Every once in a while, someone, usually a parent, will complain that teachers don't care about their gifted child or else they would provide appropriate learning experiences for them. They know that teachers don't have a lot of time, but they insist that, if they really cared, they would MAKE time for them. While I don't disagree with the idea, the fact is, it does take time - a LOT of time. It takes more time to differentiate for the gifted child than it does for the learning disabled child, and here is why.
1) No Appropriate Materials
Materials for teaching are always in short supply. Many teachers resort to buying some of their own supplies of things they find especially useful in the classroom - extra books, markers, colored pencils, rock collections for a geology unit, costumes for a social studies play, etc. Even textbooks are often in short supply. There is one set of science textbooks for 3 classrooms, or the social studies textbooks haven't been updated for 10 years. Materials to use with gifted kids are usually non-existent, unless the teacher has purchased them him/herself. This leads to several of the other problems.
2) No Appropriate Learning Objectives
The goals and learning objectives for your regular students are published and explicit (usually). There are resources to help with struggling students, both materials and people. But what about the gifted students? In my long years of teaching, both regular and substitute, I have rarely found any serious effort to address goals and learning objectives for gifted students.
Developing appropriate goals and learning objectives takes a LOT of time and expertise. That is why they have curriculum committees and textbook selection committees. How many districts have a "Gifted Student Standards" Committee? A learning goal committee for gifted students? Part of the problem is that gifted students are often widely varying in abilities and needs. Another part of the problem is that it requires not only knowledge of gifted students, but also extensive knowledge of the subject matter. This subject matter can be far beyond what most classroom teachers are familiar with. They are adept at breaking down subject matter for which they are responsible. But extending subject matter beyond what they are familiar with is far more difficult.
I have worked with a few mathematics curricula that have explicitly developed activities for "extended" learning. These activities are intended to be used with the gifted students. I have never seen them used, but at least they are there. I have rarely seen objectives for gifted students in other academic subjects.
3) Finding Appropriate Materials
Yes, the Internet is wonderful and yes, there are wonderful lessons out there. Finding those lessons takes a lot of time. Even if teachers have thought long and hard about what additional objectives they would like to have the gifted student(s) achieve, finding appropriate materials and lessons takes time.
There are a lot of bad lesson plans out there; there are a lot of good lesson plans that would be great for most kids; there are fewer lesson plans that would be great for the gifted students, but are not appropriate for everyone. Why is it important that they NOT be appropriate for everyone? Because if everyone in the class can do, enjoy, and learn from the activities, they should be part of the regular curriculum and should not be considered to be differentiation for the gifted student. Too often, activities in pull-out gifted programs turn into "fun and games for smart kids" - activities that most of the kids in the classroom could have done, but they don't get to, because they are not labeled gifted. I know, because my own pull-out classroom sometimes resembled this. There is a danger to this. The danger is that people will push to have kids participate in these fun activities, even if they don't really need gifted education. Why not? They are fun, motivating, and the results don't really matter in terms of grading or learning objectives.
4) Teaching and Presenting to Gifted Students
One parent suggested that, in the age of computers, just allowing the gifted students access to computers could keep them busy, motivated, and learning. Perhaps. Busy and motivated are especially easy. Learning? Possibly. But what are they learning? They are learning that learning is usually just fun and games. That if they have to work hard at it, it isn't as much fun, so why should they do it?
Perhaps it is simply from my own life, but even as a highly gifted child, I would not seek out difficult learning experiences. I would not challenge myself. Perhaps some gifted students do. Many will not. Many will not seek out appropriate learning experiences and may even rebel against being required to do something appropriate for their ability level. Many parents and teachers will defend this as a matter of choice. We could offer algebra to 7th graders, but if Student X, who is ready for algebra, doesn't want to take it, we will just let him stay in the regular classroom, doing work he has already mastered. Why do we let smart kids choose to not work hard? Do we let any other students opt out of difficult material?
If the objectives for the gifted students are well thought out and the materials and lessons planned, when are they presented and by whom? When does the teacher actually teach the gifted student(s)? Book groups are usually easy. The groups can be varying in size and different objectives are generally seamlessly incorporated. Math groups can sometimes be similarly arranged, though the most frequent alteration in presentation is that students actually switch classrooms for math groups, with one teacher taking the bottom group, one teacher taking the middle group, and one teacher taking the usually larger "top" group. This top group is not only usually larger than any of the other groups, but it is also not really adequate for the gifted math students. Typically, the material that is presented is just the standard curriculum that is a bit faster, so they can get ALL of the pages done, not just the bare minimum. Sometimes, it is the standard curriculum accelerated by one year.
If, instead, the teacher is trying to differentiate for the students that are particularly gifted in social studies or science, it is much more difficult. Typically, what will happen is that there will be projects for these subjects. But designing projects that include both the regular curriculum and the learning objectives for the gifted students is difficult. Instead, what usually seems to happen is that teachers hope that students will seek their own level in their projects. The objectives and learning standards are vague enough so that they can be construed to be applicable to all ability levels.
5) Assessing Gifted Students
This shouldn't be a difficult problem, but it often engenders great debate. Should the gifted students be given As just because they have, indeed, mastered the regular curriculum? Or should they be graded on the goals and objectives that were developed for them? On what is a grade to be based? Should it be what would be expected of any age student who attempts the given material or should the age of the student be taken into consideration?
6) School Support Personnel
When asked to differentiate for struggling students, a teacher will generally have many different people in the school to turn to for help. There are literacy specialists, behavior specialists, language learning specialists, learning disability teachers, math specialists, aides, and a number of other people who come to help, both at the school and the district level. When teachers need to differentiate for gifted students, there are rarely people who are designated to help them. There used to be a few gifted specialists, but these are rapidly disappearing from most schools. I worked as a gifted specialist at a middle school. I was hired for 7 hours a week. When the specialists are rarely there and are not considered significant members of the staff, teachers cease to rely on them - or to even know how to use them.
Conclusion:
Differentiating for gifted students is actually HARDER than differentiating for struggling students. There are probably other reasons than just those outlined above. I know this won't satisfy the parent whose child needs something more and isn't getting it. It shouldn't. But we have to support different ways of helping teachers take care of gifted students. Blaming them for not differentiating for their gifted students doesn't mean that they can.
Showing posts with label school_structure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school_structure. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Montessori Upper Elementary
I got to sub in a Montessori school today - only a half day, but I had wanted to sub in that school for a while. When I lived in Alaska, I subbed several times in a Montessori school and was impressed with it. And I have wondered since then how general the Montessori model was for upper elementary age children. It was interesting to me that several of the things were the same and others different.
Physical characteristics of the room
True to the Montessori model of schooling, there were a lot of wooden materials in both classrooms. But, also in both classrooms, the wooden materials don't seem to be being used much. For instance, today I saw a couple of interesting models of the sun and the planets, including the Earth and its moons, but they were high up on a shelf and not in use, while the students worked on a worksheet packet about phases of the moon. There were a lot of reference books available, but the students seemed to use the information in the packets the most. The room in Alaska had wooden tables of various sizes throughout; this room had standard desks for each student, with small tables at various places around the room. The room in Alaska seemed spacious; this one seemed very crowded. But, in this case, some of the crowding was due to a plethora of large tanks for turtles, lizards, fish, and other creatures. Personally, I would like to have seen some more large tables for their work.
Assignments
In both classes, the students had a work schedule that they filled out. Long term projects were listed in one section, daily work in sections devoted to each day. In both classes, the assignments seemed to be specific to grade levels and not to current achievement levels. The 4th graders had one social studies assignment; the 5th graders had a different assignment. There were two different math books, one for 4th grade, one for 5th grade. In a way, I am a little disappointed that there didn't seem to be much individualization of achievement levels. It may be that the classes are differentiated, since there are multiple 4/5 grades in this school. I really couldn't tell that.
Textbooks/Worksheets
This classroom seemed to use worksheets more than the school in Alaska. In Alaska, they had a lot of laminated assignment materials that the students rotated in using. Since the assignments usually came in 2 or 3 week chunks, there was plenty of time for the students to rotate through the assignment materials. Neither school used textbooks for much of their work, except for math.
Other interesting things
The class had an aide; the one in Alaska did, too. What a difference this makes! Supervision is easier, grading is easier, talking to individual students and small groups is easier. It was a moderately large class, 25 students, but you can get to know the kids better, even in just a half day, with another adult in the room. Your focus doesn't need to be quite as widely scattered.
The academic level of the students in this class seemed average. So perhaps the same work for all of them in each grade was appropriate. It was hard for me to tell.
Final thing
Both Montessori schools address teachers, administrators, and staff by their first names. It must be a characteristic of the Montessori philosophy. I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I think I would prefer some mild honorific, such as Teacher Laura or Ms. Laura. I guess I am not as egalitarian as the Montessori philosophy would have me be. Still, I had a interesting morning. I would go back.
Physical characteristics of the room
True to the Montessori model of schooling, there were a lot of wooden materials in both classrooms. But, also in both classrooms, the wooden materials don't seem to be being used much. For instance, today I saw a couple of interesting models of the sun and the planets, including the Earth and its moons, but they were high up on a shelf and not in use, while the students worked on a worksheet packet about phases of the moon. There were a lot of reference books available, but the students seemed to use the information in the packets the most. The room in Alaska had wooden tables of various sizes throughout; this room had standard desks for each student, with small tables at various places around the room. The room in Alaska seemed spacious; this one seemed very crowded. But, in this case, some of the crowding was due to a plethora of large tanks for turtles, lizards, fish, and other creatures. Personally, I would like to have seen some more large tables for their work.
Assignments
In both classes, the students had a work schedule that they filled out. Long term projects were listed in one section, daily work in sections devoted to each day. In both classes, the assignments seemed to be specific to grade levels and not to current achievement levels. The 4th graders had one social studies assignment; the 5th graders had a different assignment. There were two different math books, one for 4th grade, one for 5th grade. In a way, I am a little disappointed that there didn't seem to be much individualization of achievement levels. It may be that the classes are differentiated, since there are multiple 4/5 grades in this school. I really couldn't tell that.
Textbooks/Worksheets
This classroom seemed to use worksheets more than the school in Alaska. In Alaska, they had a lot of laminated assignment materials that the students rotated in using. Since the assignments usually came in 2 or 3 week chunks, there was plenty of time for the students to rotate through the assignment materials. Neither school used textbooks for much of their work, except for math.
Other interesting things
The class had an aide; the one in Alaska did, too. What a difference this makes! Supervision is easier, grading is easier, talking to individual students and small groups is easier. It was a moderately large class, 25 students, but you can get to know the kids better, even in just a half day, with another adult in the room. Your focus doesn't need to be quite as widely scattered.
The academic level of the students in this class seemed average. So perhaps the same work for all of them in each grade was appropriate. It was hard for me to tell.
Final thing
Both Montessori schools address teachers, administrators, and staff by their first names. It must be a characteristic of the Montessori philosophy. I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I think I would prefer some mild honorific, such as Teacher Laura or Ms. Laura. I guess I am not as egalitarian as the Montessori philosophy would have me be. Still, I had a interesting morning. I would go back.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Pullout Special Education
I have been observing since January the effect of special education pullout classes on the students who attend them. It is interesting to me how this effects the rest of their time in the classroom, as I am a sub and get them when they are not in their special classes. I do NOT dispute that the classes are important and they ARE effective, in that the statistics about skill achievements seem to be improving.
What is of concern to me, is how much of their time those students waste in the regular classroom. Yesterday, I heard from two of those students, "I don't do your social studies" and, at the same time, "I don't have anything to do". This is not the first time I have heard similar comments. This is evidently a chronic occurrence, since, even though one of those students wanted to participate, he didn't know what the assignment was, so he couldn't - even in a adapted manner. And, the suggestion to "read a book" has no appeal to a student who has difficulty reading in the first place.
So, in some ways similarly to gifted kids, the kids who need extra services are spinning their wheels much of the time. I know it is logistically nearly impossible to arrange it so that, in a classroom of 27 students, each child is at his/her correct challenge level all of the time, but, again, it seems like there should be some better arrangement of children, teachers, and time.
Laura
What is of concern to me, is how much of their time those students waste in the regular classroom. Yesterday, I heard from two of those students, "I don't do your social studies" and, at the same time, "I don't have anything to do". This is not the first time I have heard similar comments. This is evidently a chronic occurrence, since, even though one of those students wanted to participate, he didn't know what the assignment was, so he couldn't - even in a adapted manner. And, the suggestion to "read a book" has no appeal to a student who has difficulty reading in the first place.
So, in some ways similarly to gifted kids, the kids who need extra services are spinning their wheels much of the time. I know it is logistically nearly impossible to arrange it so that, in a classroom of 27 students, each child is at his/her correct challenge level all of the time, but, again, it seems like there should be some better arrangement of children, teachers, and time.
Laura
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Ideal Structure of School
It has long been an interest of mine to try to figure out what an ideal school structure would be. The basics of the problem are as follows:
1) Students (and I am talking about young students right now, ages 4 or 5 to 11 or 12) come to a school setting with different achievement levels and different learning rates.
2) Teachers typically can only do one thing at a time. They can arrange the classroom so that kids can be doing different things, but the teacher can only focus effectively on one thing at a time.
3) The ability span of the students who are one chronological age is at least as wide as the age, i.e., the ability span of 5 year olds typically ranges from that of a typical 3 year old to that of a typical 7 year old. There will also be some students who fall outside of that range.
4) Students learn best when the content is mildly challenging.
5) Most students learn best when there are peers learning similar material.
The questions: how can the students be arranged so that each child learns at a rate that is comfortable for him/her?
It is clear to me that the most prevalent structural arrangement in the United States - chronological age groupings, with yearly advancement based largely on age - is inadequate for those at the top and the bottom of the achievement/ability spans.
What are some better ideas?
I will be out of town for a week, so that is all for now.
1) Students (and I am talking about young students right now, ages 4 or 5 to 11 or 12) come to a school setting with different achievement levels and different learning rates.
2) Teachers typically can only do one thing at a time. They can arrange the classroom so that kids can be doing different things, but the teacher can only focus effectively on one thing at a time.
3) The ability span of the students who are one chronological age is at least as wide as the age, i.e., the ability span of 5 year olds typically ranges from that of a typical 3 year old to that of a typical 7 year old. There will also be some students who fall outside of that range.
4) Students learn best when the content is mildly challenging.
5) Most students learn best when there are peers learning similar material.
The questions: how can the students be arranged so that each child learns at a rate that is comfortable for him/her?
It is clear to me that the most prevalent structural arrangement in the United States - chronological age groupings, with yearly advancement based largely on age - is inadequate for those at the top and the bottom of the achievement/ability spans.
What are some better ideas?
I will be out of town for a week, so that is all for now.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
The Beginning
Talking to myself.
I have no idea if anyone will ever see this. I don't even know if I plan to tell anyone about it, but here it goes, anyway.
After substitute teaching in a new magnet school for a week, I am again wondering about educational structures. The way this school is set up, students can arrive at 8 am, 9 am or 10 am. The first two hours are exploratories, with the students getting some choice in the subjects they will be studying. Even the youngest children, Kindergarteners, get to choose from topics such as Spanish, pet care, jump rope, etc. Some students are enrolled in classes that they need, such as remedial reading or math. Then at 10 am, the "core" classes begin. This seems to consist largely of a 1 1/2 hour reading block for the younger ones. I am actually more interested in the older students, but I was subbing in a mixed 1/2 class.
This was followed by recess and lunch. Then there was another reading block - one hour and a math block. Then the kids went home. I may have the schedule slightly wrong, as this was a testing week and there were some changes, but that is basically it.
Now, my impressions. There was an awful lot of movement from here to there. It seemed fairly efficient, i.e., the kids knew where to go and how to behave in the halls, and there seemed to be little time wasted. But nevertheless, it seemed hard to settle the kids down each time a new activity started. The groups of kids taught in the core reading blocks were ability grouped, so all of the kids were at a similar level. This actually helps as far as teaching skills.
The math groups, though were not ability grouped. All of the first graders did first grade math; all of the second graders did second grade math. This was very difficult for me as a sub - trying to teach a 1st grade math lesson at the same time I was trying to get the second graders engaged in their math lesson. Kudos to the regular teacher for managing to figure it out.
Still, overall, my impression is that the kids actually had very few minutes of direct instruction in math or reading. There was a lot of time spent on management issues - sitting so that they could see the teacher, sharpening pencils, finding workbooks, etc.
And one has to wonder, what happened to social studies, art, music, science? I think they are covered by exploratories, but I was not clear about whether any of this is required. The school goes from Kindergarten through 8th grade - how well will this structure address all aspects of the curriculum? What happens to kids with special needs - learning disabilities, gifted, etc. Is there a consistent plan for addressing them in each of their classes?
An interesting thing to ponder.
I have no idea if anyone will ever see this. I don't even know if I plan to tell anyone about it, but here it goes, anyway.
After substitute teaching in a new magnet school for a week, I am again wondering about educational structures. The way this school is set up, students can arrive at 8 am, 9 am or 10 am. The first two hours are exploratories, with the students getting some choice in the subjects they will be studying. Even the youngest children, Kindergarteners, get to choose from topics such as Spanish, pet care, jump rope, etc. Some students are enrolled in classes that they need, such as remedial reading or math. Then at 10 am, the "core" classes begin. This seems to consist largely of a 1 1/2 hour reading block for the younger ones. I am actually more interested in the older students, but I was subbing in a mixed 1/2 class.
This was followed by recess and lunch. Then there was another reading block - one hour and a math block. Then the kids went home. I may have the schedule slightly wrong, as this was a testing week and there were some changes, but that is basically it.
Now, my impressions. There was an awful lot of movement from here to there. It seemed fairly efficient, i.e., the kids knew where to go and how to behave in the halls, and there seemed to be little time wasted. But nevertheless, it seemed hard to settle the kids down each time a new activity started. The groups of kids taught in the core reading blocks were ability grouped, so all of the kids were at a similar level. This actually helps as far as teaching skills.
The math groups, though were not ability grouped. All of the first graders did first grade math; all of the second graders did second grade math. This was very difficult for me as a sub - trying to teach a 1st grade math lesson at the same time I was trying to get the second graders engaged in their math lesson. Kudos to the regular teacher for managing to figure it out.
Still, overall, my impression is that the kids actually had very few minutes of direct instruction in math or reading. There was a lot of time spent on management issues - sitting so that they could see the teacher, sharpening pencils, finding workbooks, etc.
And one has to wonder, what happened to social studies, art, music, science? I think they are covered by exploratories, but I was not clear about whether any of this is required. The school goes from Kindergarten through 8th grade - how well will this structure address all aspects of the curriculum? What happens to kids with special needs - learning disabilities, gifted, etc. Is there a consistent plan for addressing them in each of their classes?
An interesting thing to ponder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)