Doug Mann wrote: > And ability-grouping is not the best way to accommodate individual > differences in academic ability / skill levels, in my opinion. Adapting the > curriculum to the skills level of a group isn't the same as individualizing > the curriculum (course of study). The reading curriculum, for example, can > be individualized to a considerable degree because reading is an activity one > can do independently after acquiring some basic reading skills. That's what > graded reading materials and computer-assisted learning activities > (tutorials) are for. >
Ideally, you might want each student to have their own teacher and their own customized curriculum. That's what homeschooling is all about, but the limited resources of the public schools dictate some other solution. I think that in general we should try to match the curriculum as closely as possible to a student's needs and abilities. The question is how best to do that. As Mr. Mann points out there are two basic alternatives: you can place students in a class that matches their ability, or you can try to individualize instruction within one class. There are a number of ways to structure the latter approach. 1) You can use what's called computer aided instruction (CAI). This approach is expensive and has never been as successful as we would like. 2) You can do the same thing using print materials, which is less expensive and depending of the instructional technique maybe effective. 3) You can use some type of cooperative learning, where students help each other. This approach has been very controversial because while it is helpful for low ability students, it does very little for advanced students. The decision that you have to make for the third approach is whether you are willing to sacrifice the the achievement of the stronger students for that of the weaker ones. And, this is not a racial issue because there are stronger and weaker students of all races. The question is, "Do you feel that the public school system has the right to require that stronger students sacrifice for the benefit of the weak?" I don't believe they do. Beyond that, I believe that cooperative learning inhibits strong students from being all they can be, and in turn hurts the society by limiting the contributions they might ultimately make. My solution is to not place the burden of teaching on students, but on teachers. So, I support the alternative of placing a student in a class that matches their abilities (in a way this supports the theory of multiple intelligences). This is not quite the same as "tracking" where students are placed on a slow or fast track and are unable to switch later on. Some students will be strong in some areas and weak in others. > In my opinion, it's better to have one primary classroom teacher for a group > of students in grades K-4 than to divide their time between several different > classroom teachers. One teacher can get to know one group of students better > than several groups. It is also important to integrate the curriculum across > subject areas in grades K-4 because the progress a child makes in one area is > closely linked to progress in others. This is especially true in the area of > reading. And it is necessary to set and achieve certain minimum expectations > for reading skills development in order to keep a group of children on a > particular track, such as a college-preparatory track. I agree that it's better to have one PRIMARY classroom and teacher. That is, that students will spend most of their time with one teacher and one group of students. > There is also the issue of motivation. The assignment of students entering > the first grade to a not-ready-to-learn-how-to-read class reflects a > teacher's estimate of their ability to learn how to read. Teachers can be really horrid at evaluating the abilities of their students, that is why the placement of students should also be done with standardized tests (that is a combination of teacher and quantitative methods), that are integrated into system. > The students who > are designated as low-ability learners get the message that they are stupid. > They figure they can't succeed, so why try? Well, some students are slower than others in some areas. That's reality. The idea is to enable them to achieve success at a level that is obtainable for them. So, Mr. Mann what do you do with kids who just don't get it before it's time to move on to the next grade? Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
