Washington Post's Article by Jay Mathews about Gifted Education
The article is a critique of the book Dumbing Down by Jim Delisle. I am in the middle of reading the book, so I cannot speak to the ending of the book as Mr. Mathews does, but I would like to turn one of his main arguments on its head.
He asks about the kids who do not qualify for gifted education service, missing cut-offs by a few points, or not having enough of the qualifications for a specific program. This is not a problem that is unique to gifted education. This is a perennial problem with special education services across the board. What happens to the child who is struggling to learn to read, but doesn't quite qualify for literacy intervention? What happens to the children who almost qualify for other special education interventions? Do we stop offering special education because there is a cut-off for services? In most cases, this last question would be answered with a vehement "No". We do not stop offering special education classes just because some students don't quite qualify. Most people recognize that as an absurdity. Classroom teachers would be urged to "differentiate" for these students. There would be a whole group of specialists who could be consulted to assist the regular teacher. Materials, for example, high interest - low difficulty books, would be provided in the school for use with students needing extra supports.
Regular classroom teachers, in my experience, can handle ability ranges of up to two grade levels above or below the nominal grade level of the classroom (depending on the ages of the students). Textbooks are generally written with more material in them than what is actually needed to master the concepts.
So what happens to the students who do not get accepted into the gifted program? What happens to the students who do not qualify for special education services? Teachers continue to monitor them and to provide support. The students who do not quite qualify for gifted services often do reasonably well. These are the students that teachers often enjoy - good learners, sometimes leaders. Those who do not fit those descriptions are watched for other needs.
We do not eliminate the selectivity of the special education programs just because some kids don't quite qualify. We continue to monitor the needs of those who don't quite qualify and see if they, in the future, might need such interventions.
I will concede a point by Mr. Mathews, however. We need more definitive study of the effects of gifted programs, including gifted interventions of all types. The studies, however, shouldn't just be confined to those who barely qualified for gifted programs and those who barely did not. They should also include studies of the effects on students in places that have gifted programs and compare them to places that do not - if we could just find enough places with good gifted programs.
Showing posts with label special_education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label special_education. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Why Should Each Teacher Differentiate for Gifted Students?
Differentiation is hard. It is even harder to differentiate for gifted students. (Why Differentiating for Gifted Kids Is Harder) But a key question is also, why do we depend on classroom teachers to differentiate for gifted kids? Why aren't measures in place in the schools to accommodate gifted students?
When kids with a wide array of distinctly different learning needs must have different instructional support, their teachers get significant help from extensive full-time staff, including teachers and aides. When teachers are asked to differentiate for gifted students, there is frequently NOTHING available for the teacher to use and no one to ask. There isn't usually anything in their own education and training to fall back on. They may have had one or two lectures in their teacher training coursework addressing the needs of gifted students. But what do they actually TEACH when one of their students is way beyond everyone else in her knowledge of the fundamentals of biology? And, the question for this post, why should each teacher differentiate for their gifted student(s)? Why isn't someone in the district already responsible for drawing up objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities for these children? Why is each teacher charged with re-inventing the wheel for each gifted child?
It is true that each gifted child might be vastly different from another one. But, that just makes it harder for each individual classroom teacher. School districts, on the other hand, will usually have at least a few students with roughly similar needs. Why shouldn't the school district already have materials, objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities available for teachers to use? Or better yet, why don't schools have teachers available who are responsible for delivering these things to the gifted students?
Most of the students with special needs receive at least part of their instruction - the part that specifically addresses their learning needs - from a special teacher. Gifted students should be no exception. Their needs should be addressed specifically by a special teacher who is prepared to deal with them.
When kids with a wide array of distinctly different learning needs must have different instructional support, their teachers get significant help from extensive full-time staff, including teachers and aides. When teachers are asked to differentiate for gifted students, there is frequently NOTHING available for the teacher to use and no one to ask. There isn't usually anything in their own education and training to fall back on. They may have had one or two lectures in their teacher training coursework addressing the needs of gifted students. But what do they actually TEACH when one of their students is way beyond everyone else in her knowledge of the fundamentals of biology? And, the question for this post, why should each teacher differentiate for their gifted student(s)? Why isn't someone in the district already responsible for drawing up objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities for these children? Why is each teacher charged with re-inventing the wheel for each gifted child?
It is true that each gifted child might be vastly different from another one. But, that just makes it harder for each individual classroom teacher. School districts, on the other hand, will usually have at least a few students with roughly similar needs. Why shouldn't the school district already have materials, objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities available for teachers to use? Or better yet, why don't schools have teachers available who are responsible for delivering these things to the gifted students?
Most of the students with special needs receive at least part of their instruction - the part that specifically addresses their learning needs - from a special teacher. Gifted students should be no exception. Their needs should be addressed specifically by a special teacher who is prepared to deal with them.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Why Differentiating for Gifted Kids Is Harder
Every once in a while, someone, usually a parent, will complain that teachers don't care about their gifted child or else they would provide appropriate learning experiences for them. They know that teachers don't have a lot of time, but they insist that, if they really cared, they would MAKE time for them. While I don't disagree with the idea, the fact is, it does take time - a LOT of time. It takes more time to differentiate for the gifted child than it does for the learning disabled child, and here is why.
1) No Appropriate Materials
Materials for teaching are always in short supply. Many teachers resort to buying some of their own supplies of things they find especially useful in the classroom - extra books, markers, colored pencils, rock collections for a geology unit, costumes for a social studies play, etc. Even textbooks are often in short supply. There is one set of science textbooks for 3 classrooms, or the social studies textbooks haven't been updated for 10 years. Materials to use with gifted kids are usually non-existent, unless the teacher has purchased them him/herself. This leads to several of the other problems.
2) No Appropriate Learning Objectives
The goals and learning objectives for your regular students are published and explicit (usually). There are resources to help with struggling students, both materials and people. But what about the gifted students? In my long years of teaching, both regular and substitute, I have rarely found any serious effort to address goals and learning objectives for gifted students.
Developing appropriate goals and learning objectives takes a LOT of time and expertise. That is why they have curriculum committees and textbook selection committees. How many districts have a "Gifted Student Standards" Committee? A learning goal committee for gifted students? Part of the problem is that gifted students are often widely varying in abilities and needs. Another part of the problem is that it requires not only knowledge of gifted students, but also extensive knowledge of the subject matter. This subject matter can be far beyond what most classroom teachers are familiar with. They are adept at breaking down subject matter for which they are responsible. But extending subject matter beyond what they are familiar with is far more difficult.
I have worked with a few mathematics curricula that have explicitly developed activities for "extended" learning. These activities are intended to be used with the gifted students. I have never seen them used, but at least they are there. I have rarely seen objectives for gifted students in other academic subjects.
3) Finding Appropriate Materials
Yes, the Internet is wonderful and yes, there are wonderful lessons out there. Finding those lessons takes a lot of time. Even if teachers have thought long and hard about what additional objectives they would like to have the gifted student(s) achieve, finding appropriate materials and lessons takes time.
There are a lot of bad lesson plans out there; there are a lot of good lesson plans that would be great for most kids; there are fewer lesson plans that would be great for the gifted students, but are not appropriate for everyone. Why is it important that they NOT be appropriate for everyone? Because if everyone in the class can do, enjoy, and learn from the activities, they should be part of the regular curriculum and should not be considered to be differentiation for the gifted student. Too often, activities in pull-out gifted programs turn into "fun and games for smart kids" - activities that most of the kids in the classroom could have done, but they don't get to, because they are not labeled gifted. I know, because my own pull-out classroom sometimes resembled this. There is a danger to this. The danger is that people will push to have kids participate in these fun activities, even if they don't really need gifted education. Why not? They are fun, motivating, and the results don't really matter in terms of grading or learning objectives.
4) Teaching and Presenting to Gifted Students
One parent suggested that, in the age of computers, just allowing the gifted students access to computers could keep them busy, motivated, and learning. Perhaps. Busy and motivated are especially easy. Learning? Possibly. But what are they learning? They are learning that learning is usually just fun and games. That if they have to work hard at it, it isn't as much fun, so why should they do it?
Perhaps it is simply from my own life, but even as a highly gifted child, I would not seek out difficult learning experiences. I would not challenge myself. Perhaps some gifted students do. Many will not. Many will not seek out appropriate learning experiences and may even rebel against being required to do something appropriate for their ability level. Many parents and teachers will defend this as a matter of choice. We could offer algebra to 7th graders, but if Student X, who is ready for algebra, doesn't want to take it, we will just let him stay in the regular classroom, doing work he has already mastered. Why do we let smart kids choose to not work hard? Do we let any other students opt out of difficult material?
If the objectives for the gifted students are well thought out and the materials and lessons planned, when are they presented and by whom? When does the teacher actually teach the gifted student(s)? Book groups are usually easy. The groups can be varying in size and different objectives are generally seamlessly incorporated. Math groups can sometimes be similarly arranged, though the most frequent alteration in presentation is that students actually switch classrooms for math groups, with one teacher taking the bottom group, one teacher taking the middle group, and one teacher taking the usually larger "top" group. This top group is not only usually larger than any of the other groups, but it is also not really adequate for the gifted math students. Typically, the material that is presented is just the standard curriculum that is a bit faster, so they can get ALL of the pages done, not just the bare minimum. Sometimes, it is the standard curriculum accelerated by one year.
If, instead, the teacher is trying to differentiate for the students that are particularly gifted in social studies or science, it is much more difficult. Typically, what will happen is that there will be projects for these subjects. But designing projects that include both the regular curriculum and the learning objectives for the gifted students is difficult. Instead, what usually seems to happen is that teachers hope that students will seek their own level in their projects. The objectives and learning standards are vague enough so that they can be construed to be applicable to all ability levels.
5) Assessing Gifted Students
This shouldn't be a difficult problem, but it often engenders great debate. Should the gifted students be given As just because they have, indeed, mastered the regular curriculum? Or should they be graded on the goals and objectives that were developed for them? On what is a grade to be based? Should it be what would be expected of any age student who attempts the given material or should the age of the student be taken into consideration?
6) School Support Personnel
When asked to differentiate for struggling students, a teacher will generally have many different people in the school to turn to for help. There are literacy specialists, behavior specialists, language learning specialists, learning disability teachers, math specialists, aides, and a number of other people who come to help, both at the school and the district level. When teachers need to differentiate for gifted students, there are rarely people who are designated to help them. There used to be a few gifted specialists, but these are rapidly disappearing from most schools. I worked as a gifted specialist at a middle school. I was hired for 7 hours a week. When the specialists are rarely there and are not considered significant members of the staff, teachers cease to rely on them - or to even know how to use them.
Conclusion:
Differentiating for gifted students is actually HARDER than differentiating for struggling students. There are probably other reasons than just those outlined above. I know this won't satisfy the parent whose child needs something more and isn't getting it. It shouldn't. But we have to support different ways of helping teachers take care of gifted students. Blaming them for not differentiating for their gifted students doesn't mean that they can.
1) No Appropriate Materials
Materials for teaching are always in short supply. Many teachers resort to buying some of their own supplies of things they find especially useful in the classroom - extra books, markers, colored pencils, rock collections for a geology unit, costumes for a social studies play, etc. Even textbooks are often in short supply. There is one set of science textbooks for 3 classrooms, or the social studies textbooks haven't been updated for 10 years. Materials to use with gifted kids are usually non-existent, unless the teacher has purchased them him/herself. This leads to several of the other problems.
2) No Appropriate Learning Objectives
The goals and learning objectives for your regular students are published and explicit (usually). There are resources to help with struggling students, both materials and people. But what about the gifted students? In my long years of teaching, both regular and substitute, I have rarely found any serious effort to address goals and learning objectives for gifted students.
Developing appropriate goals and learning objectives takes a LOT of time and expertise. That is why they have curriculum committees and textbook selection committees. How many districts have a "Gifted Student Standards" Committee? A learning goal committee for gifted students? Part of the problem is that gifted students are often widely varying in abilities and needs. Another part of the problem is that it requires not only knowledge of gifted students, but also extensive knowledge of the subject matter. This subject matter can be far beyond what most classroom teachers are familiar with. They are adept at breaking down subject matter for which they are responsible. But extending subject matter beyond what they are familiar with is far more difficult.
I have worked with a few mathematics curricula that have explicitly developed activities for "extended" learning. These activities are intended to be used with the gifted students. I have never seen them used, but at least they are there. I have rarely seen objectives for gifted students in other academic subjects.
3) Finding Appropriate Materials
Yes, the Internet is wonderful and yes, there are wonderful lessons out there. Finding those lessons takes a lot of time. Even if teachers have thought long and hard about what additional objectives they would like to have the gifted student(s) achieve, finding appropriate materials and lessons takes time.
There are a lot of bad lesson plans out there; there are a lot of good lesson plans that would be great for most kids; there are fewer lesson plans that would be great for the gifted students, but are not appropriate for everyone. Why is it important that they NOT be appropriate for everyone? Because if everyone in the class can do, enjoy, and learn from the activities, they should be part of the regular curriculum and should not be considered to be differentiation for the gifted student. Too often, activities in pull-out gifted programs turn into "fun and games for smart kids" - activities that most of the kids in the classroom could have done, but they don't get to, because they are not labeled gifted. I know, because my own pull-out classroom sometimes resembled this. There is a danger to this. The danger is that people will push to have kids participate in these fun activities, even if they don't really need gifted education. Why not? They are fun, motivating, and the results don't really matter in terms of grading or learning objectives.
4) Teaching and Presenting to Gifted Students
One parent suggested that, in the age of computers, just allowing the gifted students access to computers could keep them busy, motivated, and learning. Perhaps. Busy and motivated are especially easy. Learning? Possibly. But what are they learning? They are learning that learning is usually just fun and games. That if they have to work hard at it, it isn't as much fun, so why should they do it?
Perhaps it is simply from my own life, but even as a highly gifted child, I would not seek out difficult learning experiences. I would not challenge myself. Perhaps some gifted students do. Many will not. Many will not seek out appropriate learning experiences and may even rebel against being required to do something appropriate for their ability level. Many parents and teachers will defend this as a matter of choice. We could offer algebra to 7th graders, but if Student X, who is ready for algebra, doesn't want to take it, we will just let him stay in the regular classroom, doing work he has already mastered. Why do we let smart kids choose to not work hard? Do we let any other students opt out of difficult material?
If the objectives for the gifted students are well thought out and the materials and lessons planned, when are they presented and by whom? When does the teacher actually teach the gifted student(s)? Book groups are usually easy. The groups can be varying in size and different objectives are generally seamlessly incorporated. Math groups can sometimes be similarly arranged, though the most frequent alteration in presentation is that students actually switch classrooms for math groups, with one teacher taking the bottom group, one teacher taking the middle group, and one teacher taking the usually larger "top" group. This top group is not only usually larger than any of the other groups, but it is also not really adequate for the gifted math students. Typically, the material that is presented is just the standard curriculum that is a bit faster, so they can get ALL of the pages done, not just the bare minimum. Sometimes, it is the standard curriculum accelerated by one year.
If, instead, the teacher is trying to differentiate for the students that are particularly gifted in social studies or science, it is much more difficult. Typically, what will happen is that there will be projects for these subjects. But designing projects that include both the regular curriculum and the learning objectives for the gifted students is difficult. Instead, what usually seems to happen is that teachers hope that students will seek their own level in their projects. The objectives and learning standards are vague enough so that they can be construed to be applicable to all ability levels.
5) Assessing Gifted Students
This shouldn't be a difficult problem, but it often engenders great debate. Should the gifted students be given As just because they have, indeed, mastered the regular curriculum? Or should they be graded on the goals and objectives that were developed for them? On what is a grade to be based? Should it be what would be expected of any age student who attempts the given material or should the age of the student be taken into consideration?
6) School Support Personnel
When asked to differentiate for struggling students, a teacher will generally have many different people in the school to turn to for help. There are literacy specialists, behavior specialists, language learning specialists, learning disability teachers, math specialists, aides, and a number of other people who come to help, both at the school and the district level. When teachers need to differentiate for gifted students, there are rarely people who are designated to help them. There used to be a few gifted specialists, but these are rapidly disappearing from most schools. I worked as a gifted specialist at a middle school. I was hired for 7 hours a week. When the specialists are rarely there and are not considered significant members of the staff, teachers cease to rely on them - or to even know how to use them.
Conclusion:
Differentiating for gifted students is actually HARDER than differentiating for struggling students. There are probably other reasons than just those outlined above. I know this won't satisfy the parent whose child needs something more and isn't getting it. It shouldn't. But we have to support different ways of helping teachers take care of gifted students. Blaming them for not differentiating for their gifted students doesn't mean that they can.
Saturday, May 03, 2014
The Gifted Label, Part II
A friend of mine commented regarding the Gifted Label, saying that she doesn't like labeling people, but prefers to label needs.
I wrote this in response to her comment: I have been thinking about your comment and its implications. While it may semantically make a difference, I don't see that, in practice it makes much difference. "Children with learning disabilities" and "learning disabled children" seem remarkably similar to me. In addition, in the case of gifted children, labeling their needs is actually restrictive. Gifted children don't simply need extended curriculum, they need social and emotional support that isn't generally offered in any curricula.
In a way, I see it as analogous to the movement in the autistic community. At first, many people welcomed the designation of "person with autism", which emphasized the person first and the autism as a qualifier. But then a significant number of autistic people decided that their autism was so central to them as people that they would actually prefer to be labeled "autistic people". Their whole being needs to be interpreted through the lens of their autism.
Sure, gifted people have needs that can be labelled, but, for me, at least, there is a lot more to it than just the needs. It is acceptance of the whole person where the giftedness cannot be separated out from the whole. d
_____________
Further thoughts/comments:
For most services offered in schools, we do not label the service, but we DO label the child. He is ELL; she is LD. They are deaf; they are BD.
How could we label the needs of gifted children without labeling the child? "Children who need extended curriculum"? - true, but not the whole story. "Children who need emotional support for their advanced learning differences"? - also true, but the same type of problem that the word "gifted" has. Would it make a difference to label the service and not the child?
I wrote this in response to her comment: I have been thinking about your comment and its implications. While it may semantically make a difference, I don't see that, in practice it makes much difference. "Children with learning disabilities" and "learning disabled children" seem remarkably similar to me. In addition, in the case of gifted children, labeling their needs is actually restrictive. Gifted children don't simply need extended curriculum, they need social and emotional support that isn't generally offered in any curricula.
In a way, I see it as analogous to the movement in the autistic community. At first, many people welcomed the designation of "person with autism", which emphasized the person first and the autism as a qualifier. But then a significant number of autistic people decided that their autism was so central to them as people that they would actually prefer to be labeled "autistic people". Their whole being needs to be interpreted through the lens of their autism.
Sure, gifted people have needs that can be labelled, but, for me, at least, there is a lot more to it than just the needs. It is acceptance of the whole person where the giftedness cannot be separated out from the whole. d
_____________
Further thoughts/comments:
For most services offered in schools, we do not label the service, but we DO label the child. He is ELL; she is LD. They are deaf; they are BD.
How could we label the needs of gifted children without labeling the child? "Children who need extended curriculum"? - true, but not the whole story. "Children who need emotional support for their advanced learning differences"? - also true, but the same type of problem that the word "gifted" has. Would it make a difference to label the service and not the child?
Monday, December 02, 2013
Interview Question I Won't Ever Ask
At the end of those canned questions that they ask you at an interview, they also usually ask the canned question: Do you have any questions for us? I have some stock questions I generally ask, but there is one question I wish I could ask, but have never had the courage to actually do so.
Most of the people who have read other posts on this blog know that, while I think differentiation for gifted students is a good idea, I think that it isn't a good strategy for gifted educators to tout it as a GIFTED strategy. Teachers just aren't doing it. They may have been trained to do it; they may think they are doing it; but if they are, it isn't having much visible effect.
So here is the interview question: if you truly believe in differentiation, why are there still learning disabilities teachers, reading support teachers, math support teachers, BD teachers, ESL teachers, ELL teachers, etc.? If we accept that these students need more support than the regular classroom teacher can offer, why do we assume that s/he can offer enough support for gifted students? Why is it that the only outlier students with different needs that don't have special teachers are usually the gifted students?
And, no, extending the curriculum isn't easy for teachers. It requires going beyond what they regularly teach, finding resources and materials that they don't normally use.
Most of the people who have read other posts on this blog know that, while I think differentiation for gifted students is a good idea, I think that it isn't a good strategy for gifted educators to tout it as a GIFTED strategy. Teachers just aren't doing it. They may have been trained to do it; they may think they are doing it; but if they are, it isn't having much visible effect.
So here is the interview question: if you truly believe in differentiation, why are there still learning disabilities teachers, reading support teachers, math support teachers, BD teachers, ESL teachers, ELL teachers, etc.? If we accept that these students need more support than the regular classroom teacher can offer, why do we assume that s/he can offer enough support for gifted students? Why is it that the only outlier students with different needs that don't have special teachers are usually the gifted students?
And, no, extending the curriculum isn't easy for teachers. It requires going beyond what they regularly teach, finding resources and materials that they don't normally use.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Politically Incorrect
I subbed in a school today that had a significant number of special needs students. These students came to the classroom I was in for math. There were 3 or 4 classes at the grade level I was teaching and this teacher had the lowest group of students. There were approximately 26 students in the class, 4 of whom were special needs students. An additional special needs student was absent. There were 4 aides. Three of the special needs students required one on one aides and the other two (normally including the absent student), evidently could be helped with just one aide. One of the special needs students could do part of the day's lesson, with help from the aide; the rest could not and were working on things that were unrelated (one was working on days of the week; one was counting dots on a die and trying to say the number; the third did nothing, as far as I could tell).
I have no objection to special needs students being in the room when aides are provided for those who need them, and most especially, I think they belong there if they can do all or part of the lesson with adaptations. But I am not sure why the students who were utterly unable to do the lesson - or anything even close - were there. The special needs students sit separately and don't/can't interact with the other students. Even that would be fine, except one of the students was evidently unhappy about something. He spent most of the class period moaning and groaning very loudly, and occasionally emitting a high pitched, drawn out whine. It was very disconcerting to me and it was extremely difficult for the other students to hear me talk above the nearly constant groaning and whining. I was supposed to lead the students through one worksheet/hands-on exercise and then teach them how to play a game.
I feel the other students were short-changed - at least today. Perhaps they could concentrate better than I could, because they were used to the constant noise. But it left me with nerves jangling and feeling that I couldn't adequately help the other students, when they couldn't hear me. 26 or so students in a classroom is a lot, anyway, and when they need more support than other students, the addition of the special needs students seemed a bit much. I feel that the class should somehow have been significantly smaller or the students who were unable to participate in the lesson and were making nearly constant noise should have been removed.
I guess I am completely politically incorrect. And the regular teacher must be a saint.
________________________________________
Additional thoughts, upon further reflection:
How do we determine what is fair in the classroom? Treatment of students can NEVER be equal, since each child is unique and has unique needs and experiences. Do we attempt to treat them all the same and say we were fair? What does the "least restrictive environment" mean in terms of children with severe disabilities? What does it mean in terms of the rest of the children in the classroom?
I have no objection to special needs students being in the room when aides are provided for those who need them, and most especially, I think they belong there if they can do all or part of the lesson with adaptations. But I am not sure why the students who were utterly unable to do the lesson - or anything even close - were there. The special needs students sit separately and don't/can't interact with the other students. Even that would be fine, except one of the students was evidently unhappy about something. He spent most of the class period moaning and groaning very loudly, and occasionally emitting a high pitched, drawn out whine. It was very disconcerting to me and it was extremely difficult for the other students to hear me talk above the nearly constant groaning and whining. I was supposed to lead the students through one worksheet/hands-on exercise and then teach them how to play a game.
I feel the other students were short-changed - at least today. Perhaps they could concentrate better than I could, because they were used to the constant noise. But it left me with nerves jangling and feeling that I couldn't adequately help the other students, when they couldn't hear me. 26 or so students in a classroom is a lot, anyway, and when they need more support than other students, the addition of the special needs students seemed a bit much. I feel that the class should somehow have been significantly smaller or the students who were unable to participate in the lesson and were making nearly constant noise should have been removed.
I guess I am completely politically incorrect. And the regular teacher must be a saint.
________________________________________
Additional thoughts, upon further reflection:
How do we determine what is fair in the classroom? Treatment of students can NEVER be equal, since each child is unique and has unique needs and experiences. Do we attempt to treat them all the same and say we were fair? What does the "least restrictive environment" mean in terms of children with severe disabilities? What does it mean in terms of the rest of the children in the classroom?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper, found at:
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
- Children are not naturally good. They need firm, tactful discipline from parents and teachers with clear standards. Too much freedom for children breeds selfishness, vandalism and personal unhappiness.
- If the non-competitive ethos of progressive education is allowed to dominate our schools, we shall produce a generation unable to maintain our standards of living when opposed by fierce rivalry from overseas competitors.
- It is the quality of teachers that matters, rather than their numbers or their equipment. We have sacrificed quality for numbers, and the result has been a lowering of standards. We need high-quality, higher-paid teachers in the classroom, not as counsellors or administrators.
- Schools are for schooling, not social engineering.
- The best way to help children in deprived areas is to teach them to be literate and numerate, and to develop all their potential abilities.
- Every normal child should be able to read by the age of seven. This can be achieved by the hard work of teachers who use a structured approach.
- Without selection the clever working-class child in a deprived area stands little chance of a real academic education.
- External examinations are essential for schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. Without such checks, standards decline. Working-class children suffer when applying for jobs if they cannot bring forward proof of their worth achieved in authoritative examinations.
- Freedom of speech must be preserved in universities. Institutions which cannot maintain proper standards of open debate should be closed.
- You can have equality or equality of opportunity; you cannot have both. Equality will be the holding back (or the new deprivation) of the brighter children.
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
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.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Gerald Coles: Why Bother Educating the Poor? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher
Gerald Coles: Why Bother Educating the Poor? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher
Reforming education has been a national pastime since my mother first started teaching - and my mother is now 97 years old. But the recent (past 15 years) of reforms have been the meanest spirited at all. In the guise of improving education, they have made it virtually impossible for teachers to enjoy being in the classroom. There are ever increasing demands to cover ever more "standards"; there are significantly larger classes and therefore a much increased work load; teachers are required to accommodate an ever increasing list of special education students and practices; there is less provision for kids who are at the extremes of "normal". It would almost seem as though people are determined to eradicate creativity and caring from the classroom. Creativity is a waste of time and caring is monumentally difficult, with so many students to take care of.
People who would have made excellent teachers are driven away from teaching or don't even consider it as a profession, because of low pay, low prestige, uncertainty in working conditions, and heavy work loads. People who enter the profession with hope soon encounter the reality of the job and drop out of teaching in droves. I read recently that teaching loses half of the teachers that enter the profession in 5 years.
The increased testing regime has been discussed extensively in many places, so I am not going to address that. I am going to discuss what I consider the most insidious of the reforms: differentiation. On paper and in theory, this looks great. Teachers are taught simple techniques for making lesson plans adaptable to the various ability levels of all of the students in the classroom. What proponents of differentiation often fail to consider is the amount of extra time required to plan for a differentiated classroom and the fact that this increases with the increase in ability levels in the classroom. A simple 5th grade lesson on the rock cycle can be an example. There is a standard textbook, which is probably written at a 5th grade reading level. Most of the students will be able to read it, but there will be a few who cannot. The teacher has to find other ways of teaching the rock cycle for the students who cannot read the text - maybe an audio recording, maybe partner reading, maybe a movie, maybe a simpler book. Each of these have to be checked to make sure they cover the standards and objectives for the lesson. Then, there are the kids in the classroom who have special needs. Each of their needs must be accommodated in the lesson plan. And finally, there are probably a few gifted kids in the class, maybe even a highly gifted kid, who has studied the rock cycle extensively on his own, has a large rock collection at home, and is interested in comparing the difference in microscopic structure of granite and marble. The teacher knows nothing about high school or college level geology and would have to struggle to find appropriate materials for this child.
All this might be do-able, if the class size were under 20, or if the teacher could count on teaching the same thing several years in a row and could gradually amass materials to use with outlier kids, or if there were a curriculum specialist would could gather appropriate materials or find a mentor. But the recent budget cuts have boosted class sizes into the mid 30s, teachers are often reassigned year after year, depending on class numbers, the curriculum itself is redesigned on a regular basis, and the curriculum specialists have been eliminated by budgeting problems.
And, the fact of the matter is, elementary teachers are almost universally responsible for multiple lessons in one day. When I was teaching full time, I counted 34 different lessons that I was responsible for in one week (grades K through 8, for me). Planning for these lessons, teaching them, and assessing student progress took much more than the 30 minutes planning time I was allotted each day.
Simply put, the job of teaching has become too much. Teachers pay lip service to differentiation, to standards, to new technologies, but in my experience, they can't do it all. Perhaps I see a biased sample of what most teachers are doing. I am a substitute teacher, so teachers might, in fact, simplify the lessons they leave for me, so that a sub can handle them. But, I look carefully for signs of differentiation or individualization or indications that the students think that the lessons I am given to teach are somehow different from what they usually do, and I don't see very much evidence for those things. It seems to me that most of the teachers end up following the textbooks and "covering" the content they are responsible for. There simply isn't enough time to do anything else. Parents then wonder why their students' needs aren't considered. They decide that the teacher is lacking or doesn't care. And the stress piles up on the teachers.
So what do the 1% do? They send their kids to private schools. I recently read the blog of a teacher who chose to teach in private schools. She originally planned to teach in public schools, but couldn't find a job there, so took a job in a private school - and stayed in those schools. She claimed in the blog that she was grateful for having stayed there, because they allowed her the creativity and autonomy to mold her work into an enjoyable career.
Monica Edinger's Blog
I am one of the co-founders of a private school and I helped establish that school because the public school wasn't serving the needs of my highly gifted child. It isn't entirely in keeping with my support of public schooling, but, when it is your child, you do what you can to get them the best education you can afford. And, people who can afford those schools often do - schools which often have smaller classes and more autonomy for the teachers. Meanwhile, the public schools are suffering.
Reforming education has been a national pastime since my mother first started teaching - and my mother is now 97 years old. But the recent (past 15 years) of reforms have been the meanest spirited at all. In the guise of improving education, they have made it virtually impossible for teachers to enjoy being in the classroom. There are ever increasing demands to cover ever more "standards"; there are significantly larger classes and therefore a much increased work load; teachers are required to accommodate an ever increasing list of special education students and practices; there is less provision for kids who are at the extremes of "normal". It would almost seem as though people are determined to eradicate creativity and caring from the classroom. Creativity is a waste of time and caring is monumentally difficult, with so many students to take care of.
People who would have made excellent teachers are driven away from teaching or don't even consider it as a profession, because of low pay, low prestige, uncertainty in working conditions, and heavy work loads. People who enter the profession with hope soon encounter the reality of the job and drop out of teaching in droves. I read recently that teaching loses half of the teachers that enter the profession in 5 years.
The increased testing regime has been discussed extensively in many places, so I am not going to address that. I am going to discuss what I consider the most insidious of the reforms: differentiation. On paper and in theory, this looks great. Teachers are taught simple techniques for making lesson plans adaptable to the various ability levels of all of the students in the classroom. What proponents of differentiation often fail to consider is the amount of extra time required to plan for a differentiated classroom and the fact that this increases with the increase in ability levels in the classroom. A simple 5th grade lesson on the rock cycle can be an example. There is a standard textbook, which is probably written at a 5th grade reading level. Most of the students will be able to read it, but there will be a few who cannot. The teacher has to find other ways of teaching the rock cycle for the students who cannot read the text - maybe an audio recording, maybe partner reading, maybe a movie, maybe a simpler book. Each of these have to be checked to make sure they cover the standards and objectives for the lesson. Then, there are the kids in the classroom who have special needs. Each of their needs must be accommodated in the lesson plan. And finally, there are probably a few gifted kids in the class, maybe even a highly gifted kid, who has studied the rock cycle extensively on his own, has a large rock collection at home, and is interested in comparing the difference in microscopic structure of granite and marble. The teacher knows nothing about high school or college level geology and would have to struggle to find appropriate materials for this child.
All this might be do-able, if the class size were under 20, or if the teacher could count on teaching the same thing several years in a row and could gradually amass materials to use with outlier kids, or if there were a curriculum specialist would could gather appropriate materials or find a mentor. But the recent budget cuts have boosted class sizes into the mid 30s, teachers are often reassigned year after year, depending on class numbers, the curriculum itself is redesigned on a regular basis, and the curriculum specialists have been eliminated by budgeting problems.
And, the fact of the matter is, elementary teachers are almost universally responsible for multiple lessons in one day. When I was teaching full time, I counted 34 different lessons that I was responsible for in one week (grades K through 8, for me). Planning for these lessons, teaching them, and assessing student progress took much more than the 30 minutes planning time I was allotted each day.
Simply put, the job of teaching has become too much. Teachers pay lip service to differentiation, to standards, to new technologies, but in my experience, they can't do it all. Perhaps I see a biased sample of what most teachers are doing. I am a substitute teacher, so teachers might, in fact, simplify the lessons they leave for me, so that a sub can handle them. But, I look carefully for signs of differentiation or individualization or indications that the students think that the lessons I am given to teach are somehow different from what they usually do, and I don't see very much evidence for those things. It seems to me that most of the teachers end up following the textbooks and "covering" the content they are responsible for. There simply isn't enough time to do anything else. Parents then wonder why their students' needs aren't considered. They decide that the teacher is lacking or doesn't care. And the stress piles up on the teachers.
So what do the 1% do? They send their kids to private schools. I recently read the blog of a teacher who chose to teach in private schools. She originally planned to teach in public schools, but couldn't find a job there, so took a job in a private school - and stayed in those schools. She claimed in the blog that she was grateful for having stayed there, because they allowed her the creativity and autonomy to mold her work into an enjoyable career.
Monica Edinger's Blog
I am one of the co-founders of a private school and I helped establish that school because the public school wasn't serving the needs of my highly gifted child. It isn't entirely in keeping with my support of public schooling, but, when it is your child, you do what you can to get them the best education you can afford. And, people who can afford those schools often do - schools which often have smaller classes and more autonomy for the teachers. Meanwhile, the public schools are suffering.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Logic of Different Abilities
Here is why NCLB and its variations are utterly illogical. Given: people learn at different rates. Some people learn fast, some people learn slowly. Sure, the rates are uneven, but if you average them out over time, they will spread out over presumably a bell shaped curve. Result: If you are teaching each child to 80 or 90% of his or her ability, the curve SHOULD spread out as a cohort of children gets older.
To be more concrete: Let's suppose that one child can learn 100 concepts in a year and another could learn 110 concepts in a year. At the end of one year the difference between the two will be 10 learned concepts. At the end of two years, the children will have mastered 200 and 220 concepts, respectively, bringing the gap to 20 concepts. Each year the gap SHOULD grow. Even if the lower performing student is working to the MAXIMUM of his/her ability, he/she will fall behind. The only way this can be prevented is by holding down the top student.
In reality, the gap could potentially be much wider. I seem to remember reading that average kids learn concepts after approximately seven repetitions. Slower kids need more repetitions; faster kids can learn something with as few as 1 to 3 exposures to the concept. Thus, some students could learn as much as 10 times as much as some other students.
Look at this the other way around: Parents: are your special needs children falling further and further behind each year? Well, that means that the other teachers are doing their job. Your children aren't failures; some may be succeeding incredibly. Some of them may even outgrow their disabilities; others may not. But, even if their disabilities persist, they still shouldn't be deemed failures - nor should their teachers. Board of Education people: if the gap between your lowest students and your highest students isn't getting BIGGER each year, then you are holding your top students back (or the test can't measure adequately the top students' progress).
Yes, we should try to remedy any disabilities that can be remedied. But you need a different yardstick to measure progress with different disabilities. Some disabilities are permanent or semi-permanent and the best teachers in the world could not bring these students up to grade level proficiency. Some disabilities are not permanent and can be remedied, compensated for, or even simply outgrown.
But we also shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that just because the achievement gap is shrinking, we are doing a good job. It means that we are neglecting those students who should be moving faster.
If someone can point out the problems with this diatribe, I would appreciate it. Perhaps I am missing something.
To be more concrete: Let's suppose that one child can learn 100 concepts in a year and another could learn 110 concepts in a year. At the end of one year the difference between the two will be 10 learned concepts. At the end of two years, the children will have mastered 200 and 220 concepts, respectively, bringing the gap to 20 concepts. Each year the gap SHOULD grow. Even if the lower performing student is working to the MAXIMUM of his/her ability, he/she will fall behind. The only way this can be prevented is by holding down the top student.
In reality, the gap could potentially be much wider. I seem to remember reading that average kids learn concepts after approximately seven repetitions. Slower kids need more repetitions; faster kids can learn something with as few as 1 to 3 exposures to the concept. Thus, some students could learn as much as 10 times as much as some other students.
Look at this the other way around: Parents: are your special needs children falling further and further behind each year? Well, that means that the other teachers are doing their job. Your children aren't failures; some may be succeeding incredibly. Some of them may even outgrow their disabilities; others may not. But, even if their disabilities persist, they still shouldn't be deemed failures - nor should their teachers. Board of Education people: if the gap between your lowest students and your highest students isn't getting BIGGER each year, then you are holding your top students back (or the test can't measure adequately the top students' progress).
Yes, we should try to remedy any disabilities that can be remedied. But you need a different yardstick to measure progress with different disabilities. Some disabilities are permanent or semi-permanent and the best teachers in the world could not bring these students up to grade level proficiency. Some disabilities are not permanent and can be remedied, compensated for, or even simply outgrown.
But we also shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that just because the achievement gap is shrinking, we are doing a good job. It means that we are neglecting those students who should be moving faster.
If someone can point out the problems with this diatribe, I would appreciate it. Perhaps I am missing something.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Differentiation - It Isn't Enough for HG+ Kids
Yes, I know differentiation is the acceptable mantra for educators these days. I know I am supposed to tout the virtues of differentiating for every kid in the classroom. I know that, if potential principals see this, I will not be considered for full time jobs. But, I also know that, as a sub, I see very little of it.
For anyone who actually reads this, but who doesn't know my background, I will briefly say that I have taught in four states: Massachusetts (private schools), Illinois (public and private schools), Alaska (public and charter schools), and Colorado (public and charter schools). I have taught, either full time or subbing, in at least a dozen school districts, dozens of schools, and hundreds of different classrooms. I have gone through extensive training on differentiation and gifted, differentiation and special education, and differentiation in general.
I have seen very little differentiation in action. Some teachers will differentiate spelling lists. Some teachers will have different levels of book groups. Some teachers will pair up with other teachers and group the students for math classes. But, if we are talking about meeting the needs of kids outside of the middle of the bell curve, there is very little for those outlier kids. It can be done - I have seen 3 or 4 teachers who could do it. I laud them. But, in general, it isn't happening.
And, I think it is time that educators who are interested in meeting the needs of HG+ gifted students admit that differentiation, as it is practiced (or not practiced) just isn't enough. It isn't consistent enough, it isn't broad-based enough, and it isn't at the correct level. The further the gifted student is from the class average, the less appropriate any differentiated accommodations are.
Differentiation is a great thing to train teachers to do. It is effective to have the things that I mentioned above: leveled math, book groups, leveled spelling, different expectations for writing, etc. It just isn't enough to meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. And I think it is time to stop pretending that regular classroom teachers can teach all students.
We know that inclusion has worked for a lot of kids with learning disabilities, but we also know that their special teachers, special classes, and supporting aides still have their jobs. In fact, there are loads of jobs advertised for special education aides. We know that differentiation isn't enough for these kids. The simple fact is that they need more support than this. Why don't we acknowledge the same for the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. The regular classroom teachers just can't meet their needs.
Again: The regular classroom teachers just can't meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. This was true before the great school budget problems; it is even more true now, with class sizes creeping up to ever higher numbers. It is unfair to classroom teachers to continually demand more and more of them. They already have more responsibilities and less time than they need in order to be maximally effective.
This rant is targeted mainly at elementary schools, but also somewhat at middle schools / junior highs. By the time the kids get to high school, we mostly stop pretending that a single teacher can teach all levels of ability in a single class. AP Calc AB is not differentiated and no one expects that AP Calc teacher to prepare lessons for students who might want to take the class, but who haven't yet mastered algebra. Nor is the algebra teacher expected to teach calculus to the one kid in the class who is ready for AP Calc AB. It just doesn't make sense.
For those of us who are interested in the HG+ kids, I think it is time to stop saying that differentiation can solve all of their educational needs. It isn't happening.
For anyone who actually reads this, but who doesn't know my background, I will briefly say that I have taught in four states: Massachusetts (private schools), Illinois (public and private schools), Alaska (public and charter schools), and Colorado (public and charter schools). I have taught, either full time or subbing, in at least a dozen school districts, dozens of schools, and hundreds of different classrooms. I have gone through extensive training on differentiation and gifted, differentiation and special education, and differentiation in general.
I have seen very little differentiation in action. Some teachers will differentiate spelling lists. Some teachers will have different levels of book groups. Some teachers will pair up with other teachers and group the students for math classes. But, if we are talking about meeting the needs of kids outside of the middle of the bell curve, there is very little for those outlier kids. It can be done - I have seen 3 or 4 teachers who could do it. I laud them. But, in general, it isn't happening.
And, I think it is time that educators who are interested in meeting the needs of HG+ gifted students admit that differentiation, as it is practiced (or not practiced) just isn't enough. It isn't consistent enough, it isn't broad-based enough, and it isn't at the correct level. The further the gifted student is from the class average, the less appropriate any differentiated accommodations are.
Differentiation is a great thing to train teachers to do. It is effective to have the things that I mentioned above: leveled math, book groups, leveled spelling, different expectations for writing, etc. It just isn't enough to meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. And I think it is time to stop pretending that regular classroom teachers can teach all students.
We know that inclusion has worked for a lot of kids with learning disabilities, but we also know that their special teachers, special classes, and supporting aides still have their jobs. In fact, there are loads of jobs advertised for special education aides. We know that differentiation isn't enough for these kids. The simple fact is that they need more support than this. Why don't we acknowledge the same for the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. The regular classroom teachers just can't meet their needs.
Again: The regular classroom teachers just can't meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. This was true before the great school budget problems; it is even more true now, with class sizes creeping up to ever higher numbers. It is unfair to classroom teachers to continually demand more and more of them. They already have more responsibilities and less time than they need in order to be maximally effective.
This rant is targeted mainly at elementary schools, but also somewhat at middle schools / junior highs. By the time the kids get to high school, we mostly stop pretending that a single teacher can teach all levels of ability in a single class. AP Calc AB is not differentiated and no one expects that AP Calc teacher to prepare lessons for students who might want to take the class, but who haven't yet mastered algebra. Nor is the algebra teacher expected to teach calculus to the one kid in the class who is ready for AP Calc AB. It just doesn't make sense.
For those of us who are interested in the HG+ kids, I think it is time to stop saying that differentiation can solve all of their educational needs. It isn't happening.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)