If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   More teachers are grouping children. I said, GROUPING   (usatoday.com) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, No Child Left Behind, National Assessment of Educational Progress  
•       •       •

4591 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 7:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 06:40:00 PM
Better than graping them, I suppose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjk0_2IwdOE
 
2013-03-20 01:22:09 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: And by doing so ghettoify the schools. Bright students cluster together. Challenged students get shunted into a corner. The advantaged get more advantages and the most in need of help get forgotten.

This is the kind of thing that Brown was supposed to solve. It's sad to see the teachers on the ground taking it upon themselves to impose segregation on their own.


They grouped us when I was in grade school. There were A and B groups for reading and math. The same teachers taught both groups and just varied the intensity of the curricula and pace. It's not like the B groups were ignored. And students (with parental approval) could move from one group to another.

I don't know how it would work at a school with a high variance of student performance, but it seemed to work very well in the schools I am familiar with.
 
2013-03-20 01:34:32 AM

Zimmy: endosymbiont: It would be interesting to see--for schools with a mixture of ethnicities, races, religions, and income brackets--if the individual groups exhibit a diversity reflective of the school at large. Just out of curiosity.

I doubt it.  Different cultures that value sports over education, richer parents can afford to have tutors(and usually give a darn about their kids).  You'll have the outliers -- always that one poor minority who is sharper than a sharp tack --  but it'll likely be the stereotypes that you're expecting for who rises to the top and who is at the bottom.


From experience I can say that children of Asian immigrants are expected to excel, except maybe in engrish. But Asian kids don't learn quickly because of wealth and unlimited resources.  It's because they'd get their asses kicked if they didn't succeed. At home the grading scale was A,A-,B+,B. Anything less was failure.
 
2013-03-20 01:38:41 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I definitely get this for high school, but I'm not so sure elementary school is a good place to start, particularly as a lot of kids bloom a little late and once you are in a set/tier it is often extremely difficult to move out of it even if you are doing very well.


You want kids to be reading by the time they start high school. If you can't read well by HS you are not going to do well in any of the other classes that require reading.

Math? Eh. Students seem to be good at sorting themselves out when it comes to math.
 
2013-03-20 01:56:30 AM

maggoo: bborchar: "Success" is completely arbitrary. Some kids will always be smarter, no matter what race or gender. Some won't. But grouping allows a teacher to give kids more individualized lesson plans and work with his or her ability better. There's nothing wrong with it. The problem is when we apply stupid test standards across an entire nation and then don't give the teachers or students the tools they need to achieve those standards. Some schools get more because they live in an area where people pay more taxes than others...THAT is what is creating a subclass of children- not "grouping". Take any bright student, put them in poverty and a school without money- they would do poorly, too.


Read about the pygmalion effect.  No matter how smart or dumb a kid is, people have a propencity to achieve according to the expectations placed on them.  If a teacher divides his students into groups according to his personal perception of what "smart" is supposed to be then he is dooming the less smart kids to be the losers and underachievers.

And of course, the teacher will believe that he bet on the right kids because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the kids expected to succeed will in fact succeed, while the kids expected to not succeed will invariably become the losers of the group.

But pulling this sort of stunt only means one thing: that the teacher is incompetent and is doing this generation and his community a disservice.


My siblings and I are a product of the grouping scheme. If they do it right, it won't be anything like what you are describing. They don't pick "winners" and "losers." They separate students based on what they can do today, and then monitor their progress. If Johnny is in the B group and is excelling, he has the option of moving to the A group. Similarly if Jane is in the A group and is struggling, she (with her parent's permission of course) has the option of moving to the B group to work at a slower pace. Really the B groups just concentrate more on the fundamentals. The A groups did the fundamentals and more. So if you are in the B group, and rightfully in the B group, you are not missing anything critical.

I remember very distinctly that we used to read out-loud in class-- up-and-down the rows of desks. We would all read a paragraph or two from out "reading books." (I think the class was even called "reading.") It was *obvious* who was struggling. I can even remember some specific examples of classmates picking through words, sounding them out, while some of the class was reading at high school levels. Hell I *still* know at least one person who reads at a pre-HS level.

We were divided by ability as measured by our assignments, our in-class reading ability and our performance in "Weekly readers," which I think quantified reading comprehension.

Plus we had Sweet Pickles.

But then I studied engineering and lost all my literacy.
 
2013-03-20 02:03:18 AM

Grammer_Cop: maggoo: bborchar: "Success" is completely arbitrary. Some kids will always be smarter, no matter what race or gender. Some won't. But grouping allows a teacher to give kids more individualized lesson plans and work with his or her ability better. There's nothing wrong with it. The problem is when we apply stupid test standards across an entire nation and then don't give the teachers or students the tools they need to achieve those standards. Some schools get more because they live in an area where people pay more taxes than others...THAT is what is creating a subclass of children- not "grouping". Take any bright student, put them in poverty and a school without money- they would do poorly, too.


Read about the pygmalion effect.  No matter how smart or dumb a kid is, people have a propencity to achieve according to the expectations placed on them.  If a teacher divides his students into groups according to his personal perception of what "smart" is supposed to be then he is dooming the less smart kids to be the losers and underachievers.

And of course, the teacher will believe that he bet on the right kids because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the kids expected to succeed will in fact succeed, while the kids expected to not succeed will invariably become the losers of the group.

But pulling this sort of stunt only means one thing: that the teacher is incompetent and is doing this generation and his community a disservice.


How would the children know which group they were in?  If the basis of you're theory is that the kids in the dumb group will fail because they are expected to fail and the kids in the smart group will succeed because the are expected to succeed, why not just treat each group exactly the same without throwing labels on them?

Of course the teenagers and high school students will tease one another for being in the dumb group but if they are kept in the dark about group selections, these grade school students will probably not figure it out.


We knew which groups we were in. And I can't remember a single instance of any of us giving a crap. It was school. And at 14:45 were free.

It's the parents who make it a problem.
 
Displayed 6 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report