Do you think ps kids would work harder....

[athena1277]

...if they were allowed to fail? What if schools started holding back kids who did not learn the material? Included in this would be not graduating kids who could not read/write/do basic math.

 

So often in recent years, kids are passed to the next grade with D's, just so the school won't look bad and there won't be bigger kids in classes with smaller. Wouldn't you work harder if you knew you could be a 12yo in a class with 9yo kids if you don't pass a couple years? And if the schools really stick to the idea, wouldn't more parents do more to ensure their kid passed?

 

The law says every kid has a right to go to school for free. It does not guarantee every kid a high school diploma.

 

I realize it would not work for kids with LD's, etc, but for the average kid who could do the work if he tried, what do you think? Discuss. :D

[Audrey]

...if they were allowed to fail? What if schools started holding back kids who did not learn the material? Included in this would be not graduating kids who could not read/write/do basic math.

 

So often in recent years, kids are passed to the next grade with D's, just so the school won't look bad and there won't be bigger kids in classes with smaller. Wouldn't you work harder if you knew you could be a 12yo in a class with 9yo kids if you don't pass a couple years? And if the schools really stick to the idea, wouldn't more parents do more to ensure their kid passed?

 

The law says every kid has a right to go to school for free. It does not guarantee every kid a high school diploma.

 

I realize it would not work for kids with LD's, etc, but for the average kid who could do the work if he tried, what do you think? Discuss. :D

 

 

It used to be like that when I was in school (in the Dark Ages :lol:). If you didn't do the work, you failed.

 

I was shocked to learn that the trend is to "no-fail" policies in many, many places. I agree with you that kids would probably put in more effort if there were real consequences for not doing so.

 

I think that no-fail policies and other "easy" policies (like graduating D students) is a dangerous form of enabling that fosters an overblown sense of entitlement in youth.

 

It is NOT doing them any favours. That's for sure. :glare:

[LisaKinVA]

While I do agree that children should be allowed to fail, I also think that they have to be given the tools to learn. We also have to understand why children are failing, not simply assume they would learn if they simply "tried harder."

 

That said, many "bright" children STOP trying because they are bored out of their minds. They see no point in doing mind-numbing repetitive tasks. These children have already "opted out" of the game, and no amount of supposed "failure" will motivate them. They simply no longer care They are viewed as "lazy" -- but if given something to actually achieve that has some meaning and relevance, they are a completely different child! This was a 3rd grade boy.

 

Conversely, the child who is having difficulty grasping a concept is "left behind," as the teacher doesn't have time to help her in any individual capacity, and tells the parent that's "just the way it is." The child is STUCK, is trying, but is simply STUCK. The parent asks for help, but none can be made available (the child is achieving benchmarks, or whatever). In this case, the failure is again, not one of "not trying" -- it's of not understanding. Holding them back a grade will not only NOT fix that issue (especially if it's taught repeatedly in the same confusing manner), it will also demoralize a girl who is truly working hard, make her feel stupid -- when she's not. This was a 5th grade gir.

 

These are actual stories of two different children who were pulled out of Virginia public schools a year ago. A year later, the now 4th grade boy is flourishing, and the now 6th grade girl is not only no longer stuck, but is now considered by her former classmates to be "accelerated."

 

There aren't easy answers... and the solutions can be even more difficult.

[Lilymax]

One of my HUGE pet peeves, and I didn't realize how prevalent it was until talking with some teacher friends over the summer.

 

Around here, you're only "allowed" to fail once, and they prefer that it's in kindergarten or first grade. Beyond that, they're very, very reluctant to hold a kid back a year.

 

But kids who have been held back already, say in kindergarten, cannot be held back again no matter how dismally they perform in later years.

 

One of my PS teacher friends taught 2nd grade for years, but this year got switched at the last minute to 4th. She was talking about how she has to mentally organize her class into "groups". She said, "I have the GT kids here, the behavioral issue kids here, the ones who failed last year here..."

 

When I naively asked why, if they failed, would they be in her classroom, she explained the above policy to me. I felt sick--for the kids who will probably never be able to catch up, for the teachers who have another sub-set of students that will be difficult to manage, for the average-performing kids who lose out because there are so many high-need kids in the class. It's just sad all around.

 

When people ask why our kids aren't in PS, I want to say, "How long have you got to listen?" LOL

[calandalsmom]

Generally speaking promoting humiliation does not actually accomplish much that would be good for humanity. Failing is so loaded in school that I don't think there could possibly be much of a benefit for society if we allowed more kids to fail. Plus, kids who fail may well be working as hard as they can. This is a little bit overly simplistic.

 

The facts support the idea that kids who are held back do not usually find success the second time either.

[Pretty in Pink]

I don't know that failing them is the answer. Having classes just for remedial students might work. Do schools do that? I know that the kid who sat next to me at high school graduation could barely read and write (no LDs, his teachers just never expected or required much out of him for several reasons). Whatever the solution is, that should never be allowed to happen.

[athena1277]

 

Conversely, the child who is having difficulty grasping a concept is "left behind," as the teacher doesn't have time to help her in any individual capacity, and tells the parent that's "just the way it is." The child is STUCK, is trying, but is simply STUCK. The parent asks for help, but none can be made available (the child is achieving benchmarks, or whatever). In this case, the failure is again, not one of "not trying" -- it's of not understanding. Holding them back a grade will not only NOT fix that issue (especially if it's taught repeatedly in the same confusing manner), it will also demoralize a girl who is truly working hard, make her feel stupid -- when she's not. This was a 5th grade gir.

 

 

 

But couldn't in some situations, the child be able to master the material if she repeats the grade with a different teacher the next year? Yes, it would be hard to repeat, but if was handled in supportive way, could it work?

[Laurie4b]

The research has been in for a while and "failing" children results in more problems than not failing them. Comparing similar children in districts with policies that fail kids with kids in districts which don't, the outcomes for those kids who have been held back a grade are dismal--and that includes benign grade retention (he just hasn't learned enough in first grade; let's keep him back a year and let him get really solid, then move him on). The held-back or failed kids are more likely than kids earning the same grades but not held back to: drop out, get pregnant, abuse substances, commit criminal acts by the time they get to high school.

 

Shame is poisonous.

 

The optimal solution is to provide the help the kids need to succeed. So a kid who didn't make the targets in first grade is promoted to second grade along with his peers but is given extra help so that he (and it is almost always a "he") can catch up. This might be specialized reading instruction, for example.

 

I have worked with many, many, many of the kids who are failing or would fail in a system that retains kids. You know what? I can't think of one who wouldn't have preferred to succeed. I had one kid who was a major discipline problem in his school, pretty much a budding juvenile delinquent, find out I was tutoring a kid in his neighborhood in reading. He shows up and says, "I have reading problems, too. Why can't I get tutored?" He came twice a week to the other apt. where I was tutoring on his own volition, was incredibly polite, and got caught up to grade level in reading in less than a year. That's just one example. When a kid finds out that he (or she) can actually access the material, there is great motivation. When kids can't figure out something that it appears most of their classmates can, they conclude they are stupid. Many quit trying. It's the teaching that is the problem not the kid being 'entitled" or figuring they can game the system. That (gaming the system) might happen sometimes in high school, but for many kids, the issue starts in K or 1st grade. Being passed without learning is better than being failed without learning in terms of longterm outcome, but having someone care enough to figure out how to teach a kid so they can learn is the best solution of all.

 

http://education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/NEW%20retention/Publications/MetaAnalysis.SPR01.pdf

http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/grade_retention.php

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at800.htm

http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/retention.html

Edited September 12, 2010 by Laurie4b

[at the beach]

Generally speaking promoting humiliation does not actually accomplish much that would be good for humanity. Failing is so loaded in school that I don't think there could possibly be much of a benefit for society if we allowed more kids to fail. Plus, kids who fail may well be working as hard as they can. This is a little bit overly simplistic.

 

The facts support the idea that kids who are held back do not usually find success the second time either.

 

:iagree: I think most children want to succeed. Most kids really aren't lazy. IMO it's that they've been led to believe they are not good at anything for so long that they lose hope in themselves. I'm also not sure that the kids who are doing really poorly in school and get passed anyway are the ones who have a sense of entitlement. I know plenty of entitled-feeling kids who do quite well in school. I think children need less structured school and more time to grow and develop naturally but that's off-topic for this thread I think. We need to support each child's learning in the way that is best for that child. We need positive mentors for children, especially those who lack positive mentors in their homes.

 

Did you know that the teacher/student ratio in many top private prep schools is very often less than ten 10:1--sometimes significantly less? How many of those kids fail, I wonder? I doubt many. It's much harder to fail in a highly supportive environment I think. No offense meant, but many public schools are simply not supportive environments for our children IMO. Children are lacking supportive environments in their homes, too. I'd rather not focus on teaching the child or parents a lesson by punishing the child but look at each child as a the gift they are and find a way to help them realize the unique gifts that they have to share.

 

So, no, I don't think failing more kids would do any good at all.

[LisaKinVA]

But couldn't in some situations, the child be able to master the material if she repeats the grade with a different teacher the next year? Yes, it would be hard to repeat, but if was handled in supportive way, could it work?

 

Others have answered this with the research perspective, I'd like to answer the question a bit differently.

 

A child doesn't "wake up one day" and suddenly fail. It is a steady progression. If a child is struggling with a concept, the attempt to remedy the situation should be made at that initial point -- not 6 months or a year down the road.

 

Generally speaking if your child was struggling with the concept of multiplication would you essentially pat them on the head and say, oh well, let's move onto division... ? No. Generally speaking you would look for a different approach to teach the concept at that point. You might take a break and do a different part of the math book (such as probabilities or decimals) that didn't rely on multiplication... but you wouldn't keep going through the math series and continue to frustrate your child.

 

But, that is what happened to this girl. She didn't understand a concept... the teacher said, "oh well -- so sorry, don't have time to help you" and kept going through the material. Since the girl hadn't been given the tools to learn, she then became "destined" to fail.

 

So the next several months in school, all she learned is that she is "stupid." In your scenario, it could take years of supportive environment for children to unlearn that they are "stupid" -- when maybe a week or a couple of months (depending upon the issue) may eliminate the problem without any need for being held back a grade.

[Laurie4b]

Others have answered this with the research perspective, I'd like to answer the question a bit differently.

 

A child doesn't "wake up one day" and suddenly fail. It is a steady progression. If a child is struggling with a concept, the attempt to remedy the situation should be made at that initial point -- not 6 months or a year down the road.

 

Generally speaking if your child was struggling with the concept of multiplication would you essentially pat them on the head and say, oh well, let's move onto division... ? No. Generally speaking you would look for a different approach to teach the concept at that point. You might take a break and do a different part of the math book (such as probabilities or decimals) that didn't rely on multiplication... but you wouldn't keep going through the math series and continue to frustrate your child.

 

But, that is what happened to this girl. She didn't understand a concept... the teacher said, "oh well -- so sorry, don't have time to help you" and kept going through the material. Since the girl hadn't been given the tools to learn, she then became "destined" to fail.

 

So the next several months in school, all she learned is that she is "stupid." In your scenario, it could take years of supportive environment for children to unlearn that they are "stupid" -- when maybe a week or a couple of months (depending upon the issue) may eliminate the problem without any need for being held back a grade.

 

This is exactly right. The teachers literally don't have time to work with individual students and this has gotten worse with all the accountability stuff. I've gone to teachers of students I was tutoring and had them tell me that almost no one in the class understood fractions, for instance, but that she didn't have the authority to decide to slow down until the class did understand it. She had to cover a certain set course of subjects in the year, including probability, statistics etc. So many kids would benefit from really learning their math facts, the basic operations, fractions, and decimals, but in the name of advancement, schools are incorporating all kinds of other math in the required curriculum. The teacher I talked with really was sorry--she just didn't have any control.

[sbgrace]

No. For lots of reasons.

 

First, the majority of people are far much more motivated by success than by failure and shame.

 

Further, if you have a child failing high school they have been dramatically failed by others educationally and/or otherwise over and over and over again. I don't know how they would turn it around at that point on their own. To make a difference at that point would require concerted effort from a variety of people pouring into that one child. Education doesn't work that way sadly.

 

 

Real life statistics and studies don't support the idea either.

 

I am a former HS teacher. At least in our state (and I assume all?) you don't get a diploma unless you can pass the testing mandated. That's a whole other issue as instead of focusing on reading, writing, basic math that might be reachable with the right kind of remedial work we can't do that because they have to get through Algebra for example to pass. It's a mess.

 

Instead those kids should be identified and given help from the start. Curriculum wise re-thinking the highly academic and language oriented nature of early elementary grade instruction would likely help boys who need more time to mature. I met a lot of boys in my high school teaching who had the underlying ability but I believe had decided they "couldn't do school" or were "stupid" in K or 1st grade and that followed them all through school. It's sad and unnecessary. And I'm sure it's worse now because K is even more academic at least in our area.

Edited September 12, 2010 by sbgrace

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It used to be like that when I was in school (in the Dark Ages :lol:). If you didn't do the work, you failed.

 

I was shocked to learn that the trend is to "no-fail" policies in many, many places. I agree with you that kids would probably put in more effort if there were real consequences for not doing so.

 

I think that no-fail policies and other "easy" policies (like graduating D students) is a dangerous form of enabling that fosters an overblown sense of entitlement in youth.

 

It is NOT doing them any favours. That's for sure. :glare:

 

:iagree:

[Jean in Newcastle]

It used to be that if you didn't do well in a subject, the parents would automatically either tutor you themselves, get you a tutor or a extra class (like Kumon) or ask for extra help at school. I used to have my own tutoring agency. I got almost all of my students when they were in 5th grade. The parents would tell me that they were concerned for years with their child's progress but that the teachers would tell them every year that their child was find and to "let the schools handle it". By fifth grade these parents would wake up to the fact that the schools had not handled it and that it was time to take matters into their own hands. So they would hire me or another tutor.

[Photo Ninja]

So would it help if students were grouped in classes by ability?

 

If some students are not keeping up in math because they have not mastered an essential skill, should they then be in a math class with other students in a similar situation so that the teacher can focus instruction on the needs and help the students move into grade level ability?

 

I realize that it is not a popular idea to have some classes for the advanced students, some for the average or grade level students and others for students who are not working on grade level, but if it would allow a teacher to instruct those students better, and the students then learn the material, they would not remain behind. Of course, this would only really work if the students could change groupings as their skill levels increase.

[delaney]

I love "We can't keep him back because he is so tall" as a reason to promote a child!

[mycalling]

What about mandatory after school tutoring? Cheaper than the state paying for an extra year of schooling. That would also punish the parents by causing them to pick up their children instead of riding the bus (or drive a 2nd time for other children), so they might start taking an interest in their children's success.

 

There should definitely be some kind of accountability.

[LisaKinVA]

Well, it's not a popular idea here in the states, but I believe in many European and Asian countries they do "track" students. I believe there are certain exam stages students must achieve to go onto different tracks.

 

I know such a system would be easier from the teacher and student perspective -- but you usually don't see this type of system until at least middle school, and in some areas high school in the states. It's far too late IMO.

 

Additionally, most European and Asian countries begin mandatory schooling around 7 or 8 years of age -- not five or six. That extra year or two really helps even out a lot of maturity and developmental issues, which is one reason so many boys (esp.) are "red shirted," put on medications, or maybe have already decided they are "too dumb" for school before they are 6!

 

In my "ideal world" -- kids wouldn't need to officially start school until they were 7. The "cut off date" would be age seven the month prior to the start of school (and there could be exceptions -- either way, some kids are more ready than others, or less ready). The first week of school would be placement evaluations... one teacher handled the reading assessments, one teacher handled the math assessments. Students would have teacher "A" for Reading & Language Arts, History/Social Studies/Art -- and change classes after lunch for the rest of the day. Teacher "B" for Science, Math, Music and PE. (The school might have a separate music teacher, art teacher and PE teacher, but the course would be part of that "block" for the teacher.)

 

This would allow students to be in their appropriate language arts department -- and the appropriate math department. History could follow the same essential tracks in each level grouping, but the more advanced students could go "deeper" into the material -- while the more average students covered the basic concepts.

 

This wouldn't solve *every* potential issue -- but IMO, it would be a whole lot better for a whole lot more children.

[LisaKinVA]

I love "We can't keep him back because he is so tall" as a reason to promote a child!

 

Well, they use the opposite reason for not "skipping" children too... "We can't put him/her into grade two, because they'll be the smallest."

[regentrude]

The kids who work the least in ps are the smart kids who are bored out of their minds. Never in their five years of ps were my kids even remotely challenged. The struggling kids probably worked harder.

[regentrude]

So would it help if students were grouped in classes by ability?

 

If some students are not keeping up in math because they have not mastered an essential skill, should they then be in a math class with other students in a similar situation so that the teacher can focus instruction on the needs and help the students move into grade level ability?

 

I realize that it is not a popular idea to have some classes for the advanced students, some for the average or grade level students and others for students who are not working on grade level, but if it would allow a teacher to instruct those students better, and the students then learn the material, they would not remain behind. Of course, this would only really work if the students could change groupings as their skill levels increase.

 

That is a very good idea . that way not so much potential would be wasted. I still fail to understand why it would be unpopular to group students according to their abilities instead of their age - this would be a good situation for ALL students.

[Dobela]

So would it help if students were grouped in classes by ability?

 

If some students are not keeping up in math because they have not mastered an essential skill, should they then be in a math class with other students in a similar situation so that the teacher can focus instruction on the needs and help the students move into grade level ability?

 

I realize that it is not a popular idea to have some classes for the advanced students, some for the average or grade level students and others for students who are not working on grade level, but if it would allow a teacher to instruct those students better, and the students then learn the material, they would not remain behind. Of course, this would only really work if the students could change groupings as their skill levels increase.

That opens a different can of worms. Do you really want your advanced 1st grader working in the same groups as a 6th grader for example?

 

 

I really believe most public school kids are working just as hard as they can. At least they were when I was teaching. Some were failing becausae they had just given up. School was hard and they didn't understand it. They were 'failed' in kindergarten or first grade because they were not 'mature enough' to move on. They may have showed signs of learning disabilities in the first grade but instead of specialized testing and assistance then they were just passed on until they were failing - and no one was helping them. Then, finally, schools would test them and 'discover' the learning disability. I worked for one school that had a no test policy until 3rd grade. Before that the school had to show that they were trying other things to catch the child up and grade retention was one of the approved methods. By the time these kids got to 4th, 5th, 6th grade they were calling themselves stupid and stopped trying. I heard more than one say, "Yeah, Kindergarten is easy and I was so stupid I had to do it 2 times. I'll never make it to college."

 

I saw other kids in classes of 30 never get questions answered because they only saw that teacher for 1 hour that day and she had a 50 minute lesson to present - as mandated by someone else because all teachers must now present the same lessons on the same day.

 

These same kids then finally get to see their parents at 6pm for dinner, baths, and bed. Homework can't be a big priority when you have 2-3 hours max to spend together as a family. Parents sometimes hope the day care or the babysitter will help the child. At one school I worked in the students were expected to have no less than 2 hours of homework each night - even in kindergarten. The goal was to have more involved parents but all it did was create more stress and resentment towards school.

 

I could really rant on for a very long time, but it gets down to this: YOu can't blame the students for it all. The entire system is broken and it is my belief that the children are the victims.

[regentrude]

That opens a different can of worms. Do you really want your advanced 1st grader working in the same groups as a 6th grader for example?

 

Not ideal (and often we are only talking about differences of 2-3 years). However, if the difference in ability is really that big, then he would be better off with the 6th graders as with the 1st graders.

[Tea Time]

So would it help if students were grouped in classes by ability?

 

If some students are not keeping up in math because they have not mastered an essential skill, should they then be in a math class with other students in a similar situation so that the teacher can focus instruction on the needs and help the students move into grade level ability?

 

I realize that it is not a popular idea to have some classes for the advanced students, some for the average or grade level students and others for students who are not working on grade level, but if it would allow a teacher to instruct those students better, and the students then learn the material, they would not remain behind. Of course, this would only really work if the students could change groupings as their skill levels increase.

 

They tried this and for all I know they still do it. I remember my mother was horrified when I came home from first grade and explained that there were "reading groups." They had names. Blue, Red, White, Brown, Black. And, the Brown and Black were the lowest ones. My memory is not really clear enough to reconstruct the reality of this situation, but my mother's reaction is firmly entrenched in my mind. She was outraged. And not just because some ethnic groups might end up more frequently in the lower groups (a big problem). She was well aware that flawed assessments could cement children into inappropriate groups, something that other cultures might not mind (the price you might pay for overall success), but the individual and class mobility is highly valued in American culture. So perhaps in a less diverse population such as found in Asia tracking might fly, but in the US this would be problematic for a variety of reasons.

 

Our society is not trying to focus on a single goal - academic achievement. It is trying to do too many things that are poorly defined and often with questionable motives, including providing daycare so everyone can "work." And the focus of those goals shifts constantly depending on whose agenda is front and center at the moment.

[calandalsmom]

Ability is't always a good measurement either when some kids who have great ability have weaknesses. My child can read and discuss high school level material but he can't write the essay a school would require (dyslexia/ dysgraphia.)

[idnib]

When I was in high school (1989-1993) our public school tried an experiment. Everyone was slotted into groups of 4. Each group consisted of 1 "advanced" student (me, in my groups), 2 "average" students, and 1 "remedial" student. This was by class, so a kid might be "advanced" in math class and "remedial" in reading. We did projects together and studied together. We also turned in some homework together and some portion (50%?) of our grades was figured together.

 

At the time I was somewhat irritated because I had to spend more time than I normally did helping the other students, and it's perhaps accurate that they sometimes let me do more than my share of the work. But one of the best things it did was help the remedial student, who had until then been grouped with other kids who were having problems who could not help him or her. How could they help others when they themselves were having problems? In the groups the remedial student was brought up to speed and included and worked with others who could try and help. Also, the materials I learned in that period are those that are most cemented in my brain, probably because I actually had to explain them to someone instead of just learn them for myself.

 

I think it did affect the remedial students' self-esteem to be the "lower" person in the group. But at the same time, the got more attention and learned new skills and in my group's case, good study habits.

 

I doubt they do something like this today. Between the drive for standardization and the concerns about the impacts to students, it's probably over.

 

Still, food for thought.

Edited September 13, 2010 by idnib

[Laurie4b]

Um, why would you punish parents when a child is not learning? Why not teach the child? Why is "not learning" a moral failing that should result in somebody, student or parent, being punished?

 

Oy vey.

 

What about kids who aren't learning because their schools teach whole language reading and they are not one of the kids who can learn reading that way? Or because they have a disorganized poor teacher? Should their parents be punished?

 

What about kids with learning disabilities, perhaps as yet unidentified?

 

I have tutored low income children for a long time. Their parents are usually very interested in them doing well in school but cannot help them themselves. I tutor free as part of the outreach of our church. Not all parents can find free tutoring.

 

I totally know that there are parents who don't give a rip either. Do you think those parents would suddenly care if they were "punished" by picking their children up at school? Do you think if they felt punished that their child would thereby benefit?

 

I do not get in any way the impulse to punish either kids or parents when kids are failing. When kids fail, they almost always have learning differences or intellectual weaknesses and/or they have not received the kind of teaching they need to overcome those differences. Even the kids of "I don't give a rip" parents are typically eager for the attention and nurturance they get in a school setting and they WANT to learn. And though it is certainly possible for an older child to fail in school as part of general rebellion, typically the older ones who have a "don't even care to try" attitude were once eager kiddos wanting to succeed but who "found out" that they were "stupid" at an early age. They give up. It's such a waste.

 

I wish that everyone on this thread who has recommended punishment would volunteer their time this year to help a student who is failing in public school .

Edited September 13, 2010 by Laurie4b

[Joker]

I don't think those parents who don't care now would care any more because their kids might fail. It would just give them more ammo to use against school, the other kids in school, the teachers, the administration, etc. The kids will still suffer and the parents might complain more. I don't think children are learning less because they don't care - I think most are just doing the best with what they're given. I don't believe the kids who truly don't care will suddenly care more because they will be held back - they'll just become more of a rebel.

[IsabelC]

I think that many of the points people are making here simply demonstrate that school as we know it is not the optimal way for children to learn. There is simply no easy, effective and enjoyable way to have 20 or 30 children in a group all learning to their full potential within the staffing and budgetary constraints that schools have.

[Jamee]

They need to start failing kids again. It doesn't take kids long to realize that they don't have to do anything, can just sit there and mouth off. DH had a heck of a time with his 8th graders when he moved to a new school. They knew they were going to high school no matter what they did/or didn't do.

 

As far as tracking goes, I haven't seen that in years either. I know for me, it helped keep me challenged. I remember those reading groups in elementry school. Now, in the schools I've subbed in, I don't even see them doing reading the way they used too.

 

Something needs to be done to give ps kids more accountability. As my mom has observed over the years, teaching high school, it's gotten worse and worse as to what the kids think they can get away with and what they "deserve."

[Carrie12345]

 

Additionally, most European and Asian countries begin mandatory schooling around 7 or 8 years of age -- not five or six. That extra year or two really helps even out a lot of maturity and developmental issues, which is one reason so many boys (esp.) are "red shirted," put on medications, or maybe have already decided they are "too dumb" for school before they are 6!

 

In my "ideal world" -- kids wouldn't need to officially start school until they were 7. The "cut off date" would be age seven the month prior to the start of school (and there could be exceptions -- either way, some kids are more ready than others, or less ready). The first week of school would be placement evaluations... one teacher handled the reading assessments, one teacher handled the math assessments. Students would have teacher "A" for Reading & Language Arts, History/Social Studies/Art -- and change classes after lunch for the rest of the day. Teacher "B" for Science, Math, Music and PE. (The school might have a separate music teacher, art teacher and PE teacher, but the course would be part of that "block" for the teacher.)

 

 

Even if compulsory age changed in all states, I don't think most American parents would care. Some states are already at 7. My state is at 8 (except in the Philadelphia area). In the 5 years I've lived here, I haven't met a single person who has waited to start school (public, private, or home) until age 7, let alone age 8. A very small handful have put off K until age 6, but that usually revolves around close cut offs.

[zaichiki]

I know that the kid who sat next to me at high school graduation could barely read and write (no LDs, his teachers just never expected or required much out of him for several reasons).

 

Pretty,

 

I don't mean to be confrontational, but how do you know this? (bolded part my empasis)

[zaichiki]

So would it help if students were grouped in classes by ability?

 

If some students are not keeping up in math because they have not mastered an essential skill, should they then be in a math class with other students in a similar situation so that the teacher can focus instruction on the needs and help the students move into grade level ability?

 

I realize that it is not a popular idea to have some classes for the advanced students, some for the average or grade level students and others for students who are not working on grade level, but if it would allow a teacher to instruct those students better, and the students then learn the material, they would not remain behind. Of course, this would only really work if the students could change groupings as their skill levels increase.

 

I love the idea of ability grouping. In an ideal world there would be no negative connotation to being in a certain group. Think of the old days and the one-room schoolhouse. I love the way it is portrayed in Understood Betsy. A little girl who attended a modern-style public school in a city and struggled in her 3rd grade math class, yet was a very accelerated reader, appreciated the ability grouping in her new one-room schoolhouse. When we read this book our kids said that they wished they could attend a school like that. (Okay---maybe it was written a bit idealistically.)

[zaichiki]

This is exactly right. The teachers literally don't have time to work with individual students and this has gotten worse with all the accountability stuff. I've gone to teachers of students I was tutoring and had them tell me that almost no one in the class understood fractions, for instance, but that she didn't have the authority to decide to slow down until the class did understand it. She had to cover a certain set course of subjects in the year, including probability, statistics etc. So many kids would benefit from really learning their math facts, the basic operations, fractions, and decimals, but in the name of advancement, schools are incorporating all kinds of other math in the required curriculum. The teacher I talked with really was sorry--she just didn't have any control.

 

I had this experience as a teacher. It was a classroom of special needs students and I DID slow down. Actually I stopped right where we were and we "sat" in that subject in the textbook. I taught it several different ways and introduced more manipulatives, etc. The kids needed MORE time and MORE practice in order to learn the material. So they got it. And I got in trouble with my supervisor -- repeatedly that year. (But the parents came to me privately and told me how much more their children were learning that year.) I didn't go back the next year.