3 ms·

At the very least schools should be trying to meet children at their level. I've seen children go an entire year without learning a thing in certain subjects, s

by bnralt 4y ago

At the very least schools should be trying to meet children at their level. I've seen children go an entire year without learning a thing in certain subjects, simply because the curriculum for that year is below their level. Not only is it a waste of time, but it also makes students detached from a school where they feel like they're only getting busywork. It's good that these schools are focused on trying to help children who are struggling in certain areas. But they seem to be fine with providing poor service to the children who are ahead, which should be unacceptable. It isn't possible to meet every child at their level, but at least there should be some effort made to fit each child's needs. The attitude I see a lot of the time is "You're doing well, so shutup and sit there while we ignore you."

scarby2 4y ago
> But they seem to be fine with providing poor service to the children who are ahead, which should be unacceptable. This is one of the reasons I hated school, when you can read the book, understand the material and complete the work in 20 minutes and you have an hour allotted and then just have to sit there it makes you dread going in every day. This wasn't the case in every subject but when it came to maths and science it was just painful.
scarmig 4y ago
Also note that schools provide poor service to children who are behind. It's unfair to expect a teachers to provide good instruction to anyone in an 8th grade classroom where they have been tasked with instructing a group that includes students from a 6th grade level to a 9th grade level.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Our experience (in Menlo) has been that almost all of the teacher's small-group or 1-on-1 time is spent with kids who are behind. It is understandable to have a goal that is bringing up the lowest performers. But if a school is going to do that, they should not steadfastly refuse to let kids be tracked. Allowing tracking would let kids who are not behind actually grow to their capacity. As it is currently structured, the kids at the top are never challenged, and they may not even realize that so many of their peers are also talented and unchallenged. Teachers shouldn't have to teach a span of 3-4 grade levels. But in our district, the teachers and administration are the ones who are fighting hardest against tracking. It's not fair of them to fight tracking and then complain that teaching advanced kids would be too hard. It's only hard in the current system, where tracking (in our district) is not allowed.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    Kids who are behind, even if they get the majority of teacher attention, still suffer, because in an appropriately tracked classroom all the teacher's efforts would be targeted toward them (and targeted toward getting them to step n+1, not putting heroic efforts into getting them to step n+2). But broadly we're in agreement, and the resistance you mention speaks to a broader, uncomfortable-to-discuss issue with the priorities educators have.

by bnralt 4y ago

scarby2 4y ago

> But they seem to be fine with providing poor service to the children who are ahead, which should be unacceptable. This is one of the reasons I hated school, when you can read the book, understand the material and complete the work in 20 minutes and you have an hour allotted and then just have to sit there it makes you dread going in every day. This wasn't the case in every subject but when it came to maths and science it was just painful.

scarmig 4y ago

Also note that schools provide poor service to children who are behind. It's unfair to expect a teachers to provide good instruction to anyone in an 8th grade classroom where they have been tasked with instructing a group that includes students from a 6th grade level to a 9th grade level.

gnicholas 4y ago
Our experience (in Menlo) has been that almost all of the teacher's small-group or 1-on-1 time is spent with kids who are behind. It is understandable to have a goal that is bringing up the lowest performers. But if a school is going to do that, they should not steadfastly refuse to let kids be tracked. Allowing tracking would let kids who are not behind actually grow to their capacity. As it is currently structured, the kids at the top are never challenged, and they may not even realize that so many of their peers are also talented and unchallenged. Teachers shouldn't have to teach a span of 3-4 grade levels. But in our district, the teachers and administration are the ones who are fighting hardest against tracking. It's not fair of them to fight tracking and then complain that teaching advanced kids would be too hard. It's only hard in the current system, where tracking (in our district) is not allowed.
- scarmig 4y ago
  Kids who are behind, even if they get the majority of teacher attention, still suffer, because in an appropriately tracked classroom all the teacher's efforts would be targeted toward them (and targeted toward getting them to step n+1, not putting heroic efforts into getting them to step n+2). But broadly we're in agreement, and the resistance you mention speaks to a broader, uncomfortable-to-discuss issue with the priorities educators have.