You are agreeing with me...lol. I said "Far too hard" not a little tweaking. My point is, stop pigeonholing kids at 5-6yrs old. It's the Freakanomics effect...aka advantage/disadvantaging in a small way as a little kid just gets more pronounced as they get older.
if you think all kids should be taught the same exact thing in the same exact way then you are the one who wants to pigeon hole. If you further think that kids who can't keep up or are bored should be in a different place altogether that is even worse. And I'll repeat would be ILLEGAL. what you are proposing would put education back 50 years.
Again not what I'm saying...quit putting words in my mouth. I'm not "proposing" anything, much less talking about legality. I'm basing it off my experience as a child & parent.
Except no one is pigeonholing. Students are constantly reassessed on their abilities, and changes in instruction are made accordingly.
Maybe so an ideal world, but I certainly was pigeonholed as a child. Why else would I care so much about this & feel it happens? Straight As in public school regular class never got me moved to into the Advanced classes. For example...How am I gonna jump to advanced math (Algebra) in 8th when I was never given the chance for (pre-Algebra) in 7th? The effect is cummulative over the years. I am not advocating that no advanced classes take place or specialized education...BUT I think it's happening too soon & too subjectively...Aka Kindy-1st. That's what I take issue with & why people are now competitive & worried if their kids aren't ahead at that age.
Except no one is pigeonholing. Students are constantly reassessed on their abilities, and changes in instruction are made accordingly.
Maybe so an ideal world, but I certainly was pigeonholed as a child. Why else would I care so much about this & feel it happens? Straight As in public school regular class never got me moved to into the Advanced classes. For example...How am I gonna jump to advanced math (Algebra) in 8th when I was never given the chance for (pre-Algebra) in 7th? The effect is cummulative over the years. I am not advocating that no advanced classes take place or specialized education...BUT I think it's happening too soon & too subjectively...Aka Kindy-1st. That's what I take issue with & why people are now competitive & worried if their kids aren't ahead at that age.
omg. Using your own education as an example of what is wrong with education today is not going to help you. It is not an example of DI. Education today is NOTHING like it was when you were a kid.
I'm still waiting to hear what is bad about kids knowing that DI is happening.
When my twins were in first, one of them was on a beginning kindergarten level. They other was where he should be. He also had updated Ed testing done which showed him on level. I was told they "had to put him in a special Ed room because all the other kids were higher than where they should be." I disagreed. Had a few meetings where I had mediation paperwork there and showed it to the director. She backed down but they put him in a basic skills class for reading which is for kids below level. He has an iep. He was not below level. I want even told this what what they were doing.
As far as my soon to be 1st grader. They tried to pull the same crap. He's reading higher than where he should be but they told me they can't handle him in regular Ed, I'm going to get all mama bear on them if it happens again.
The problem is the expectations aren't reasonable.
When my twins were in first, one of them was on a beginning kindergarten level. They other was where he should be. He also had updated Ed testing done which showed him on level. I was told they "had to put him in a special Ed room because all the other kids were higher than where they should be." I disagreed. Had a few meetings where I had mediation paperwork there and showed it to the director. She backed down but they put him in a basic skills class for reading which is for kids below level. He has an iep. He was not below level. I want even told this what what they were doing.
As far as my soon to be 1st grader. They tried to pull the same crap. He's reading higher than where he should be but they told me they can't handle him in regular Ed, I'm going to get all mama bear on them if it happens again.
The problem is the expectations aren't reasonable.
The expectations are reasonable for the majority of kids. Kids who need more should get more, kids who need support should get support. Education is not a one size fits all model.
Wanted to add my perspective from the Norwegian education system (having attended both Norwegian public school and private international school based on American standards). In Norway, kids are not broken into subgroups, nor given specific instruction based on testing until High School. No grades are given at all until middle school.
To be honest, I think it's a shitty system that pushes mediocrity - those struggling are not given much extra help (unless they have a learning disability) and those who need more of a challenge are held back.
The argument in favor is to avoid the pigeonholing that was mentioned earlier, but having experienced both systems, I find the splitting into groups etc FAR more beneficial to the students.
Wanted to add my perspective from the Norwegian education system (having attended both Norwegian public school and private international school based on American standards). In Norway, kids are not broken into subgroups, nor given specific instruction based on testing until High School. No grades are given at all until middle school.
To be honest, I think it's a shitty system that pushes mediocrity - those struggling are not given much extra help (unless they have a learning disability) and those who need more of a challenge are held back.
The argument in favor is to avoid the pigeonholing that was mentioned earlier, but having experienced both systems, I find the splitting into groups etc FAR more beneficial to the students.
ugh. I typed up this long thoughtful response and then lost it. Sigh.
Your first paragraph does not describe us education right now. It's the exact opposite. And studies suggest you're wrong about your last sentence.
Research has shown that kids who fall behind as early as 1st grade (or kindy? I'm speaking off the cuff from what I've read in the past) have a tendency not to catch up unless there is an intervention. It's doing more of a disservice to give kids who are behind the same instruction as kids who are not.
Maybe with specialized tutoring they can keep up, but that's not a realistic answer for all/most kids. Not everyone has the resources (time, money, parental support) to receive that.
Post by dragonfly08 on Aug 23, 2014 17:04:14 GMT -5
My kid met all published state benchmarks by the end of kindergarten. But she was still at the bottom of her class and struggled hugely when she started 1st grade, because the benchmarks simply aren't up to par with what is taught/expected in our county schools. After consulting with her teacher and the principal (who also reached out to the K teacher from the prior year), we moved DD back to K.
Was I happy about it? Definitely not at first...I felt we'd failed her. I was embarrassed on so many levels (which I own as being all about me and thank goodness I got over it fast). I wondered how a kid could get a perfectly acceptable report card and be on grade level yet still struggle, but there's just so much pressure and competition that the "accepted" standards and the "expected" ones are clearly far apart here.
Turned out in the end to be absolutely the right decision. She needed a different level/amount of instruction than the "typical" kid her age (and she was a young K to begin with, making the cutoff by only a month...her 5th birthday was four days before school started). And guess what? None of the kids noticed beyond maybe asking "why'd you switch classes?" to which an answer of "because" or "my parents wanted me to" was plenty, nobody teased her, no parent I spoke to pigeonholed her in any way. She's now a happy, bright rising 2nd grader who finally hit her stride and wants to go to school. If "demoting" her so that she'd be where she needed to be is what accomplished that, I'm all for it.
I'm so confused. If a student met standards, why were they held back? Was it more social, rather than academic? In my experience, if a student is meeting standard, they aren't even considered for special ed., or being held back. This is why we have standards, so kids don't get placed in the wrong environment.
. I wondered how a kid could get a perfectly acceptable report card and be on grade level yet still struggle, but there's just so much pressure and competition that the "accepted" standards and the "expected" ones are clearly far apart here.
That's what I mean, do you think she would have succeeded if the curriculum was learning to read in 1st grade instead of kindergarten. Why are we pushing these kids so early? I understand that it's the common core standards, but whats the benefit?
No way to know. My response was aimed more at the idea that differentiation/moving a kid down to a more appropriate level is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Sure it's possible, if the curriculum were different/less rigid, that DD would have succeeded more the first time around. FWIW, we live in a state that did not adopt Common Core, so I can't "blame" anything on that.
joenali...if your comment was in response to DDs situation, she wasn't held back. She met standards, was advanced to first grade upon completion of K, and could have stayed there. But she struggled enough so early on that the teacher reached out to me with several valid concerns. Based on that DH and I were the ones who ultimately made the request that she be moved back to a K classroom. For whatever the reason (and that's likely a subject for a whole other thread) there's a clear disconnect, in our county school system at least, between state mandated minimum standards and actual classroom expectations.
That's what I mean, do you think she would have succeeded if the curriculum was learning to read in 1st grade instead of kindergarten. Why are we pushing these kids so early? I understand that it's the common core standards, but whats the benefit?
No way to know. My response was aimed more at the idea that differentiation/moving a kid down to a more appropriate level is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Sure it's possible, if the curriculum were different/less rigid, that DD would have succeeded more the first time around. FWIW, we live in a state that did not adopt Common Core, so I can't "blame" anything on that.
joenali...if your comment was in response to DDs situation, she wasn't held back. She met standards, was advanced to first grade upon completion of K, and could have stayed there. But she struggled enough so early on that the teacher reached out to me with several valid concerns. Based on that DH and I were the ones who ultimately made the request that she be moved back to a K classroom. For whatever the reason (and that's likely a subject for a whole other thread) there's a clear disconnect, in our county school system at least, between state mandated minimum standards and actual classroom expectations.
Wait WHAT? it is almost always in the best interest of the child. Why the fuck else would a teacher do it? **I leave room for a shitty teacher being a jerk in my ALMOST always. For the record, I am not a teacher defender. Yes I am one, but I tend to blast my profession as a whole. But this? What?
. I wondered how a kid could get a perfectly acceptable report card and be on grade level yet still struggle, but there's just so much pressure and competition that the "accepted" standards and the "expected" ones are clearly far apart here.
That's what I mean, do you think she would have succeeded if the curriculum was learning to read in 1st grade instead of kindergarten. Why are we pushing these kids so early? I understand that it's the common core standards, but whats the benefit?
A perfectly acceptable report card that doesn't translate to actual performance sounds like an issue with the report card. (inflated "grades" or whatever they call them at that level in your district)
No way to know. My response was aimed more at the idea that differentiation/moving a kid down to a more appropriate level is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Sure it's possible, if the curriculum were different/less rigid, that DD would have succeeded more the first time around. FWIW, we live in a state that did not adopt Common Core, so I can't "blame" anything on that.
joenali...if your comment was in response to DDs situation, she wasn't held back. She met standards, was advanced to first grade upon completion of K, and could have stayed there. But she struggled enough so early on that the teacher reached out to me with several valid concerns. Based on that DH and I were the ones who ultimately made the request that she be moved back to a K classroom. For whatever the reason (and that's likely a subject for a whole other thread) there's a clear disconnect, in our county school system at least, between state mandated minimum standards and actual classroom expectations.
Wait WHAT? it is almost always in the best interest of the child. Why the fuck else would a teacher do it? **I leave room for a shitty teacher being a jerk in my ALMOST always. For the record, I am not a teacher defender. Yes I am one, but I tend to blast my profession as a whole. But this? What?
I don't understand the vehemence of your response, since IMO we're saying the same thing using different words. I said "sometimes", you said "almost always". My comment was 110% in *support* of a teacher's decision to move down, since I got the impression from pp's that they felt moving down was detrimental and "pigeonholed" the child. The "sure it's possible" part you also bolded (if that was meant to be included) was not related to the teacher moving a child down, but part of myanswer to the question of whether I felt DD might have succeeded if reading and so on wasn't expected until 1st grade rather than K. And FWIW, I'm a former teacher myself.
Wait WHAT? it is almost always in the best interest of the child. Why the fuck else would a teacher do it? **I leave room for a shitty teacher being a jerk in my ALMOST always. For the record, I am not a teacher defender. Yes I am one, but I tend to blast my profession as a whole. But this? What?
I don't understand the vehemence of your response, since IMO we're saying the same thing using different words. I said "sometimes", you said "almost always". My comment was 110% in *support* of a teacher's decision to move down, since I got the impression from pp's that they felt moving down was detrimental and "pigeonholed" the child. The "sure it's possible" part you also bolded (if that was meant to be included) was not related to the teacher moving a child down, but part of myanswer to the question of whether I felt DD might have succeeded if reading and so on wasn't expected until 1st grade rather than K. And FWIW, I'm a former teacher myself.
I took it as "sometimes they do it because its good for the kids" so MOST of the time they are doing it for reasons that are not good for the kids.
That's what I mean, do you think she would have succeeded if the curriculum was learning to read in 1st grade instead of kindergarten. Why are we pushing these kids so early? I understand that it's the common core standards, but whats the benefit?
A perfectly acceptable report card that doesn't translate to actual performance sounds like an issue with the report card. (inflated "grades" or whatever they call them at that level in your district)
But my point was that the report card DID translate to actual performance. And that actual performance is not enough here, which goes back to the OP I suppose, and I'm apparently saying it badly. For example, the state says that grade level is a DRA of 14 by the end of K. DD attained that, so she got a grade indicating that her performance exceeds expectations (as defined by the state Dept. of Ed.) most of the time. But in reality, in a 1st grade classroom in this county, if you don't have a DRA of more like 18-20 when you start the year, you can't keep up. The progress report is very accurate as compared to the standards. The problem isn't with that, it's with the fact that our county curriculum expects students to achieve more than those minimums.
Except no one is pigeonholing. Students are constantly reassessed on their abilities, and changes in instruction are made accordingly.
In my experience in a very small town kids were put into honors, college prep, practical at seventh-grade – and never moved rooms right up until high school graduation. I'm certain that some of the college prep kids could have moved up to honors but no reevaluation's were ever made. This is in the 90s. But in a small school system I have to imagine that that still may exist.
Edit - Whoops now I see I'm not allowed to say that because apparently this doesn't happen to anyone anymore ever.
Except no one is pigeonholing. Students are constantly reassessed on their abilities, and changes in instruction are made accordingly.
In my experience in a very small town kids were put into honors, college prep, practical at seventh-grade – and never moved rooms right up until high school graduation. I'm certain that some of the college prep kids could have moved up to honors but no reevaluation's were ever made. This is in the 90s. But in a small school system I have to imagine that that still may exist.
I teach at a school that has 80 kids per grade, max. And we move kids all the time. Even mid year. They get moved all over the place.
I attended the same school in the 90s. I started in zero honors classes, and eventually ended up in 9 AP classes. Movement was normal back then too. Every school is different.
Differentiation is, sadly, done incorrectly some places. But if done well, it is a great thing.
Except no one is pigeonholing. Students are constantly reassessed on their abilities, and changes in instruction are made accordingly.
In my experience in a very small town kids were put into honors, college prep, practical at seventh-grade – and never moved rooms right up until high school graduation. I'm certain that some of the college prep kids could have moved up to honors but no reevaluation's were ever made. This is in the 90s. But in a small school system I have to imagine that that still may exist.
Edit - Whoops now I see I'm not allowed to say that because apparently this doesn't happen to anyone anymore ever.
What is DI?
differentiated instruction-
Listen- you can talk about what happened when you were a kid all day long and shake your cane at us. :-p. But the fact is that education is constantly changing. So when you're talking about ed. A quarter century ago, practically nothing is the same. And unfortunately for you and Louisa may, it is vastly different from even 5 years ago due to ccss.
I have one advanced (young) child and one average (young) child, and I absolutely do not want them taught at the same level; the former would be bored to tears and the later would give up in frustration. This is NOT the same as saying that I don't want my average student challenged. I also don't think the better students should be punished academically to cater to my average child's needs.
With true differentiation the ability groups are fluid. For example, there are many skills within reading. A child might be in a more advanced group for work on reading fluency but a group with more intensive support for comprehension. And when the child has learned that skill he no longer requires the smaller, more intensive, group.
This should be constantly happening throughout the year.