Re: Ten Obvious Truths about Educating Kids that Keep Getting Ignored
The above article touches on a lot of what I have to say, but I want to consolidate my own thoughts about what we know, but ignore.
Engaging interest; telling our personal stories.
There is a huge time crunch in schools these days. As a teacher, you are supposed to get through the given reading lesson, for several different reading groups. You are supposed to teach mini-lessons on writing to a given writing prompt and there all all those other literacy things that you are supposed to teach, too. You have a (largely scripted) math lesson that needs to be taught. You have to fit in those social studies and science lessons somewhere. And then there are silent reading and read-aloud times that you know are so beneficial. There isn't really time to get the students really interested in the subject matters and most of all there is no time to pursue things that the students really ARE interested in.
Say you are supposed to be teaching a lesson about longitude and latitude. How many lessons actually start with kids holding a plain ball (an orange, a pummelo?, a rubber playground ball) decorated with random dots? How do you get kids to actually wonder why we need longitude and latitude? How could you get kids to describe exactly which dot was indicated? Put random continents on the ball. What directs would you give to get from one dot to another?
Who has time for this?
Instead, you have the kids read the two pages on longitude and latitude and then do a worksheet trying to find Chicago (which half of them think is a state or a country) or find the object that is at 40 degrees North and 105 degrees West. Which they also don't care about - unless they live there, and then it is mildly interesting, but quickly forgotten.
When I am subbing, I generally carry a picture book to read to the kids, if there is an awkward time when something is cancelled, a lesson is too short, kids need to settle down from recess, or whatever. One of the books that has been very effective for me is Diary of a Wombat by Jackie French. Part of the reason this book is so effective is that I take the time to talk about going to Australia, going to a couple of zoos and seeing wombats in real life. I physically show them about how big wombats are and tell them that the ones I saw were rather stinky, but still adorable. Then I tell them about the author of the book, who actually had a wombat living under her house. All of these stories are personal things that interest me. And since they interest me, I am able to get the students interested in them. And even though the kids don't really know me, personal stories connect them to the book. If there is time, we can also talk about their personal encounters with interesting animals.
The key word in the previous sentence is "time". Too often, there just isn't time. How many times have kids been assigned the ubiquitous "Do a report on your favorite animal" project? How much time does the teacher take to help the students decide what it is about the animal that they find interesting? Usually, what I see is a list of things the kids are supposed to find out about "their" animal (habitat, range, life cycle, etc.). And a stack/shelf/cart of books. And Kid X can't do their project on Animal A, because that animal was already taken by Kid Y, so they will have to do Animal B.
Perhaps most teachers do take the time to develop the interest in these projects before they set the kids loose on them. As a sub, I am only there for a short time - usually just one day - so I probably, yeah UNDOUBTEDLY, miss most of what the teacher has done. But I also know that kids generally seem detached from these sorts of assignments. They aren't really following up their interests. Gory shark attacks aren't generally allowed to be discussed in their slide show, but it is really what interests them about sharks. There isn't time for that.
We need more time and more personal connections.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Is American Education Broken? School Financing Is.
Look at banks. If they need a new building or need new equipment for their staff, they get it. Look at insurance companies. Yes, those huge new, beautiful buildings. Look at schools. Even the fairly new one have trailers alongside the classrooms. Some of the older ones have significant structural problems.
I am a sub, so I see a lot of different schools. One of the places I sub at is a fairly new school - with 3 double wide mobile classrooms outside of it. Another of these fairly new schools has 2 double wide trailers and more classes per grade level than they can accommodate, even with classes of 32 and more. But at least some of the classrooms in the newer schools are spacious.
I also subbed in a new high school. There were 40 kids in the AP Calc class I taught.
Not so with many of the older school classrooms. One classroom was so crowded that there was no way I could get to every child's desk. Another classroom had kids sharing desks, because they couldn't fit any more in the room.
These crowded classrooms are fire hazards. The mobile classrooms have other problems - security as children go to special classes or the restroom without teacher accompaniment.
I am no expert on school finances, but I asked why all these new schools were built with too few classrooms, even the day they opened. The teachers said that that was as much as the school board thought the public would support as a bond issue for building these much needed new schools. They were probably correct and therein lies part of the problem. Does your bank ask you if they should build a new branch facility? Does your insurance company have to hold a public referendum to build a new headquarters?
The way American schools are financed almost guarantees inequities. Most schools are dependent on property taxes and voter approval. So, school districts in wealthier areas almost by definition have more money to spend. Of course, the buildings don't tell the whole story - just the beginning part of it.
I am a sub, so I see a lot of different schools. One of the places I sub at is a fairly new school - with 3 double wide mobile classrooms outside of it. Another of these fairly new schools has 2 double wide trailers and more classes per grade level than they can accommodate, even with classes of 32 and more. But at least some of the classrooms in the newer schools are spacious.
I also subbed in a new high school. There were 40 kids in the AP Calc class I taught.
Not so with many of the older school classrooms. One classroom was so crowded that there was no way I could get to every child's desk. Another classroom had kids sharing desks, because they couldn't fit any more in the room.
These crowded classrooms are fire hazards. The mobile classrooms have other problems - security as children go to special classes or the restroom without teacher accompaniment.
I am no expert on school finances, but I asked why all these new schools were built with too few classrooms, even the day they opened. The teachers said that that was as much as the school board thought the public would support as a bond issue for building these much needed new schools. They were probably correct and therein lies part of the problem. Does your bank ask you if they should build a new branch facility? Does your insurance company have to hold a public referendum to build a new headquarters?
The way American schools are financed almost guarantees inequities. Most schools are dependent on property taxes and voter approval. So, school districts in wealthier areas almost by definition have more money to spend. Of course, the buildings don't tell the whole story - just the beginning part of it.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Talking and Attention
This is a somewhat rambling post, where I am thinking about kids' talking and issues regarding attention.
The class I subbed for yesterday had book buddies, so I had a chance to talk to another teacher while the older kids ( my class) read to and with the younger ones (her class). Somewhere in our conversation, the topic turned to the differences over the years in the kids in classes. Both of us observed that kids now seem to have tremendous difficulty really LISTENING. She said that they seem to feel the need for constant noise around them - music, activity, talking to themselves. I hadn't noticed it in this way, but I do notice that kids seem to talk nearly continuously. And, although I have posted on this topic before, I am still wondering WHY. Why do kids feel the need to talk so much at school? Is it something we are doing - or not doing - as teachers? Is it the nature of school? Is it natural and only now becoming so much in evidence, because there are so many students in the classroom or because the consequences of constant chatter aren't enough to deter it?
First of all, let me say that even the students seem to be aware that they cannot do some of their work well when people around them are talking all of the time. This seems to be more apparent in subjects where the nature of the work is completely independent effort, e.g., writing. But even knowing this, kids who feel the desire to talk don't or can't inhibit their talking if they themselves feel the desire to do so. They know that if someone else talks, they get distracted, but if they talk, they seem to feel it is needed or justifiable.
Further interesting examples of this are often seen in the computer labs. Kids are working independently on projects or simply different choices of math games. They are chattering constantly. In spite of the fact that each student is most interested in their own activity, they are talking to other students all of the time. And the other students sometimes are listening. I know there have been many studies that show that people can't actually multi-task - that they are actually just switching focus back and forth, but students seem to be faster at it than the studies would seem to point out. Are kids better/faster at switching focus? Does it depend on the level of focus necessary?
I know I can think of other things when I am swimming. I know that I can do fractions in different number bases while I swim. But, one thing I can't do when I swim is focus on a word-intensive task at the same time that I am swimming. I can think about topics using words, but I can't create word-related things while swimming, i.e., I can't work on the lyrics to a song that I am writing. So the depth of focus does matter - at least to me.
The other part of the problem is hearing what is said. I have noticed that many students require multiple repetition of simple directions, e.g., "Open your books to page 81." Some, like me, are very visually oriented and will not need further assistance if the page number is also posted on the board. Others seem to ignore both verbal and visual presentations and need multiple references to them both before they can complete the task. It is as though they have to go through several layers of attention. First they have to be aware that they are being asked to stop whatever they are currently doing. That takes several attempts. Then they have to be aware that they are being asked to do something else. Then they need to shift their attention to thinking about what they are being asked to do. But then the attention seems to shift back to their previous task and they have to think about what they were doing and what they need to do to end that. They have now completely forgotten about p. 81 in the book and need several more reminders in order to get back to that. This sequence seems to be repeated for some students every time there is a new directive given. And, all of the while, some of them are still talking.
Quite a while ago, I read an article telling college professors not to lecture so much and to break up lectures into smaller chunks. I can't actually imaging lecturing to students the way I was lectured to when I was in college. Most of the classes I had were around 50 or 60 minutes and the teacher would lecture for a large part of the time. In recent years, lectures have gotten much shorter and have been augmented with discussions, demonstrations, working of problems, etc. Even the MOOCs (online courses) that I have taken have been broken up into videos that last between 6 and 18 minutes (at most). Most are around 10 to 12 minutes long.
What has happened to our attention spans? What has happened to the depth of our attention?
Many things to think about.
The class I subbed for yesterday had book buddies, so I had a chance to talk to another teacher while the older kids ( my class) read to and with the younger ones (her class). Somewhere in our conversation, the topic turned to the differences over the years in the kids in classes. Both of us observed that kids now seem to have tremendous difficulty really LISTENING. She said that they seem to feel the need for constant noise around them - music, activity, talking to themselves. I hadn't noticed it in this way, but I do notice that kids seem to talk nearly continuously. And, although I have posted on this topic before, I am still wondering WHY. Why do kids feel the need to talk so much at school? Is it something we are doing - or not doing - as teachers? Is it the nature of school? Is it natural and only now becoming so much in evidence, because there are so many students in the classroom or because the consequences of constant chatter aren't enough to deter it?
First of all, let me say that even the students seem to be aware that they cannot do some of their work well when people around them are talking all of the time. This seems to be more apparent in subjects where the nature of the work is completely independent effort, e.g., writing. But even knowing this, kids who feel the desire to talk don't or can't inhibit their talking if they themselves feel the desire to do so. They know that if someone else talks, they get distracted, but if they talk, they seem to feel it is needed or justifiable.
Further interesting examples of this are often seen in the computer labs. Kids are working independently on projects or simply different choices of math games. They are chattering constantly. In spite of the fact that each student is most interested in their own activity, they are talking to other students all of the time. And the other students sometimes are listening. I know there have been many studies that show that people can't actually multi-task - that they are actually just switching focus back and forth, but students seem to be faster at it than the studies would seem to point out. Are kids better/faster at switching focus? Does it depend on the level of focus necessary?
I know I can think of other things when I am swimming. I know that I can do fractions in different number bases while I swim. But, one thing I can't do when I swim is focus on a word-intensive task at the same time that I am swimming. I can think about topics using words, but I can't create word-related things while swimming, i.e., I can't work on the lyrics to a song that I am writing. So the depth of focus does matter - at least to me.
The other part of the problem is hearing what is said. I have noticed that many students require multiple repetition of simple directions, e.g., "Open your books to page 81." Some, like me, are very visually oriented and will not need further assistance if the page number is also posted on the board. Others seem to ignore both verbal and visual presentations and need multiple references to them both before they can complete the task. It is as though they have to go through several layers of attention. First they have to be aware that they are being asked to stop whatever they are currently doing. That takes several attempts. Then they have to be aware that they are being asked to do something else. Then they need to shift their attention to thinking about what they are being asked to do. But then the attention seems to shift back to their previous task and they have to think about what they were doing and what they need to do to end that. They have now completely forgotten about p. 81 in the book and need several more reminders in order to get back to that. This sequence seems to be repeated for some students every time there is a new directive given. And, all of the while, some of them are still talking.
Quite a while ago, I read an article telling college professors not to lecture so much and to break up lectures into smaller chunks. I can't actually imaging lecturing to students the way I was lectured to when I was in college. Most of the classes I had were around 50 or 60 minutes and the teacher would lecture for a large part of the time. In recent years, lectures have gotten much shorter and have been augmented with discussions, demonstrations, working of problems, etc. Even the MOOCs (online courses) that I have taken have been broken up into videos that last between 6 and 18 minutes (at most). Most are around 10 to 12 minutes long.
What has happened to our attention spans? What has happened to the depth of our attention?
Many things to think about.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented - CAGT 2013 - Day Two
Since I do not have a regular position and I just sub, I chose the sessions I attended at this conference mainly on the basis of simple personal interest. I don't need to focus on specific areas of education. I could just go where I pleased.
So, for the second day, I started with a presentation by Lindsey Reinert and Penelope Heinigk titled "Going Deeper with Technology". They specifically addressed one of the major concerns I have had about the way technology is typically used by classroom teachers in the elementary schools. The topic is assigned and kids are told to use a given technology, usually PowerPoint or Prezi to make a presentation on their topic. Sometimes, to help the kids along, the teachers give out requirements for the presentation. Example: at some time or another in their schooling, kids will be assigned the "do a slide show about your favorite animal" topic. The teacher specifies that it must be at least X pages long (X being equal to approximately 6 slides), with a title slide, one slide about habitat, one slide about food, one slide about reproduction, one slide about geographic distribution, and one slide with a bibliography. So the kids go to Google, and find the answers. They then cut and paste whole sections of their reference work, usually without even reading them, except to make sure they contain the required information. It doesn't matter if they have no clue what the article says, that they don't understand many of the words they have just copied.
That said, I am VERY glad that these women emphasized that there is a GREAT deal of preparation work, "front-loading" that needs to be done BEFORE the students even begin their presentations. Personally, I would have liked to see them step us through the entire process. Choose a middle grade level and outline the steps from beginning to end product.
The presentations they showed were good examples of the final products, but I would like also to have heard a bit more about why a particular tool might be best for a particular type of presentation. Personally, I think Prezi's are more flash than substance, but straight PowerPoints can get repetitive and boring. What are some other products and why might one choose one over another. They gave us two web sites that list a number of tools, but no guidance in why one might choose a particular tool.
This was one (of several) presentations that simply needed more time.
The second presentation I attended was the keynote panel of gifted students, moderated by Jim Delisle. I have seen Dr. Delisle on numerous occasions now and I never get tired of hearing his insights (though I must admit that I didn't really listen as intently to the leaf poem the third time he used it). The problem I have with his presentations is that I usually end up wiping tears from my eyes far too often. Even the panel of students had that effect. What the students had to say wasn't particularly new to me, but it is worthwhile to hear them say it.
And, to prove that I still hadn't gotten enough of Dr. Delisle, I also attended his next session, entitled "Can't You Just Chill Out?: Appreciating the Intensities of Gifted Individuals" This was basically a talk about Dabrowski's OverExcitabilities. I am not terribly fond of that term. I actually prefer "Intensities". This was familiar ground for me, but I ALWAYS appreciate the stories about the kids that highlight what he is talking about. Since this conference was basically just for me, I felt free to apply all of these insights to myself. In particular, the Emotional Intensity seems to be dominating my thoughts lately and causing me a deal of pain. But it is hard for the patient to treat herself.
The next session was Susan Jackson again. I find her presentations interesting and with some great insights, but I am left afterwards feeling a bit confused as to what I can take away from her talk. As with Jim's stories, I LOVE the talk about real kids and real approaches to them and their difficulties. But sometimes, I had a hard time telling how she got to that particular point with that particular kid and what the next steps might be. I don't think I could tell you what more than a very few of her 27 points were. She is undeniably brilliant, but some of us lesser mortals have a hard time making the connections that seem so obvious to her.
The final breakout session I attended was Ed Zaccaro's. He has written a number of books to use for teaching kids mathematics. I have long loved his books and I wasn't disappointed in his lecture. I don't agree with him exactly on his views on acceleration - he thinks there are problems for underage kids, especially in when they get to high school. I agree that keeping kids with other approximately their own age and ability would be better, but this is just not happening in schools nowadays. Yes, I would prefer to have all the highly mathematically gifted fourth graders working together in fourth grade. But I just don't see it happening. At least with acceleration, you are sure SOMETHING is happening. I even agree that it isn't always the right things that are happening - greater depth or complexity. I am just frustrated that most teachers and schools don't do those things. At any rate, I enjoyed his talk. It is another one I wish had had much more time.
It was a worthwhile two days for me. I still feel alone and frustrated by my own failures, but at least I understand them better. Ha.
So, for the second day, I started with a presentation by Lindsey Reinert and Penelope Heinigk titled "Going Deeper with Technology". They specifically addressed one of the major concerns I have had about the way technology is typically used by classroom teachers in the elementary schools. The topic is assigned and kids are told to use a given technology, usually PowerPoint or Prezi to make a presentation on their topic. Sometimes, to help the kids along, the teachers give out requirements for the presentation. Example: at some time or another in their schooling, kids will be assigned the "do a slide show about your favorite animal" topic. The teacher specifies that it must be at least X pages long (X being equal to approximately 6 slides), with a title slide, one slide about habitat, one slide about food, one slide about reproduction, one slide about geographic distribution, and one slide with a bibliography. So the kids go to Google, and find the answers. They then cut and paste whole sections of their reference work, usually without even reading them, except to make sure they contain the required information. It doesn't matter if they have no clue what the article says, that they don't understand many of the words they have just copied.
That said, I am VERY glad that these women emphasized that there is a GREAT deal of preparation work, "front-loading" that needs to be done BEFORE the students even begin their presentations. Personally, I would have liked to see them step us through the entire process. Choose a middle grade level and outline the steps from beginning to end product.
The presentations they showed were good examples of the final products, but I would like also to have heard a bit more about why a particular tool might be best for a particular type of presentation. Personally, I think Prezi's are more flash than substance, but straight PowerPoints can get repetitive and boring. What are some other products and why might one choose one over another. They gave us two web sites that list a number of tools, but no guidance in why one might choose a particular tool.
This was one (of several) presentations that simply needed more time.
The second presentation I attended was the keynote panel of gifted students, moderated by Jim Delisle. I have seen Dr. Delisle on numerous occasions now and I never get tired of hearing his insights (though I must admit that I didn't really listen as intently to the leaf poem the third time he used it). The problem I have with his presentations is that I usually end up wiping tears from my eyes far too often. Even the panel of students had that effect. What the students had to say wasn't particularly new to me, but it is worthwhile to hear them say it.
And, to prove that I still hadn't gotten enough of Dr. Delisle, I also attended his next session, entitled "Can't You Just Chill Out?: Appreciating the Intensities of Gifted Individuals" This was basically a talk about Dabrowski's OverExcitabilities. I am not terribly fond of that term. I actually prefer "Intensities". This was familiar ground for me, but I ALWAYS appreciate the stories about the kids that highlight what he is talking about. Since this conference was basically just for me, I felt free to apply all of these insights to myself. In particular, the Emotional Intensity seems to be dominating my thoughts lately and causing me a deal of pain. But it is hard for the patient to treat herself.
The next session was Susan Jackson again. I find her presentations interesting and with some great insights, but I am left afterwards feeling a bit confused as to what I can take away from her talk. As with Jim's stories, I LOVE the talk about real kids and real approaches to them and their difficulties. But sometimes, I had a hard time telling how she got to that particular point with that particular kid and what the next steps might be. I don't think I could tell you what more than a very few of her 27 points were. She is undeniably brilliant, but some of us lesser mortals have a hard time making the connections that seem so obvious to her.
The final breakout session I attended was Ed Zaccaro's. He has written a number of books to use for teaching kids mathematics. I have long loved his books and I wasn't disappointed in his lecture. I don't agree with him exactly on his views on acceleration - he thinks there are problems for underage kids, especially in when they get to high school. I agree that keeping kids with other approximately their own age and ability would be better, but this is just not happening in schools nowadays. Yes, I would prefer to have all the highly mathematically gifted fourth graders working together in fourth grade. But I just don't see it happening. At least with acceleration, you are sure SOMETHING is happening. I even agree that it isn't always the right things that are happening - greater depth or complexity. I am just frustrated that most teachers and schools don't do those things. At any rate, I enjoyed his talk. It is another one I wish had had much more time.
It was a worthwhile two days for me. I still feel alone and frustrated by my own failures, but at least I understand them better. Ha.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Re: Things We Should Stop Doing to High-Ability Students
Original article by Tamar Wyschogrod
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw
I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments.
First of all, a minor complaint: in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things. I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving. And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability. That last statement needs to be explained a bit more. While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.
Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids. I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students. Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).
I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement: differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids. There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it. There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates. But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance. They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass". And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out). Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work. Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.
Now for the rest of the article.
Group Projects. Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students. This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student. High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work. What does the low ability student learn? That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice. One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem. It is the make-up of the groups. She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students. Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students. That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).
Crappy Differentiation. Already discussed.
Contests instead of Curriculum. I like contests. They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids. But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum. But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough. It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough. High-ability kids need real and regular work. It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast. They don't learn good work habits. They don't learn how to react to difficulties. They don't learn how to learn. That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation. It isn't working. High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities. The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping. I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub, I have yet to see it in action.
Ignoring Their Achievements
This isn't a biggie with me. I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids. Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.
Low Standards
It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom. We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve. We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids). We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences. We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A. (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education). And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards. You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers. 30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject. That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw
I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments.
First of all, a minor complaint: in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things. I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving. And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability. That last statement needs to be explained a bit more. While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.
Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids. I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students. Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).
I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement: differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids. There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it. There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates. But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance. They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass". And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out). Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work. Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.
Now for the rest of the article.
Group Projects. Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students. This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student. High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work. What does the low ability student learn? That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice. One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem. It is the make-up of the groups. She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students. Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students. That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).
Crappy Differentiation. Already discussed.
Contests instead of Curriculum. I like contests. They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids. But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum. But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough. It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough. High-ability kids need real and regular work. It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast. They don't learn good work habits. They don't learn how to react to difficulties. They don't learn how to learn. That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation. It isn't working. High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities. The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping. I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub, I have yet to see it in action.
Ignoring Their Achievements
This isn't a biggie with me. I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids. Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.
Low Standards
It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom. We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve. We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids). We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences. We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A. (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education). And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards. You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers. 30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject. That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Re: Before Reading or Watching Videos, Students Should Experiment First by David Plotnikoff
Thoughts about this article:
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/before-reading-or-watching-videos-students-should-first-experiment/
General conclusion: it is more effective for students to experiment BEFORE learning about something through text or video than doing the same lessons in the opposite sequence (text or video first, then experimentation).
My thoughts:
I think this is true for a lot of science. When I was a kid (100+ years ago), kids had lots of active experience with science - collecting rocks, growing vegetables, building dams in the creek, using a teeter-totter. When they came to school, the science lesson used practical experience to build the theory on. Nowadays, kids have lots of virtual and digital experience, but much less hands-on experience - many have never hammered nails or fixed a bicycle or made cakes from scratch. So the theoretical lessons often aren't rooted in personal knowledge.
In school, many teachers have found that manipulatives are difficult to manage with large classes, so those lessons have disappeared - at least it appears so to me. I am a sub and I often find unopened manipulatives and shrink-wrapped science kits in teachers' classrooms at the end of the school year.
Many years ago, I was tasked to teach gifted classes, with no specific curriculum and few materials. I did have a hot plate and some beakers, though, so I decided to teach a Kitchen Physics-like set of lessons - with sugar cubes, food dye, water, and the beakers and hot plate (and a thermometer). The kids were skeptical at first. They wanted me to tell them what to do. So, I started with a simple experiment on how long it would take the sugar cube to dissolve in the water. And I asked them what else they needed to know. I helped them frame a group experiment in a scientific way. Hypothesis, test, explain, discuss what is still unclear. The first few times through the cycle, they didn't even know how to ask questions, but soon they caught on and were completely surprised at how interesting the simple system could be.
Kids enjoy the hands-on lessons, but I fully agree with teachers that they are harder to manage with ever increasing class sizes and substantially less time that can be devoted to science.
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/before-reading-or-watching-videos-students-should-first-experiment/
General conclusion: it is more effective for students to experiment BEFORE learning about something through text or video than doing the same lessons in the opposite sequence (text or video first, then experimentation).
My thoughts:
I think this is true for a lot of science. When I was a kid (100+ years ago), kids had lots of active experience with science - collecting rocks, growing vegetables, building dams in the creek, using a teeter-totter. When they came to school, the science lesson used practical experience to build the theory on. Nowadays, kids have lots of virtual and digital experience, but much less hands-on experience - many have never hammered nails or fixed a bicycle or made cakes from scratch. So the theoretical lessons often aren't rooted in personal knowledge.
In school, many teachers have found that manipulatives are difficult to manage with large classes, so those lessons have disappeared - at least it appears so to me. I am a sub and I often find unopened manipulatives and shrink-wrapped science kits in teachers' classrooms at the end of the school year.
Many years ago, I was tasked to teach gifted classes, with no specific curriculum and few materials. I did have a hot plate and some beakers, though, so I decided to teach a Kitchen Physics-like set of lessons - with sugar cubes, food dye, water, and the beakers and hot plate (and a thermometer). The kids were skeptical at first. They wanted me to tell them what to do. So, I started with a simple experiment on how long it would take the sugar cube to dissolve in the water. And I asked them what else they needed to know. I helped them frame a group experiment in a scientific way. Hypothesis, test, explain, discuss what is still unclear. The first few times through the cycle, they didn't even know how to ask questions, but soon they caught on and were completely surprised at how interesting the simple system could be.
Kids enjoy the hands-on lessons, but I fully agree with teachers that they are harder to manage with ever increasing class sizes and substantially less time that can be devoted to science.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper, found at:
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
- Children are not naturally good. They need firm, tactful discipline from parents and teachers with clear standards. Too much freedom for children breeds selfishness, vandalism and personal unhappiness.
- If the non-competitive ethos of progressive education is allowed to dominate our schools, we shall produce a generation unable to maintain our standards of living when opposed by fierce rivalry from overseas competitors.
- It is the quality of teachers that matters, rather than their numbers or their equipment. We have sacrificed quality for numbers, and the result has been a lowering of standards. We need high-quality, higher-paid teachers in the classroom, not as counsellors or administrators.
- Schools are for schooling, not social engineering.
- The best way to help children in deprived areas is to teach them to be literate and numerate, and to develop all their potential abilities.
- Every normal child should be able to read by the age of seven. This can be achieved by the hard work of teachers who use a structured approach.
- Without selection the clever working-class child in a deprived area stands little chance of a real academic education.
- External examinations are essential for schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. Without such checks, standards decline. Working-class children suffer when applying for jobs if they cannot bring forward proof of their worth achieved in authoritative examinations.
- Freedom of speech must be preserved in universities. Institutions which cannot maintain proper standards of open debate should be closed.
- You can have equality or equality of opportunity; you cannot have both. Equality will be the holding back (or the new deprivation) of the brighter children.
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
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, April 24, 2012
A Year's Growth Is Not Enough
At a recent professional development meeting of gifted coordinators, one of the attendees said something to the effect that, although each of us have different methods and strategies operating in our schools, we all had the same goal: a year's growth for each of our students.
I respectfully disagree. If we are setting our sights for gifted students on a year's growth, we are aiming too low. As I have written before, if average students can learn 10 things in a given amount of time, our gifted students should be able to learn 13 or more things in that amount of time. This is, of course, a gross oversimplification, but I believe that, as a goal, it should hold up pretty well.
In fact, I would assert that, if we are doing things right in our classrooms, the gap between the highly able students and the less able students should get larger and larger each year. It is fine to talk about getting rid of the gaps among various ethnic groups, the gaps among different socioeconomic classes, and gaps between genders, but it is different altogether when we talk about the gaps between students of different abilities. The only way to close that gap is to hold down the top, while boosting the bottom.
As educators interested in gifted students, we should aim for more than a year's growth every year and an increase of the gap between the achievement levels of average students and gifted students.
Of course, this brings us to the problem of assessment. In general, I would say we know very little about gifted students' levels of ability or the change in that ability from year to year. Most of the tests just don't go high enough for proper baselines. I see great potential in the use of computerized adaptive testing, but I must admit, I haven't had much direct experience with it.
I respectfully disagree. If we are setting our sights for gifted students on a year's growth, we are aiming too low. As I have written before, if average students can learn 10 things in a given amount of time, our gifted students should be able to learn 13 or more things in that amount of time. This is, of course, a gross oversimplification, but I believe that, as a goal, it should hold up pretty well.
In fact, I would assert that, if we are doing things right in our classrooms, the gap between the highly able students and the less able students should get larger and larger each year. It is fine to talk about getting rid of the gaps among various ethnic groups, the gaps among different socioeconomic classes, and gaps between genders, but it is different altogether when we talk about the gaps between students of different abilities. The only way to close that gap is to hold down the top, while boosting the bottom.
As educators interested in gifted students, we should aim for more than a year's growth every year and an increase of the gap between the achievement levels of average students and gifted students.
Of course, this brings us to the problem of assessment. In general, I would say we know very little about gifted students' levels of ability or the change in that ability from year to year. Most of the tests just don't go high enough for proper baselines. I see great potential in the use of computerized adaptive testing, but I must admit, I haven't had much direct experience with it.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Which Is Worth More? and/or Multi-Potentiality
On Thursday, I was subbing at a high school not too far from where I live and after the class was done with the lesson, I got to talking with the students. The subject of after school jobs came up and how much money the students had to spend on various things. One girl said that she made a bit over $11.00 an hour at her job, which was a fairly easy one, according to her. Most of the time she just got to sit and play games on her phone, while occasionally helping customers.
Of course, then I got to thinking: How much do I get paid an hour? The subbing jobs vary in length, even the ones that are supposedly for a "full day". I get paid either for a full day or a half day. Full days, depending on the school district pay $90.00, $94.50, or $95.00. The job that day was for 7.5 hours, with 30 minutes for lunch. So, 7.0 hours @ $94.50 per day. So I get $13.50 per hour. After 4 years of undergraduate education, two master's degrees, and virtually all of a Ph.D., except the final signature, I am making barely more than a high school kid. And, by no stretch of the imagination would I characterize subbing as "easy".
Why don't I get a "real" job? Part of it has to do with multi-potentiality. I am good at a lot of things. I am especially good at learning stuff, so I kept wanting to go back to schools to learn more. And, as I did, I also tried out jobs that followed from the things I studied in schools. But each time, the thing that fascinated me was the learning process itself. So each time, in some way, I returned to teaching. I have taught everything from pre-school through grad school, from beginning swimming through computer modelling of proteins. But now, I am virtually unemployable. I am too old, I have too many degrees, my experiences are all different from what would be expected of someone who is looking for the positions I seek, and I don't exactly have a dedicated career path.
I enjoy subbing, actually. It is terribly hard some days, boring some days, but I like the variety and the challenge. But most of all, I enjoy analyzing all of the parameters of the job. How does this school compare to that school? What difference does socio-economics make? What about the linguistic background of the students? Why are the teachers friendly at one school and completely stand-offish at another school? Which curricula do I like? Which seem to work better for the students?
Years ago, my own children complained that I "had to analyze everything". I guess, yes, they are right. And subbing gives me a chance to analyze a lot of things. I just wish I made more money than a clerk in a pet store.
Of course, then I got to thinking: How much do I get paid an hour? The subbing jobs vary in length, even the ones that are supposedly for a "full day". I get paid either for a full day or a half day. Full days, depending on the school district pay $90.00, $94.50, or $95.00. The job that day was for 7.5 hours, with 30 minutes for lunch. So, 7.0 hours @ $94.50 per day. So I get $13.50 per hour. After 4 years of undergraduate education, two master's degrees, and virtually all of a Ph.D., except the final signature, I am making barely more than a high school kid. And, by no stretch of the imagination would I characterize subbing as "easy".
Why don't I get a "real" job? Part of it has to do with multi-potentiality. I am good at a lot of things. I am especially good at learning stuff, so I kept wanting to go back to schools to learn more. And, as I did, I also tried out jobs that followed from the things I studied in schools. But each time, the thing that fascinated me was the learning process itself. So each time, in some way, I returned to teaching. I have taught everything from pre-school through grad school, from beginning swimming through computer modelling of proteins. But now, I am virtually unemployable. I am too old, I have too many degrees, my experiences are all different from what would be expected of someone who is looking for the positions I seek, and I don't exactly have a dedicated career path.
I enjoy subbing, actually. It is terribly hard some days, boring some days, but I like the variety and the challenge. But most of all, I enjoy analyzing all of the parameters of the job. How does this school compare to that school? What difference does socio-economics make? What about the linguistic background of the students? Why are the teachers friendly at one school and completely stand-offish at another school? Which curricula do I like? Which seem to work better for the students?
Years ago, my own children complained that I "had to analyze everything". I guess, yes, they are right. And subbing gives me a chance to analyze a lot of things. I just wish I made more money than a clerk in a pet store.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax
Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences by Leonard SaxMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
This is one of those books that, when I am finished reading, I wish I had read more carefully. While I agree in part with the author's premise - that boys and girls brains and physiology are in fact different and it would behoove us to take note of the consequences of those differences, rather than deny or subvert them - there is a lingering uneasiness that perhaps the author is a bit too biased in his analysis. Separate was not equal in terms of racial differences; I am worried that separate will not be equal in terms of gender differences (or religious differences, or socio-economic differences, or gender orientation differences, or ...)
Another thing that worries me is the chapter on teen sex. I am really alarmed that there isn't more support for girls to just say no to the degrading practice of "hooking up" and other aspects of teen sex that are exploitative of girls' natures. What are girls getting out of "hooking up" and how do we empower them to fight back against this?
There are several things I would like to see explored in more detail: what exactly are the differences in teaching boys and girls? The brief examples he gives are simply not definitive enough for me. In one of the ending chapters, he very briefly mentions that girls used to be concerned with their character, but nowadays their self-esteem (in coed schools) is largely based on how they look. Coed schools are so prevalent in the US, and I am convinced that this will not change soon, given the current economic problems and the impending drastic cuts in education, how can we deal with education and socio-emotional issues?
I have ordered his next two books from the library. Maybe I will find out more from them.
View all my reviews
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Montessori Schools with the Upper Grades
I have never taught for more than a week in a Montessori school - that is my disclaimer. I have subbed in a Montessori charter school for a total of about 3 weeks. Since I am mainly interested in the older elementary students, my experience with Montessori has only been with the students who would have been classified as being in 5th and 6th grades and in 7th and 8th grades.
I went into the Montessori school for the first time with curiosity, but wariness. I had looked into enrolling my own children in a different Montessori school many years before this experience and had decided against it. That Montessori school would NOT allow children to do imaginative play and my daughters were especially enamored of imaginative play at the time. I am not sure how many times my older daughter pretended to lose her shoe, as Cinderella did, and gleefully shouted, "Oh, I almost forgot!" as she pretended to hear the clock chime midnight. [Or the permutation of that event, where instead of losing her shoe, she lost her towel after her bath...her ball gown gone.] I just couldn't imagine barring her from imaginative play. So we pursued other alternatives. But my impression of Montessori schools from that school search and from my readings when I was pursuing my education degrees led me to believe that the Montessori method could be rather restrictive - proscribing some types of creativity and prescribing fixed interactions with materials.
But still, I was curious, so I accepted a subbing job at the school. I was impressed with several things, even as the school began. There were two classrooms next to each other with full time teachers and nearly full teacher aides. The classrooms were arranged with a meeting area, usually a couch and several comfortable chairs, a window seat bench, carpeting, and enough space for the 24 students in the class. Outside of the meeting area were various sized wooden tables, some of which could accommodate only two students, some designed for 4, and some that were pushed together for a larger sized table that up to even 12 students could sit at. The walls were lined with books and materials. Coats and boots were left in the hall. Pencils and markers were common property, as were paper, tissues, and other supplies. Each student had two large three-ring binders. One seemed to be for current work and the other kept as a portfolio.
The day there began with a message to the students on the white board easel, a math problem, and a list of things for the students to start working on - typically beginning with making a list of things that they planned to accomplish for the day. The teacher discussed the day's plan for each student and signed each one as the day began. Students conversed a bit and then gradually started on their work.
The typical pattern of the day was to work all morning, with an interruption some time during the morning for a math class, clean up and meet to discuss things just before lunch. Recess and then lunch, followed by either an additional work time or a group activity time. This meant large blocks of time where the student could choose what to work on, with various constraints.
One of the things that still rather discomfits me is the word "choice" as it was used in that school. In the classrooms that I was in, the curriculum was broken into 3 week blocks, where certain activities in each of the disciplines were to be accomplished. The different activities that were required to be done were called "choices", presumably because the student could choose which one to do on which day and at which time, but, in essence, most of them were not really choices, as I think about them. The task was prescribed, e.g., read this and figure out a solution to the problem presented or learn these vocabulary words. Sometimes there were optional ways to demonstrate the accomplishment of a task, but usually, there was very limited amount of what I would call choice, i.e., a student could NOT choose to not do a particular task that s/he didn't like.
So, what do I think? I liked it much better than I expected to. The environment was respectful of both students' and teachers' needs. There was a snack area, where students could get a mid-morning snack whenever they wanted (only 2 people in the snack area at a time). There was a chart by the door to indicate when students had left the room for work, the rest room, or a physical activity (also one of the prescribed list of activities on the list). The aide from one classroom or the other would accompany the students to the gym or outside, depending on the physical activity on the list and how many students wanted to do the activity at the time. The classroom was busy and productive.
The negatives - I saw little differentiation of the activities, with the exception of math. And two students seemed to be floundering a bit. I suppose it is actually good that I only saw two students really floundering, but it is interesting to me to ponder why they were floundering. One student who seemed to have difficulty seemed to be both lazy and unsure of himself. He always worked with a friend and usually the friend was doing the lion's share of the work. If there was a way to accomplish the task with minimal effort and minimal quality, that was the way he did it. He avoided anything that was difficult or required significant effort. He was way behind in finishing most of his work. When the regular teacher and I discussed him, it was clear that this was a recurrent pattern. He wasn't unable, just unwilling.
Another student had difficulty for entirely different reasons: many of the tasks were simply too complex or too difficult for her. She required a lot more support in just about everything than any of the other students. This, even though it was done tactfully, seemed to set her apart.
And there were still conflicts between and among the students. Although the behavior in the classroom was, in general, excellent, there was still some emotional bullying, necessitating some teacher intervention.
The teachers in the school made some tough choices. One was to do without "specials" teachers for music, PE, and library, which are standard in the rest of the school district, in favor of aides for each classroom.
I would be interested in trying this out for a longer time. I would like to see if it actually does facilitate accommodating students at their own levels, and would thus be a model for inclusive gifted education or even inclusion of special ed students. From what I could see, there were only very mild learning difficulties with the one student. There were two very advanced math students in one of the classrooms, so I do know that mathematical prowess was accommodated. I could not see evidence of any other advanced provisions, but I freely admit that this might have been less visible with reading/writing, and to some extent social studies and science.
An aside: with no formal music classes, that subject may have been considered short changed, but the upper grades did put on a musical every year and at least one student, who was an outstanding singer, chose to attend this school and was extremely supportive of it, even though he had to go outside of school to get his music instruction.
I went into the Montessori school for the first time with curiosity, but wariness. I had looked into enrolling my own children in a different Montessori school many years before this experience and had decided against it. That Montessori school would NOT allow children to do imaginative play and my daughters were especially enamored of imaginative play at the time. I am not sure how many times my older daughter pretended to lose her shoe, as Cinderella did, and gleefully shouted, "Oh, I almost forgot!" as she pretended to hear the clock chime midnight. [Or the permutation of that event, where instead of losing her shoe, she lost her towel after her bath...her ball gown gone.] I just couldn't imagine barring her from imaginative play. So we pursued other alternatives. But my impression of Montessori schools from that school search and from my readings when I was pursuing my education degrees led me to believe that the Montessori method could be rather restrictive - proscribing some types of creativity and prescribing fixed interactions with materials.
But still, I was curious, so I accepted a subbing job at the school. I was impressed with several things, even as the school began. There were two classrooms next to each other with full time teachers and nearly full teacher aides. The classrooms were arranged with a meeting area, usually a couch and several comfortable chairs, a window seat bench, carpeting, and enough space for the 24 students in the class. Outside of the meeting area were various sized wooden tables, some of which could accommodate only two students, some designed for 4, and some that were pushed together for a larger sized table that up to even 12 students could sit at. The walls were lined with books and materials. Coats and boots were left in the hall. Pencils and markers were common property, as were paper, tissues, and other supplies. Each student had two large three-ring binders. One seemed to be for current work and the other kept as a portfolio.
The day there began with a message to the students on the white board easel, a math problem, and a list of things for the students to start working on - typically beginning with making a list of things that they planned to accomplish for the day. The teacher discussed the day's plan for each student and signed each one as the day began. Students conversed a bit and then gradually started on their work.
The typical pattern of the day was to work all morning, with an interruption some time during the morning for a math class, clean up and meet to discuss things just before lunch. Recess and then lunch, followed by either an additional work time or a group activity time. This meant large blocks of time where the student could choose what to work on, with various constraints.
One of the things that still rather discomfits me is the word "choice" as it was used in that school. In the classrooms that I was in, the curriculum was broken into 3 week blocks, where certain activities in each of the disciplines were to be accomplished. The different activities that were required to be done were called "choices", presumably because the student could choose which one to do on which day and at which time, but, in essence, most of them were not really choices, as I think about them. The task was prescribed, e.g., read this and figure out a solution to the problem presented or learn these vocabulary words. Sometimes there were optional ways to demonstrate the accomplishment of a task, but usually, there was very limited amount of what I would call choice, i.e., a student could NOT choose to not do a particular task that s/he didn't like.
So, what do I think? I liked it much better than I expected to. The environment was respectful of both students' and teachers' needs. There was a snack area, where students could get a mid-morning snack whenever they wanted (only 2 people in the snack area at a time). There was a chart by the door to indicate when students had left the room for work, the rest room, or a physical activity (also one of the prescribed list of activities on the list). The aide from one classroom or the other would accompany the students to the gym or outside, depending on the physical activity on the list and how many students wanted to do the activity at the time. The classroom was busy and productive.
The negatives - I saw little differentiation of the activities, with the exception of math. And two students seemed to be floundering a bit. I suppose it is actually good that I only saw two students really floundering, but it is interesting to me to ponder why they were floundering. One student who seemed to have difficulty seemed to be both lazy and unsure of himself. He always worked with a friend and usually the friend was doing the lion's share of the work. If there was a way to accomplish the task with minimal effort and minimal quality, that was the way he did it. He avoided anything that was difficult or required significant effort. He was way behind in finishing most of his work. When the regular teacher and I discussed him, it was clear that this was a recurrent pattern. He wasn't unable, just unwilling.
Another student had difficulty for entirely different reasons: many of the tasks were simply too complex or too difficult for her. She required a lot more support in just about everything than any of the other students. This, even though it was done tactfully, seemed to set her apart.
And there were still conflicts between and among the students. Although the behavior in the classroom was, in general, excellent, there was still some emotional bullying, necessitating some teacher intervention.
The teachers in the school made some tough choices. One was to do without "specials" teachers for music, PE, and library, which are standard in the rest of the school district, in favor of aides for each classroom.
I would be interested in trying this out for a longer time. I would like to see if it actually does facilitate accommodating students at their own levels, and would thus be a model for inclusive gifted education or even inclusion of special ed students. From what I could see, there were only very mild learning difficulties with the one student. There were two very advanced math students in one of the classrooms, so I do know that mathematical prowess was accommodated. I could not see evidence of any other advanced provisions, but I freely admit that this might have been less visible with reading/writing, and to some extent social studies and science.
An aside: with no formal music classes, that subject may have been considered short changed, but the upper grades did put on a musical every year and at least one student, who was an outstanding singer, chose to attend this school and was extremely supportive of it, even though he had to go outside of school to get his music instruction.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
If Teachers Worked Like Doctors
To follow up on yesterday's post, I went to search the Internet to see how much of a doctor's time was actually spent in patient contact. I am not intending here to be a thorough researcher, so I stopped after finding one study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709110/. The authors estimated that doctors spent 25.5% of their time in direct contact with patients. Just to make things easier, let's round that off to 25% of their time - 1/4 of their time was spent with patients. Now, no one assumes that what the doctors do with the rest of their time is trivial or unnecessary or that it should not be figured as part of the heavy work load of being a doctor. Yet, they certainly do this with teachers.
Take the example I wrote about yesterday. 8:00 to 3:30 required work day; 15 minutes before kids allowed in; 15 minutes after last bell to get them all out. 30 minutes "duty free" lunch; 30 minutes planning time. 1.5 hours supposedly without kids out of 7.5 hours. That means teachers are in contact with their clients 80% of the day.
Just for curiosity, let's do some math. Year 52 weeks. Doctor gets 4 weeks vacation (a bit conservative, but let it go for now); works 48 weeks. 1/4 of time spent with patients. 12 weeks. Teacher contract: 36 weeks. 80% of time spent with students. 28.8 weeks. Teachers are on direct duty more than twice as much as doctors.
This completely ignores the fact that, not only are teachers in direct contact with their clients more than twice as much as doctors, but they have MANY MORE CLIENTS at the same time - typically 25 times as many. And, I can hear people object: oh, but they are just young children, they are easier to deal with than adults. The only problem is, young children are immature - what a surprise. They do not know how to behave in all normal situations, they are easily distracted, they have all sorts of needs that cannot be ignored, and all of this WHILE the teacher is trying to get them to actually learn something. The only people that think this is easy are people who haven't done it for a significant amount of time.
Take the example I wrote about yesterday. 8:00 to 3:30 required work day; 15 minutes before kids allowed in; 15 minutes after last bell to get them all out. 30 minutes "duty free" lunch; 30 minutes planning time. 1.5 hours supposedly without kids out of 7.5 hours. That means teachers are in contact with their clients 80% of the day.
Just for curiosity, let's do some math. Year 52 weeks. Doctor gets 4 weeks vacation (a bit conservative, but let it go for now); works 48 weeks. 1/4 of time spent with patients. 12 weeks. Teacher contract: 36 weeks. 80% of time spent with students. 28.8 weeks. Teachers are on direct duty more than twice as much as doctors.
This completely ignores the fact that, not only are teachers in direct contact with their clients more than twice as much as doctors, but they have MANY MORE CLIENTS at the same time - typically 25 times as many. And, I can hear people object: oh, but they are just young children, they are easier to deal with than adults. The only problem is, young children are immature - what a surprise. They do not know how to behave in all normal situations, they are easily distracted, they have all sorts of needs that cannot be ignored, and all of this WHILE the teacher is trying to get them to actually learn something. The only people that think this is easy are people who haven't done it for a significant amount of time.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Dropouts
There was a recent posting on another list I belong to regarding the number of dropouts in the United States and the reasons for doing so.
http://fdncenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=133800007
After scanning the article, I am pondering two things:
1) Many of the dropouts complain that classes are "boring"and not relevant to their lives. "Boring", as the report does discuss a bit, can mean too easy or too hard or simply not entertaining. One of the recommendations of the report was that teachers try to make their classes more relevant and more interesting. But, in many respects, I think teachers are doing a reasonable job in this regard. The problem is that this generation of kids is used to not only TV, but also the Internet, Instant Messaging, hand-held games, etc., etc. How can teachers even hope to compete with all of the other distractions available to kids these days?
As many of you know, I have been a substitute teacher off and on for the past few years and have therefore seen a wide variety of American classrooms. It is true that a few of them are routine and uninteresting, but, in my experience, most of the teachers are really trying to make their classes interesting. But kids are quite jaded these days. It is as though they need ever higher doses of "fun" just to keep them motivated to do anything at all. And if it isn't fun, the only thing that seems to work is threat - bad grades or talking to a parent. I see very few kids who are really excited about the subject matter. I was in a 3rd grade class this week that was really excited about writing, but that is such an anomaly that it really stood out in my mind.
2) Is it possible that the dropout problem would be better viewed as a lack of alternative pathways? When I was a foreign student in Germany 40 years ago, they had what they called the "zweite Bildungsweg", which was a second pathway to the type of education that the student wanted. There seemed to be a conscious effort to accommodate
students who wanted to change their education course. Maybe if we made a concerted effort to establish more
apprenticeships, or similar entry level jobs, and meld them to part-time education, we could change "dropping out" to beginning a work progression. Maybe "lack of relevance" to their lives could be changed into specific coursework needed for their chosen job path.
I have long been interested in different structural ways of reforming American education. By structural, I mean the organization of bringing teachers and students together, not by changing the curriculum directly or by improving teacher education (both of which are worthwhile, just not what I consider structural changes), but rather by altering who is put in contact with whom and when. E.g., putting a cluster of gifted kids in one classroom, rather than spreading them out among many teachers is a structural change; having each teacher differentiate the curriculum for each of the gifted students is not what I would consider to be a structural change.
http://fdncenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=133800007
After scanning the article, I am pondering two things:
1) Many of the dropouts complain that classes are "boring"and not relevant to their lives. "Boring", as the report does discuss a bit, can mean too easy or too hard or simply not entertaining. One of the recommendations of the report was that teachers try to make their classes more relevant and more interesting. But, in many respects, I think teachers are doing a reasonable job in this regard. The problem is that this generation of kids is used to not only TV, but also the Internet, Instant Messaging, hand-held games, etc., etc. How can teachers even hope to compete with all of the other distractions available to kids these days?
As many of you know, I have been a substitute teacher off and on for the past few years and have therefore seen a wide variety of American classrooms. It is true that a few of them are routine and uninteresting, but, in my experience, most of the teachers are really trying to make their classes interesting. But kids are quite jaded these days. It is as though they need ever higher doses of "fun" just to keep them motivated to do anything at all. And if it isn't fun, the only thing that seems to work is threat - bad grades or talking to a parent. I see very few kids who are really excited about the subject matter. I was in a 3rd grade class this week that was really excited about writing, but that is such an anomaly that it really stood out in my mind.
2) Is it possible that the dropout problem would be better viewed as a lack of alternative pathways? When I was a foreign student in Germany 40 years ago, they had what they called the "zweite Bildungsweg", which was a second pathway to the type of education that the student wanted. There seemed to be a conscious effort to accommodate
students who wanted to change their education course. Maybe if we made a concerted effort to establish more
apprenticeships, or similar entry level jobs, and meld them to part-time education, we could change "dropping out" to beginning a work progression. Maybe "lack of relevance" to their lives could be changed into specific coursework needed for their chosen job path.
I have long been interested in different structural ways of reforming American education. By structural, I mean the organization of bringing teachers and students together, not by changing the curriculum directly or by improving teacher education (both of which are worthwhile, just not what I consider structural changes), but rather by altering who is put in contact with whom and when. E.g., putting a cluster of gifted kids in one classroom, rather than spreading them out among many teachers is a structural change; having each teacher differentiate the curriculum for each of the gifted students is not what I would consider to be a structural change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)