers' schedules. Teachers are typically allotted 30 to 60 minutes per day to deal with planning, grading, preparing materials, cleaning up, meeting with parents, other teachers, and administrators, record keeping, learning to use new technology, dealing with new curricula, and so on.
Just a brief example. A 6th grade teacher might know that the curriculum specifies studying about Ancient Egypt. There is a textbook, but reading the lesson and answering the questions at the end of the chapter isn't the engaging project that parents and administrators want to see. The teacher can develop her own projects, which takes time; or the teacher can search the Internet for interesting sites to visit or interesting projects to do. Try it. Try searching the Internet for relevant, appropriate, and interesting material, checking out the entire site to make sure it is OK for your students. Make sure that the project covers all of the standards and content you are responsible for. If you can do it successfully in the 30 minutes that is allotted for planning time, congratulations. Now do it for math, science, reading, spelling, writing, and possibly art as well. So, maybe those projects can last a whole week. You still have to develop the grading rubric, write and print the instructions for the students, and perhaps write a note to parents about the projects. Now make those projects all relevant to kids whose abilities range from second grade reading levels to ninth grade reading levels. Modify each of the lessons so that both your students with learning difficulties and that gifted student have challenging things to work on for each of those lessons. Now try individualizing the curriculum for all 30 students in your class.
You can't do that in 30 minutes a day??? You must not care about your students.
Sigh.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Teachers Can't Do It All
I recently reacted to this poster on Facebook, in the group International Gifted Education. I wrote: "This is a great sentiment, but where are real teachers supposed to find the time to do this?" The only person who commented on that original question was Roya Klingner, who jokingly said that good teachers will find the time by working 20 hours a day. I appreciate the humor in this reply, but I stand by my response: "Seriously, though, I think we gifted advocates need to stop proposing solutions that put an even greater burden on regular classroom teachers. Most of them are overstressed already."
I have just about had it with people piling ever more responsibilities and requirements on classroom teachers. From new standards, new tests, and new technologies to increasing class sizes, dealing with kids with special needs, and increased extra-curricular duties (bus duty, recess duty, detention supervision, after school tutoring), teachers' plates are already full. When in the world do they have time to individualize curriculum? People, teachers are human. They need to eat sometimes, go to the bathroom, sit down for a few minutes. They have families, they need to get their own exercise, they may even do things for themselves like play an instrument, garden, solve calculus equations for fun (OK, maybe that is a stretch).
I am passionate about gifted kids, but I am also a substitute teacher. I go to many different classrooms in many different schools and school districts. Some schools structure their classes differently so as to ease the teachers' jobs, but all of the teachers I have subbed for have had full and extremely busy days.
Yes, teachers should learn to differentiate curriculum, to give kids choices in methods of demonstrating what they have learned, to pose projects that can be tackled in different ways. Good teachers do this and poorer teachers try. But accommodating individual learners is HARD and takes TIME, especially if the learners are gifted. Teachers can help the kids who are struggling. Breaking down the skills and concepts they are teaching into smaller chunks is something teachers usually are good at. They even, usually, have a large number of other teachers and aides who help them with this. But helping gifted learners requires a lot more of a teacher. It requires going beyond what they are familiar with, sometimes learning new material themselves, finding other people who can help, judging what is available, so that, if something must be purchased, the money (usually in extremely short supply, occasionally the teacher's own) can be spent well.
We might as well admit this: teachers can't do this. They can't individualize curriculum for kids who may be placed in their classes, but who are 3 or 4 grade levels above their nominal grades. Yes, as I have written before, there are phenomenal teachers who can manage this - I am in awe of them - but we have to stop expecting the average teacher to be able to accomplish this. Teachers have been exploited far too long. "If you really cared about the kids you teach, you would..." Fill in the blank (see a list of teacher duties that keeps getting ever longer).
What can we who care deeply about gifted children do? Personally, as I told Roya, I advocate structural changes - grouping gifted kids in dedicated classrooms, schools, courses. Yes, the projects even there need to be flexible, but that is different from developing curriculum for each learner. Cluster grouping is also a possibility, if the schools are too small for dedicated classes or classrooms.
Dedicated classrooms and special schools work mostly just like a regular school. There will always be a range of abilities in the classroom. Teachers can handle a range of abilities, up to a point - 1 or 2 grade levels above or below the nominal grade level. After that, it is much more difficult, unless the class size is VERY small.
Some schools follow continuous progress models. Children are grouped for instruction, based on their current level of achievement in that instructional area. One school I worked at had a math block and a reading block. All of the math classes met at the same time and kids were placed where they were ready to learn. Similarly with reading. Another school did that for grammar and writing. The drawback of these models is that the teacher loses track of the individual child. In those schools, I sometimes felt that I missed my "own" kids.
One other model that I have seen that seems to have potential was a Montessori school. From an early age, the students were trained to work relatively independently on a set of tasks. The level and complexity of these tasks varied, depending on the child. I have subbed in Montessori classrooms that follow this model, but they were not dedicated gifted schools. Though this model seems to have potential and the teachers in these classes were good, I still did not see curriculum or expectations that were beyond two years above the nominal grade level of the class. This model has potential for use in a gifted school, in my opinion, but even in this setting, the teachers cannot be expected to accommodate a range of more than 4 or 5 grade levels.
There seems to be great future potential in various models of computerized instruction. From flipped classrooms to online learning, to adaptive programming, to digital production, there are now more options in this direction than ever before. There are still problems with these models, though. Doing chemistry on the computer is NOT the same as doing chemistry in the lab. Skyping with a group of students from around the world is not the same as trying to convince the people in your class that your idea is valid. Even if computerized instruction were perfect and readily available everywhere, you still need relevant experiences, discussion and interaction.
So I am pleading with gifted advocates everywhere: work for structural solutions, but don't put down regular classroom teachers if they can't individualize the curriculum for gifted students. They DO care about kids, but they just can't do it all.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
The Uses of Placement Tests, Part 2
There was also a 4th type of student - one who had stellar grades and modest, but borderline acceptable scores on the algebra readiness test. He was the model student: reasonably intelligent, very hard working, respectful, personable. We accepted him into the algebra class as well, even though his algebra readiness score was somewhat less than I was comfortable with. The other teacher defended his inclusion, saying that he was one of her best students and would be extremely disappointed if he weren't selected for the algebra class.
He did OK. It was clearly a struggle for him, but he was, indeed a hard worker, he had support at home, and he was willing to ask for help when he needed it. In his case, I think the class was OK for him. It was a bit above what was a comfortable learning curve for him, but he had learned some of the study skills and personal skills that I wish gifted kids would learn: persistence, asking for help when needed, organization.
And this makes me wonder, if gifted kids were closer to their zone of proximal development for a reasonable portion of their school day, would they learn better learning skills. With my own two children, it seemed to work. But that is a pretty small sample.
He did OK. It was clearly a struggle for him, but he was, indeed a hard worker, he had support at home, and he was willing to ask for help when he needed it. In his case, I think the class was OK for him. It was a bit above what was a comfortable learning curve for him, but he had learned some of the study skills and personal skills that I wish gifted kids would learn: persistence, asking for help when needed, organization.
And this makes me wonder, if gifted kids were closer to their zone of proximal development for a reasonable portion of their school day, would they learn better learning skills. With my own two children, it seemed to work. But that is a pretty small sample.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
The Use of Placement Tests
I think I have written about this before, but I can't find the post and I want to think about it again, so here goes a reconstruction of the idea.
Years ago, I was teaching algebra to 8th graders who were recommended by their previous math teacher for inclusion in the algebra class. In general, the criteria she used for recommending students for the class were two-fold: they had to have good mathematical understanding (evidence: tests) and they had to have good work habits ("A"s in math, which, with her grading system meant that they turned in virtually all of their homework).
Since I was the one who actually did the teaching of the algebra class, I thought it might be interesting to add to these criteria an algebra readiness test. So we gave the algebra readiness test to quite a few more students than she anticipated were actually qualified to take algebra. Interestingly, we now had a new problem. There were the kids who had good grades and who scored high on the readiness test. Clearly, they were ready for algebra. There were kids who had good grades, but who scored fairly low on the readiness test. Not quite as clear, but still relatively convincingly, they were not quite ready for algebra. But the ones that really led to a disagreement between the two of us were the ones in a third group: the ones who scored high on the readiness test, but who did not have especially good grades. These students were often described as the unmotivated ones, the ones who were lazy, the ones who just weren't interested in math. She felt these students should not be included, because they hadn't earned the right to be in the algebra class.
Not right away, but after thinking about it for a while, I began to wonder: why do we give smart kids a pass on taking classes or learning material that they are clearly ready for? For kids on the lower end of the ability spectrum, or kids with specific learning disabilities, do we let them opt out of addressing their weaknesses? No. We may give them extra support to help them handle their challenges, but we don't let them say, No, I am not interested in reading, so I am not going to do this hard reading, I am just going to read this lower level stuff that I know I can do just fine.
Why DO we let the smart kids opt out of challenging material?
And then, to carry that a bit further, what if we re-framed gifted education in terms of not just letting kids advance to higher level material, but instead use a slightly different argument: all students need to learn to work hard and to develop good study skills. Therefore, we need to place all students in curricula that are in their zone of proximal development (ZPG). Naturally, this will be an approximation. Teachers with 25 or more students in their classes can't be expected to individualize the entire class for each student, but it should be at least a goal. Kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels above their class level should be required to work just as hard at new reading goals as kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels below their class level. Why shouldn't they? Why do we let them coast? Why couldn't we re-frame the curriculum offerings to REQUIRE the kids who have mastered the regular curriculum to address curriculum that they haven't yet mastered?
As an experiment, we agreed to accept one student into the algebra class, who scored quite high on the readiness test, but whose grades would not have allowed him to take the class. He was the lazy one; the unmotivated one. And, interestingly, he continued this same pattern in algebra. He passed the tests, but often just barely; he could have done much better if he had actually done more of the work. I am not sure what we learned from the experiment. I think it would have to be repeated a number of times, before we could decide either way - and clearly, it also depends on the students involved. Even with material better suited to his readiness, he didn't learn good work habits. Was it too late? Should we have tried this when he was younger? Or are lazy students always lazy?
I still think we should require the smart kids to work harder. Perhaps this is because I never had to work hard in school myself, until I was well into college - and by then it caused a number of related imposter syndrome problems. (An entirely different post).
One more thing about the boy who was required to take algebra, even though he refused to work hard. I had a software program for my algebra students called Green Globs and Graphing Equations (from Sunburst, I think). The idea is that the computer sprays some random green globs over an x-y grid and you are supposed to try to hit them with lines. The more globs you hit at one time, the higher (exponentially) your score. This gentleman got really interested in the program and didn't want to stop at just straight lines. He asked for equations of different types of lines, so that he might try hitting more globs with one equation. I gave him circles, parabolas, ellipses. He wanted still more. I gave him trig functions, exponentials, anything I could think of. I showed him how to add parameters to the sine functions, so that he could make them more dense (that really racks up the points). He may not have been motivated to do homework, but he certainly did find something that interested him.
I wonder what he does now.
Years ago, I was teaching algebra to 8th graders who were recommended by their previous math teacher for inclusion in the algebra class. In general, the criteria she used for recommending students for the class were two-fold: they had to have good mathematical understanding (evidence: tests) and they had to have good work habits ("A"s in math, which, with her grading system meant that they turned in virtually all of their homework).
Since I was the one who actually did the teaching of the algebra class, I thought it might be interesting to add to these criteria an algebra readiness test. So we gave the algebra readiness test to quite a few more students than she anticipated were actually qualified to take algebra. Interestingly, we now had a new problem. There were the kids who had good grades and who scored high on the readiness test. Clearly, they were ready for algebra. There were kids who had good grades, but who scored fairly low on the readiness test. Not quite as clear, but still relatively convincingly, they were not quite ready for algebra. But the ones that really led to a disagreement between the two of us were the ones in a third group: the ones who scored high on the readiness test, but who did not have especially good grades. These students were often described as the unmotivated ones, the ones who were lazy, the ones who just weren't interested in math. She felt these students should not be included, because they hadn't earned the right to be in the algebra class.
Not right away, but after thinking about it for a while, I began to wonder: why do we give smart kids a pass on taking classes or learning material that they are clearly ready for? For kids on the lower end of the ability spectrum, or kids with specific learning disabilities, do we let them opt out of addressing their weaknesses? No. We may give them extra support to help them handle their challenges, but we don't let them say, No, I am not interested in reading, so I am not going to do this hard reading, I am just going to read this lower level stuff that I know I can do just fine.
Why DO we let the smart kids opt out of challenging material?
And then, to carry that a bit further, what if we re-framed gifted education in terms of not just letting kids advance to higher level material, but instead use a slightly different argument: all students need to learn to work hard and to develop good study skills. Therefore, we need to place all students in curricula that are in their zone of proximal development (ZPG). Naturally, this will be an approximation. Teachers with 25 or more students in their classes can't be expected to individualize the entire class for each student, but it should be at least a goal. Kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels above their class level should be required to work just as hard at new reading goals as kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels below their class level. Why shouldn't they? Why do we let them coast? Why couldn't we re-frame the curriculum offerings to REQUIRE the kids who have mastered the regular curriculum to address curriculum that they haven't yet mastered?
As an experiment, we agreed to accept one student into the algebra class, who scored quite high on the readiness test, but whose grades would not have allowed him to take the class. He was the lazy one; the unmotivated one. And, interestingly, he continued this same pattern in algebra. He passed the tests, but often just barely; he could have done much better if he had actually done more of the work. I am not sure what we learned from the experiment. I think it would have to be repeated a number of times, before we could decide either way - and clearly, it also depends on the students involved. Even with material better suited to his readiness, he didn't learn good work habits. Was it too late? Should we have tried this when he was younger? Or are lazy students always lazy?
I still think we should require the smart kids to work harder. Perhaps this is because I never had to work hard in school myself, until I was well into college - and by then it caused a number of related imposter syndrome problems. (An entirely different post).
One more thing about the boy who was required to take algebra, even though he refused to work hard. I had a software program for my algebra students called Green Globs and Graphing Equations (from Sunburst, I think). The idea is that the computer sprays some random green globs over an x-y grid and you are supposed to try to hit them with lines. The more globs you hit at one time, the higher (exponentially) your score. This gentleman got really interested in the program and didn't want to stop at just straight lines. He asked for equations of different types of lines, so that he might try hitting more globs with one equation. I gave him circles, parabolas, ellipses. He wanted still more. I gave him trig functions, exponentials, anything I could think of. I showed him how to add parameters to the sine functions, so that he could make them more dense (that really racks up the points). He may not have been motivated to do homework, but he certainly did find something that interested him.
I wonder what he does now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)