Er...ok...good luck with that (NYT article on Kindy class with 60 students)

[Halcyon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/education/11class.html?src=twr&pagewanted=all

[Dmmetler]

My DD was completely overwhelmed in a class of 24 kids and 2 teachers in K, and spent most of the first couple of months (until the kids "learned to be quiet", as she put it) taking her work back into the corner of the coatroom because it was the only place she could concentrate (fortunately, her teachers were accepting of this). In a class of 60, I don't think she'd last a week!

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Uh. . . they already tried this in the 60's and 70's. Didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now?

[Brigitte]

It sounds like total chaos to me and not a whole lot of learning going on. Sheesh. What a stupid idea. The school he based it on is one of the top two boarding schools in the country - we are talking about some of the smartest teenagers in the country (and generally from wealthy backgrounds). I feel really sorry for the kids in this program. Ultimately they are being short changed.

[Halcyon]

It sounds like total chaos to me and not a whole lot of learning going on. Sheesh. What a stupid idea. The school he based it on is one of the top two boarding schools in the country - we are talking about some of the smartest teenagers in the country (and generally from wealthy backgrounds). I feel really sorry for the kids in this program. Ultimately they are being short changed.

 

 

:iagree:

[dangermom]

My husband spent first grade in a classroom like that--the open classroom of the future. He didn't learn a thing, it was really loud, and he got a lot of colds. But for some reason the word "open" seems to exert a hypnotic fascination on teachers who want to be progressive and futuristic. Who cares what's open, as long as it is open?

 

Bad ideas never seem to die in education; they just pop up again every 30 years, like zombies.

Edited January 11, 2011 by dangermom

[redsquirrel]

It sounds like total chaos to me and not a whole lot of learning going on. Sheesh. What a stupid idea. The school he based it on is one of the top two boarding schools in the country - we are talking about some of the smartest teenagers in the country (and generally from wealthy backgrounds). I feel really sorry for the kids in this program. Ultimately they are being short changed.

 

I stopped reading when I saw that. I know two families who sent their kids to Exeter. The classes were NOT like that. In fact, it seems like they are achieving the opposite.

 

And I don't know if the teens at those academies (Exeter etc) are the smartest in the country but they are well educated and certainly among the wealthiest.

 

ok, off to finish reading now. Maybe my opinion will change.

[Mabelen]

High school students from afluent backgrounds to Kindergarten students from empoverished families is a big jump to just asume things will work the same!

[angela in ohio]

Uh. . . they already tried this in the 60's and 70's. Didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now?

 

It's still big in some public schools here. Eventually you run out of new theories and have to trot out the same old ones again and call them new. ;)

 

I would bet this is an attempt to get more teachers working for more time with the lowest performing students.

[Kim in Appalachia]

Really. That teacher should get something extra every day just to make sure she comes back the next day. 60 5 to 6 year olds? That sounds horrible, for the kids and the teacher.

[Tammyla]

My husband spent first grade in a classroom like that--the open classroom of the future. He didn't learn a thing, it was really loud, and he got a lot of colds. But for some reason the word "open" seems to exert a hypnotic fascination on teachers who want to be progressive and futuristic. Who cares what's open, as long as it is open?

 

Bad ideas never seem to die in education; they just pop up again every 30 years, like zombies.[/QUOTE]

 

:iagree: Crazy...

[Julie in Austin]

This article made my heart hurt. Not just the numbers (although that's bad) but the idea that the learning would be child-led and the kids would learn from each other. . . 'cuz what our economy needs to be truly competitive is people who have been educated by 5-year-olds.

[jujsky]

Uh. . . they already tried this in the 60's and 70's. Didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now?

:iagree: And they supposedly modeled this after Phillips Exeter? They don't have 60 unruly 1st graders in one classroom. What part of, "small, group learning environment," did they not see when touring Phillips Exeter?

[Perry]

Oh, this just makes me sick. There is already good evidence for what works with these kids, and it's the OPPOSITE of what this guy is doing. Direct Instruction, with small groups of kids, has been clearly shown to be the best approach.

Project Follow Through was the largest and most expensive federally funded experiment in education ever conducted. It was originally intended to provide a continuation of Head Start services to students in their early elementary years. (Head Start delivered educational, health, and social services to disadvantaged preschool children and their families.)

The most extensive evaluation of Follow Through data covers the years 1968-1977; however, the program continued to receive funding from the government until 1995. The results did not show how programs that showed little or no benefit could be improved, but some program types ("models") did show some indications of success. Stebbins, et al. (1977, pp. xxiv-xxviii) reported the principal findings as follows:

 

 

• “The effectiveness of each Follow Through model varied substantially from site group to site group†(p. xxiv)
  
• “Models that emphasize basic skills succeed better than other models in helping children gain these skills†(p. xxv)
  
• “Where models have put their primary emphasis elsewhere than on the basic skills, the children they served have tended to score lower on tests of these skills than they would have done without Follow Through†(p. xxvi)
  
• “No type of model was notably more successful than the others in raising scores on cognitive conceptual skills†(p. xxvi)
  
• “Models that emphasize basic skills produced better results on tests of self-concept than did other models†(p. xxvi)
  
• To the extent that Follow Through children have ‘caught up’ with their peers in arithmetic skills, they have tended to do it during the first two years of their involvement in the program†(p. xxvii)
  
• “Follow Through has been relatively effective with the most disadvantaged children it has served†(p. xxviii)
  

 

One outcome of Project Follow Through was that it clearly documented the most effective instructional approach. The Direct Instruction model placed first in reading, arithmetic, spelling, language, basic skills, academic cognitive skills, and positive self image.[1]

Ernest Boyer, U.S. Commissioner of Education during the main Follow Through study implementation, wrote to Senator Robert (Bob) Packwood on March 31, 1978, in response to an inquiry about why the Direct Instruction model was not being funded at a higher level given that it was the only model that showed strong academic and affective gains at all sites. In his letter Commissioner Boyer acknowledges that "the evaluation found that only one (Direct Instruction) of the 22 models which were assessed in the evaluation consistently produced positive outcomes."

 

:banghead::cursing:

[angela in ohio]

Oh, this just makes me sick. There is already good evidence for what works with these kids, and it's the OPPOSITE of what this guy is doing. Direct Instruction, with small groups of kids, has been clearly shown to be the best approach.

:banghead::cursing:

 

The unions fight Direct Instruction tooth and nail, though, as do the colleges of teacher education.

[Mabelen]

:iagree: And they supposedly modeled this after Phillips Exeter? They don't have 60 unruly 1st graders in one classroom. What part of, "small, group learning environment," did they not see when touring Phillips Exeter?

 

Such a small detail to worry about, right?;)

[Perry]

The unions fight Direct Instruction tooth and nail, though, as do the colleges of teacher education.

Yep. It's about ideology, not results.

[angela in ohio]

.

[redsquirrel]

I am just hoping the article is poorly written. I finished it and I am still not seeing the point of what they are doing. I am not seeing a vision statement or guiding principle. I certainly don't see how one gets from the quiet, academic seminars of Exeter to a room of 60 kindergartners with a couple adults. I am pretty darn sure the Exeter kids didn't go to kindergarten in a envirnonment like that.

 

I am sort of guessing that this is to make better teachers? They can learn from each other and get more guidance from the master teachers because it is all out in the open.

[mcconnellboys]

Good grief, what a mess. Little children need quiet and structure. Why don't they begin to introduce the skill sets a little at a time, for goodness sake, and move into their full model by fifth grade, rather than overwhelming everyone (adults included) with everything all at once....

 

This is one of the biggest things that kills me about public education. They come up with untested ideas and use countless children every year as guinea pigs. Then, when the ideas don't work (as they so often don't) they abandon them completely after the first year and move on to the next experiment. By the time your child graduates, they will have missed out on tons of good, sound educational opportunities for the sake of the ongoing experiments....

 

We actually got a "Latin centered" curriculum here one year. One year. Then they completely abandoned it all together. How was one year enough time to even see any results?

 

And once they get immersed in an experiment, they seem incapable of tweaking and making changes as they go along when they see that certain things are just not working....

[mcconnellboys]

Precisely. And if it's the same Phillips Exeter I've read about, it's a HIGH school, not a lower elementary school. I well expect high school students to be able to sit around the Harkness table and hold discussions with faculty. I do not expect that of inner city first graders who may have no experience sitting 'round a table at ALL..... geesh....

[AuntieM]

How very, very sad for all those children in the experimental class. They are truly guinea pigs, with a year of their education totally wasted. Or worse, as who knows how long it might take to undo the effects of the mob mentality teaching.

 

Five year olds instructing/socializing each other. Ya. :glare:

[mcconnellboys]

I'm all for openness for little children, don't get me wrong. But the correct model of openness would be like the German Kinder schools that do school in the woods....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3357232/Waldkindergarten-the-forest-nurseries-where-children-learn-in-Natures-classroom.html

 

I've read in past that there are some Montessori-esque elementary schools here doing this model, too.

 

While this might be more difficult in a large, urban environment, I've read that's it's being tried in London, so it seems that our larger cities might look to that model:

 

http://www.urbanforestschool.co.uk/

 

But not 60 kids left on their own in one big classroom with only 4 adults, 3 of them unseasoned teachers.... I wonder how many coins were swallowed or up the nose or in the ear after that math exercise mentioned?

[chickenpatty]

I agree. We had situations similar when busing (bussing?) kids in for junior church. Just an hour and a half once a week was brutal on the teachers! Not much was accomplished other than crowd control.

[Dawn in OH]

How can ANYBODY think in that room? I've worked with 5, 6, and 7 year olds before. There is no way they are going to accomplish anything in that setting other than driving the teachers insane.

 

Children that age learn best in small groups.

[JoyfulMama]

I attended 2nd grade and 1/2 of 3rd grade (we moved to another state) in an open classroom. However it was nothing like what was mentioned in the article. There were 4 pods (classroom areas) in a large open room, which housed 2 classes each of 2nd and 3rd grades. There was large space between each, and that space was utilized for different activities. I remember doing art, in which, for the explanation, 2 pods of students sat on the floor between 2 other pods of desks, then we all moved to desks for space to work. I had 2 different teachers for each grade, and moved to another desk in another pod for 2nd grade math, specifically. I don't remember the room being loud, but I do remember having to make sure I was quiet so that I could hear (not necessarily a bad thing). And I remember many math classes that the students sat on the floor in the front of the blackboard while the teacher taught concepts using an overhead projector (so she could sit still and not step on anyone?), then returning to seats for work. When there was an issue in one pod, which caused a teacher to leave the room, it was easy to have another teacher step in to oversee for a few minutes. Pods were great for indoor recesses, though, as students had more options (THAT was loud!).

 

The article sounds nothing like what I experienced. Nor does it sound like it is based on Exter's model. I can't imagine taking a high school model and applying it to Kers! :001_huh:

[Ailaena]

My niece goes to a K-12 charter school that follows a similar model and they have had great success with it (based on state test scores). They have two grades, 50-60 kids, two teachers and one or two aides in each classroom. Lower school has maybe 15 classrooms total and beginning in 7th grade, they revert to "traditional" classrooms.

 

When we moved to Phoenix, BIL told us about how it was a fantastic school, his daughter was really thriving because they accelerate/decelerate kids where they need it, and they all loved it. One of the first things we did was go on the tour.

 

It was... Interesting. I could not figure out how anyone got anything done, at all. They broke up the kids into groups, but they were all still in the same classroom and it was so loud and just looked chaotic to me. DD flat said No Way. The principal told us about the classroom dividers, and how they could make the classrooms smaller, but DN (dear niece:D) told me she had never seen that happen. She also said no one was ever accelerated beyond the highest level of the top group in the class, but I suppose that is still a grade ahead, and that is neither here nor there. An interesting thing was that they focus their year around a final group project to be presented to the community, so they learn to work together in the chaos instead of drowning in it.

 

We went back for a junior high tour because I was contemplating sending dd back to school in 7th grade. Probably due to the fact that our regular PS middle schools were quite good, the classes were MUCH smaller. I think they had less than 250 kids for 7/8. During our tour, we visited classrooms and if I was reticent before, I was appalled now. The kids were not even attempting to be a part of ANY of the classes we visited. In the history class, there were kids listening to their ipods while the teacher was lecturing, and the Algebra teacher explained that, "Having the kids teach each other was much more efficient." The English teacher was sitting at her desk reading a book while the kids were doing various things (drawing, talking, ipods), but it could have been a free day? The thing that simultaneously bothered and impressed me was that they didn't even bother putting on a show for the principal and her tour. The kids were only allowed to accelerate to the highest classes offered for 7/8 grades (at that point, idk if it still the same now).

 

DN is in 9th grade now. They have something like 400 kids in HS, so the classes are smallish. It seems like a much better environment, she is doing fine. Well, except that she had to repeat Algebra because her middle school "teacher wasn't teaching", but they didn't ask me for help until her second year:glare:

 

So, although the environment would have never worked for dd, it worked for dn. Her grandmother is very involved with her, and made sure that she was learning something, I don't know if it would have worked as well, otherwise. The community seems to think it works just fine because the lower school is full EVERY YEAR.

 

 

ETA: I went to a high school that was open classroom. It had one huge room (maybe 60x60?) and two smaller rooms for art and I dont remember what. The areas were divided with waist-high bookshelves and I think there were probably 150-200 kids. The class areas were interspaced with other areas (computers, offices, "library" so no two classes touched. There was no excessive noise and it seemed to work very well. Of course, we were high schoolers...

Edited January 11, 2011 by Ailaena

[bethben]

I like this:

"The school stresses student independence over teacher-led lessons, scientific inquiry over rote memorization and freedom and self-expression over strict structure and discipline."

 

and this:

 

"At its heart is the idea that the teachers, not to mention the students, will collaborate and learn from one another, rather than being isolated in separate classrooms."

 

The first quote just makes a true classical educator cringe, the second is a main reason many of us homeschool.

 

I hope these kids don't wind up on the streets because no one was able to control their classes long enough to learn anything of value.

 

Beth

[Stacy in NJ]

The funny thing is, by the end of second grade the teachers took all the book cases that had previously lined the outer walls and turned them into interior walls, in effect, seperating the classrooms. They couldn't stand the noise and distractions.

 

 

My husband spent first grade in a classroom like that--the open classroom of the future. He didn't learn a thing, it was really loud, and he got a lot of colds. But for some reason the word "open" seems to exert a hypnotic fascination on teachers who want to be progressive and futuristic. Who cares what's open, as long as it is open?

 

Bad ideas never seem to die in education; they just pop up again every 30 years, like zombies.

[katemary63]

How very, very sad for all those children in the experimental class. They are truly guinea pigs, with a year of their education totally wasted. Or worse, as who knows how long it might take to undo the effects of the mob mentality teaching.

 

Five year olds instructing/socializing each other. Ya. :glare:

 

Insane. Simply insane. :confused: :sad:

[Remudamom]

Idiots.

[Mama Anna]

Working with undisciplined children has always been difficult for me. I love to teach, but this . . . No matter how many times I'm interrupted in homeschooling during one 10 minute period, no matter how many times the girls are howling from frustration/disappointment/pestering in one given quarter hour, no matter how much stuff gets strewn over the floor or even broken, at least I've got it better than those poor teachers.

 

<whew!>

 

Mama Anna

[dangermom]

The funny thing is, by the end of second grade the teachers took all the book cases that had previously lined the outer walls and turned them into interior walls, in effect, seperating the classrooms. They couldn't stand the noise and distractions.

Apparently that was not an uncommon result with those types of classrooms; I've read about that happening, or the school just gives in and puts walls up.

 

For some reason people think walls = oppression, loneliness, and bad, and no walls = freedom and openness and always good. And I like the great outdoors, but people invented houses and walls for a reason. There's nothing wrong with a little shelter from the elements, privacy, blocking out distractions, or quiet. Attaching moral value to walls as a category is a problem, I think.

 

Though I do love that European preschool out in the forest thing. I would totally have put my kids into one of those programs for preschool.

[JennyD]

This sounds nightmarish. And correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Phillips Exeter grades 9-12 only?

[elegantlion]

Chaos.

[Dobela]

In our state several years ago, then Govenor Bill Clinton signed into law small class sizes. It is such a good thing. I know I have heard of the large classes in eduation circles and friends still teaching in other states. When it first started being discussed in some places it was discussed as a last resort measure due to teacher shortages. Of course, instead of actually stating that it appears they are trying to pass it off as a good thing instead.

[Impish]

My husband spent first grade in a classroom like that--the open classroom of the future. He didn't learn a thing, it was really loud, and he got a lot of colds. But for some reason the word "open" seems to exert a hypnotic fascination on teachers who want to be progressive and futuristic. Who cares what's open, as long as it is open?

 

Bad ideas never seem to die in education; they just pop up again every 30 years, like zombies.

:iagree::lol:

[ElizabethB]

Uh. . . they already tried this in the 60's and 70's. Didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now?

 

Bad ideas never seem to die in education; they just pop up again every 30 years, like zombies.

:iagree:

 

My elementary school was designed as an open school. By the time I attended, they had come to their senses and added interior walls. The building was still unique, though...it was a huge polygon with so many sides it was almost round.

[Snickerdoodle]

Don't parents get upset about having their kids used as guinea pigs for every nutty idea out there?

[Dobela]

Don't parents get upset about having their kids used as guinea pigs for every nutty idea out there?

Not some of them. They never learned to think for themselves. They also were taught at some point to never question 'experts', authority, or other professionals.

[Impish]

Not some of them. They never learned to think for themselves. They also were taught at some point to never question 'experts', authority, or other professionals.

Or they bought into the idea that this was 'new' and 'better'.

[JennyD]

These are very poor children in an area with persistently high rates of violence, and their parents are not in a position to be picky, to say the least. As bad as this is, I would suspect that it is worlds better than the environment in the children's zoned schools.

[HarbourLights]

Our public middle school in my hometown (grades 6 thru 8) used an open model. No walls or partitions (although rolling coat closets ultimately were put in place by teachers to make a "classroom"), rotating "color groups" for each grade, "pit meetings" in the morning (really just an excuse for us to all socialize and ignore the poor teacher trying to relay the morning "news" to us), mini-courses etc etc. My friends and I have discussed over the years how those grades were "the lost years" for us from an education stand point. I honestly don't believe I learned anything in those three years, as I was busy sliding notes under the coat closets to friends next door and keeping my eye out for friends to talk with or boys that I had a crush on. Needless to say by the mid 90's the whole school had been revamped and good old fashion walls and doors were back in place. I agree that this seems to be an old "trend" that comes full circle every 20 years or so.... Unfortunately these children are being used for the newest version of this "revolutionary technique".

[Sparkle]

Sixty kids is a LOT. I know there is no way I could ever attempt to teach that many kids at once, or even a fraction of those kids if they were all in one big room. I would think it would be demoralizing for most teachers, and over-stimulating for most kids. I don't see how anyone could be expected to function to the best of their ability in that kind of environment. :confused:

[redsquirrel]

In the article is says that most of the kids were from schools that were not doing anything. The teacher said the children were in a 'state of nature' which I thought was a tactful way of putting it.

 

I am guessing this is better and/or safer.

 

What a choice to have to make. My kids are so lucky.

[Joyofsixreboot]

:eek: The mind boggles. You shouldn't create the theory and then go look for the facts.

[yellowperch]

I am disgusted and very sad for those children.

I am also happy the reporter wrote this story, and I am hoping (foolishly perhaps) something will be done to stop this lunacy.

 

Who is this jerk kidding? I do think a private school model--very small seminar style classes in beautiful settings with master teachers teaching difficult and rewarding material--would be a wonderful thing to try with young children from the world these children inhabit.

 

15 kids with 1 teacher each would be better than this madness, obviously.

 

I wonder what the parents, teachers, and this nutty principal think now? Do they like what they see or are they going to blame the mirror?

[bookfiend]

and in the midst of it all they reshuffle the deck every 40 minutes!~ The whole thing is failure in the making, and the children will pay the price of a Harvard grad. student's experiement in educational theory.

[dangermom]

and in the midst of it all they reshuffle the deck every 40 minutes!~ The whole thing is failure in the making, and the children will pay the price of a Harvard grad. student's experiement in educational theory.

The odd thing about that is how they acknowledge that the kids are into whatever they're doing and have a hard time transitioning. So why on earth do they do it every 40 minutes? Why don't they let the kids focus longer instead of tearing them out of it?

[Teachin'Mine]

Imagine if they took those students and teachers and divided them into classrooms. They'd have had a student teacher ratio of 1:15 when they started, or almost 1:12 now. Then they'd have a fighting chance for teaching them what they're there to learn.

 

Good grief.