After the debate yesterday I got to thinking about classes for students that are smarter (like AP and pace) and vocational/regular classes for the "stupid kids," and how those types of classes made me feel when I was in high school. When I graduated from UVic last June with my BA I never ever once thought in my high school career that I would have ever graduated from UVic; I would never be smart enough for a school like that! Looking back I don't think I was dumb or stupid, I was just never "smart" like my friends and I therefore felt one step below them. I felt in my "normal" classes I worked harder than any of my friends who were in AP classes or pace and never got the recognition I figured I deserved. My friends spent most of their English classes spitting spit balls and watching movies....why? Because they were smarter and not being challenged in a "normal" classroom. Granted going to a high school with a grad class of over 1,300 students there are bound to be a ton of kids smarter than you. I remember in my grade 12 year they asked me to be a part of a pace class that met during our lunch break. So I went the first day and was basically told that those of us in the class could finally make it to pace (aka we were smart enough) but they still did not have room in the regular classroom and therefore we had to meet during our lunch hour. I thought how rude is that because you (the teacher) are essentially telling us that we are almost smart enough but not quite, so meet at lunch! Needless to say I continued with CAPP 12!
Anyways after the debate I really started to think do specialized classes really work: Classes for the exceptionally smart, classes for "normal" kids and vocational classes for the "stupid" kids? Or is it up to the teacher to take on the challenges within the classroom and try to facilitate and accommodate all types of learners. I am not quite sure if I believe in separate classes depending on intelligence, however I am quite sure of how I felt in high school and perhaps that means more?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks Lidnsey, I don't believe in separate classes. I feel that having extra tutoring options for the kids who are not catching on as quickly and having some thing along the lines of an optional math club for those who were more advanced. In the normal classroom I feel that it is important to have students of all different abilities so that they can help each other. In my school if you were behind one of the students in your class who wasn't helped you and it put you on the same playing field. It didn't make anyone feel like they didn't belong.
ReplyDeleteIn my Gr. 12 year they introduced and AP math class. I didn't register in it, but got an A+ in the normal math class and I felt like it was discreted by those who barely passed the AP class. They just said it wasn't in AP so it didn't matter. I felt like it really divided the students and also made the students who struggle feel even worse when they weren't even presented with the option of entering AP math. In turn I know it made a few students even doubt that they could go on to college or university which I though was very unfortunate.
Just to play devil's advocate, what if you were teaching a grade 11 math class, and you had 3 students who were clearly ready for first or second year university mathematics, and 3 students who had 'slipped through the cracks' who are obviously struggling with concepts they should have mastered in grade 7/8? And in the middle you had 15 other students at the appropriate level. Would that classroom be a harmonious environment where students are constantly supporting one another? Maybe. It could also be a complete nightmare.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a position on this debate. Facing a wide range in student's abilities is going to be a very reoccurring challenge throughout our careers. I will suggest that topics like this show just how important it is to build up your technical skills set as much as possible so you have the resources you need to teach in an environment like this.
As someone who was put into gifted sections in elementary school and then took AP chem and math in high school I have to say I never felt special. These classes were smaller than a normal class but all we were shown was material we would be seeing in the years to come if we did continue along. As a result of taking AP math I found first year calculus very boring and easy because I had seen it before. I think giving students a chance to be introdunced to topic they are going to see in university is a good thing and having classes that allow that is good but having classes for the "slow students" where only "slow students" go well I don't know. I understand the advanced classes and if the others one help then allow them. I think a very in-depth study needs to be done to see if they help or do more harm.
ReplyDeleteSeparating students with different needs in Math, Science, and English is one thing, but what about P.E.? If I had one piece of advice for the younger version of me, as I entered school, it would be to stay committed to sports. Then I got to thinking, “How would I have specifically changed my activity, and participation in P.E class?” My most memorable moments in grade 10 P.E. were on the side of the soccer field, with a few other students, running back, and forth, while never once really playing. I knew the reason I did not play was that the other, more skilled students, intimidated me, due to my lack of skill. If I could change one thing while I went to school, I would have middle school (grade 8-10) gym classes either not be co-ed, or separate students according to skill. During last class when we played the role of SD#99, there was a lot of talk of separating students to meet their needs. What would the parents, and students think if SD#99 were to propose to make an advanced, and basic gym class, or should everyone just continue to play together?
ReplyDeleteIn response to the post about the gym classes, I went to a school that seperated gym classes by gender for grades 9 and 10 and then by preference in grades 11 and 12. Grade 11 and 12 PE was awesome because only the kids who wanted to be there were in the class and that made it a much higher level of sport. On the other hand, I hated being in all girls classes because I found it boring. This debate over whether or not to split students up in any subject seems to come down to the fact that as educators we have a responsibility to challenge and push each student to reach their full potential while at the same time not classifying students and only allowing them the oppurtunity to reach a predetermined potential based on which class they are enrolled in. I think that PE classes should be split up because the level of the class is entirely dependent on the level at which students perform against one another. In acedemic classes, the segregation is not so pronounced because competition is not explicit. Still, a class with all different levels of ability could be very difficult to manage in that some students need a lot longer to complete projects and for the students who do not need much time do you give them more work while other students finish their other work? I think that kind of situation breeds whinning. When I was in high school I took mostly "enriched" courses but in I took a regular SS11 class. We got 9 days of class time to research and prepare an essay outline for an in class essay. It only took me 2 or 3 days to finish so I spent at least 6 days playing computer games in the library. At the time I thought it was awesome because I did not have to do much work but thinking about that from a teachering perspective, that class did not challenge me enough. All this being said, I think that there is a lot of value in splitting up classes according to ability but I also think we need to be very careful that we do not limit students by classifying their ability in one of two or three very subjective levels.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of segregated classes seems to be a complex debate. The term "segregation" is almost a dirty word, as we saw from the outraged "parents" during our debate. Personally, I have been flip-flopping on a stance.
ReplyDeleteI can see a need to challenge students who may be ahead of the rest of the class. I know that this a problem faced even at the elementary level. And as Colin pointed out, it is good for students who wish to go on to university to have the option of taking advanced classes that prepare them for a university career.
The flip side is that it can create a culture of academic "classes". Students that are put into lower level courses, or even good students who are not put in to the advanced classes, may feel that their opportunities are limited and that they are not as smart as their peers in the higher classes.
My high school was relatively small and did not have very many differentiated courses. The exception was that we had applied and principles math (principles being the university required math course). In retrospect, I am very glad that (with the exception of math 11 and 12) my classes were integrated. There is a level of selection just through course selection but in most classes it was a mix of all different students at the school.
If we view school as a microcosm for learning to interact in our society then it is beneficial to have fully integrated classes. The public school system is one of the only places where people from many different backgrounds within your community have to interact. I believe that it is important for students to learn to interact and work with people from different backgrounds and with different skills at school. It prepares students to be citizens of the global community, rather than an academic elite. The value of the school system extends beyond simply teaching students the curriculum. School is a place for students to learn about the world, how to interact with their peers, to work within a system, and many other things.
In summation, I don't know. Should we aim to meet the needs of individuals more specifically through segregated classes or should we look at education more holistically and recognize diversity in many different forms within the classroom?
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article I was really caught with many of the same comments as everyone here, but I'll try to throw my own angle on things. One thing I noticed before I came back into university was the struggle schools were having with the streaming issue. Many people I've worked with over the past few years single this out as a cause of a lot of trouble in their own school experience. Personally, I agree in essence with the article: mass schooling systems on the whole are just not very good with dealing with a variety of students with different needs.
I think in the end, as a teacher, you have to maintain your own awareness of students in your class. If there's a number of students who seem to really struggle with heavy academic reading and writing subjects, but do well in comprehension through active learning modes and working with their hands, then try to talk to them about it in a respectful way. Many students get forced down and educational path dominated by 'core' subjects that are heavy on math, language arts, sciences and social studies because they are too often given a 'higher' value than woodworking, metalworking, art and music.
A number of friends of mine had great success through a scholarship program, which pretty much streamlined interested participants into the skilled trades. No one would say being a electrician, finishing carpenter or a mechanic is a bad outcome for an education system. Its amazing how often people don't choose these programs, however, often due to parental pressure and a misguided notion that everyone will become a doctor.
I think the notion of the failure of streaming has a lot more to do with loaded cultural values about class than most people would like to admit. I'm not arguing that there should not be some basic knowledge of math, language arts, social studies and the sciences. Nor am I arguing the existence of students who really struggle with the school system as a whole, for a variety of reasons. However, in many cases, the answer lies in personal awareness on the part of teachers and parents, and the ability to construct a flexible curriculum which gives students their preferences while retaining critical academic elements whose loss would have long-term ramifications on the future of the student.