Why don't schools classify kids by ability instead of age?

[regentrude]

So maybe for 3rd graders doing 7th grade math, they could just do it self-paced at the computer.

 

Yes, but why go to school if that is all the instruction that is happening?

Might as well keep them home then.

 

My guess is in that situation you are really dealing with a trully gifted kid who is going to need a very different attention level than just math challenge. It's too bad but that's the child population whose needs are probably most difficult to meet in a school setting.

 

Yes. And it is precisely the reason why we homeschool.

[Roadrunner]

Yes, but why go to school if that is all the instruction that is happening?

Might as well keep them home then.

 

 

 

Yes. And it is precisely the reason why we homeschool.

 

I agree. The best scenario with a child that gifted is to homeschool.

 

Unfortunately not everybody can. Too many families work two jobs each to put food on the table.

[regentrude]

I agree. The best scenario with a child that gifted is to homeschool.

 

No, not for all. For some, the best environment would be a school where they could be in academic exchange and competition with other students on the same level. Honestly, homeschooling my DD is only second best... I would much rather be able to send her to a school, and she would much rather go. Just not to the one we have in our town :-(

[nrg]

I think pacing and developmental and social concerns are the reason. A child working several years above grade level got there by learning at an increased pace, so the same course with mixed age students would have the slowest older children with the fastest younger ones--and therefore be impossible to pace well. Mixed ages generate different levels and kinds of insight in discussing history and literature, reading ability does not override other kinds of maturity and experience. Young students in community college courses illustrate these ideas well.

[zaichiki]

Well, since in many places teacher pay or their contract renewal is tied to student outcomes, whoever teaches the low-ability students who aren't technically special ed, is going to miss pay rises or be at a higher risk of not keeping their jobs.

 

Ah. Hadn't thought of that. It doesn't work that way where I live. It's almost impossible to oust a bad teacher 'round these parts. Strong union and all that jazz.

[ereks mom]

Hold up. Why is it unfair for a teacher to get below-average students? I taught special ed in my former life. I LOVED those kids. You teach differently, sure, but you're a teacher and it's your job to teach kids. It doesn't matter how advanced the kids are: they still need to be taught. It's not unfair that some teachers teach 1st grade material and some teach 5th. Same deal. If a teacher only wants to teach a certain type of learner I wonder about *why* he/she became a teacher.

 

I wasn't trained as a special ed teacher, and I didn't know the strategies I needed in order to teach kids with learning and/or behavior disorders. I was often completely overwhelmed, and it was very frustrating for me because I tried and tried, but never felt successful.

 

I think the specific issue and your burnout were related to the number of kids and the lack of an aide.

 

:iagree:

 

I would hypothesize that it's unfair that a teacher who actively wants to teach a variety of learners would always get the lowest level. And yes, while it IS their job to teach kids it gets frustrating to always have the kids who are far behind, and to never have a few who are capable of actually getting it after instruction.

 

Yes, this was exactly my point.

 

I think the problem is that in a mainstream classroom, you don't get to adjust what "it" is or how "it" is taught, you just get judged by the standardized test scores that your students get on "it". So if you get a whole class of low-performing but not IEP-worthy students, you're out of luck.

 

This is exactly how I felt. While only a few of my students had IEP's, most did have learning issues, yet I was still expected to teach them the same material that the high achievers were taught. The same tests were administered to both groups, and of course, my students always scored low.

 

Well, since in many places teacher pay or their contract renewal is tied to student outcomes, whoever teaches the low-ability students who aren't technically special ed, is going to miss pay rises or be at a higher risk of not keeping their jobs.

 

:iagree:

 

Ah. Hadn't thought of that. It doesn't work that way where I live. It's almost impossible to oust a bad teacher 'round these parts. Strong union and all that jazz.

 

There are no teacher's unions in this part of the country.

[zaichiki]

There are no teacher's unions in this part of the country.

 

Seriously???

 

When I went to college the union came and gave all the education majors a lecture that was *required attendance.* After the lecture, they passed out info and started signing up new members. This was in the south.

 

What happened to the union?

[southernm]

I haven't read everything, but something caught my eye. As a former PS teacher, I would prefer to have the lower performing class. They have the ability to make the biggest gains, which is what is looked at first when evaluating teachers. It is much more difficult to get gifted students to show gains, since they are so high already!

[ereks mom]

Seriously???

 

When I went to college the union came and gave all the education majors a lecture that was *required attendance.* After the lecture, they passed out info and started signing up new members. This was in the south.

 

What happened to the union?

 

It is my understanding that there are five states that do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states are:

 

South Carolina

North Carolina

Georgia

Texas

Virginia

[Lizzie in Ma]

Classroom management. The idea is that it's easier for a teacher to control a group of 25 kids who are all the same age.

 

Ironically, schools have also taken up the philosophy that it is inherently good to have a "mixed" class of kids of different abilities and education levels, so an ideal classroom would have kids with IQs ranging from 60 to 150, kids who are barely literate with kids reading several grades above their level, etc. Academic educators seem to believe that it will "pull everyone up" by some sort of osmosis. It's a veritable nightmare for the teachers.

 

Also a nightmare for the smarter kids who get ignored by the teachers and used to teach their less fortunate classmates. That was K for my dd, her only year of PS.

[zaichiki]

It is my understanding that there are five states that do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states are:

 

South Carolina

North Carolina

Georgia

Texas

Virginia

 

Wow. I wonder how I missed that info.

Thanks!

[zaichiki]

Also a nightmare for the smarter kids who get ignored by the teachers and used to teach their less fortunate classmates. That was K for my dd, her only year of PS.

 

In our experience, the high-scoring kids who learn quickly in class are prized b/c they are usually not behavior problems, their high test scores bring up the average, and the teacher doesn't have to work very hard b/c they largely "teach themselves." They're also useful, as the pp noted, for helping to teach others.

 

Unfortunately, during all of this, the idea that those high-scoring, quick-learning kids should *also* be privvy to a year of gain for a year of education (just like the other kids) seems to be lost.

 

When you're homeschooling you can give these kids access to a year of gain for a year of education. (I hate it when teachers say that these kids don't make equivalent, or greater, gains. It's simply not true - if they're actually being taught at their challenge level. They deserve to be taught at their challenge level, too!)