Conquering the Blog April 16, 2007

I am sure that my title is quite an exaggeration, but I would like to think that way.   When given the assignment of keeping up with a continual posting blog I wasn’t sure I would be able to accomplish the task.  I am not a technology whiz, so I didn’t even know if I would get it set up properly.  Even after that the other problem was keeping up with posts for two classes.  I am not all about the Internet and searching, or even social networking.  I have Facebook, but I get on once a month maybe.  So, this was somewhat of an accomplished feat for me. 

Throughout the semester I have taken a look at the issue of tracking.  I had thought about the issue prior to covering this topic, but I didn’t take the time to look at much research.  The only real life example that I could relate to was my own high school experiences where things were tracked but kids chose the classes they wanted to be in and were not denied.  This did create classes with “smart” students and classes with “slackers”.  After looking at all multiple sources of research I am still sitting on the fence with tracking.  I know that it is not necessary to separate students.  I think that the more advanced students can still develop skills in a class with multiple ranges of intelligence.  There is so much they can benefit from in these rooms.  Also, I do not like the fact that teachers who teach lower tracked classes often go in with the perception that these students are not capable of much.  I think it is necessary to control this type of behavior by teachers, but it is sad that there are teachers who would even feel this way.  There is an element of leveling the playing field that is necessary because students are often placed in lower track because of their race or economic status.  This is the major problem that I have with tracking. The other problem is that the lower tracked classes are often thought of as students who will not attend college and need more vocational skills instead. 

I am not completely opposed to all forms of tracking.  Students need to be placed at a educational level that is challenging to them.  They may need a more advanced curriculum than they were placed may have been placed in and they should be moved to a higher level class.   If I was a parent I would want to make sure that my students were being challenged and I would demand that.  There are other things such as after school activities could help this need. 

I would actually stay away from the term tracking and try and let it be the student’s choice.  I would like to see the option for them to pick which classes they would like to attend.  This was the idea in my high school.  They did not deny anyone form going into a higher level class as long as they had taken the proper classes to get there.  This seemed to work well and it still created diverse classrooms.  It was very worthwhile for me to take a look at this topic because it is a question that is constantly being asked.  I want to be informed when I am asked my opinion on the issue and by doing this blog assignment I have a resource for finding information.

A New Experience April 16, 2007

I have always thought it would be “cool” to be a participant in a conference.  Every year I traveled with my Dad to Traverse City for the MIAAA conference.  I thought it was interesting how all of these A.D.’s chummed around with each other, picking the presentations they wanted to attend.  My only conference experience was a Women in Leadership conference and you didn’t get to pick you room.  So, obviously I was excited about the opportunity to make my own selection.  Well, to be perfectly honest, I was not good at choosing.  Afterward, I wish I had chosen other presentations.  It wasn’t that the ones I attended were bad–but I wasn’t captivated with any new of enlightening information.

I truely enjoyed the keynote speech given by Jacqueline Woodson.  I have not had the chance to read any of her work, but the way she read the exceprts made me want to go out a buy a copy.  She was a great presenter.  She threw in some jokes, and got a couple laughs here and there.  I actually liked her story about her brother and father, the bird by bird quote.  I think I relate to that because I look at the whole and think to myself, “How am I ever going to get this done.”  I am always reminding myself to take it one thing at a time or I get overwhelmed (i.e. two pedagogy projects due this week).  Another point she made was to write without being afraid.  I often over-analyze my writing too much and end up taking out pieces I am just not sure about.  Finally, I liked what she said about asking what the story is trying  to say not what the story is about.  I will remind my students of this when they are reading.  Instead of looking at the surface level (what is happening) they should look deep (why is this happening) into what the author is getting at. 

The first break-out session that I went to was the Engaging Literature Lovers and Reluctant Readers Through Literature Circles and I will admit that this left something to be desired.  I think it is because we have discussed the topic in 311 on a more detailed extent than they did in their one hour.  I thought it was going to touch on more ways to get reluctant readers involved, a topic I am very interested in, but I think more time was spent on the literature lovers.  There were three students from Portage Northern who discussed their after school literature circle that they have with their teacher.  They love to read and the extra, deeper conversations that they get at this time.   I think this is a great idea and all the parties involved seem to benefit from the discussions, but these students love reading and will continue to read either way.  What about the kids who are not attending and do not even read the books required for class.  The other activity they did that I believe was supposed to hint at this was writing down the reading activities we had to do, followed by the reading that we wanted to do.  The point of this was trying to show that it works if you allow students to do a little bit of both.  They can read the required texts, but at the same time they should have something they enjoy reading.  When there is extra time here and there teachers should give them the opportunity to take out this extra text.   I did think this was a great idea, but I would like to incorporate more of the “extra” texts into my lessons.   After watching the presentation, which they did a good job for the time they had, I am even more grateful for the wealth of information and knowledge that I have gained from taking ENG 310 and 311 this semester.  I defiantly feel one step ahead of the game in this area.

 The other session that I attended was the Acing the Interview.  Obviously this isn’t related directly to English education, but I thought that since I am only a year away from the process I might pick up some helpful hints from the presenters that I hadn’t yet heard.  Unfortunately that was not necessarily the case.  The presenters were organized and they knew what they were going to do and had done research to back up their points.  They had surveyed a considerable amounts of high school principals.  I thought that most of the information was common knowledge.  I know that I need to dress to impress and I know I should be informed about the school I am interviewing at.  After they went through a series of tips and what principals expect we broke off into smaller groups to do mock interviews.  One participant asked another a question off a list and we discussed the reply.  This did not get much deeper than surface level either.  I was happy with the sample list of questions because I think it may help me prepare for an interview and random questioning. 

Overall, for the presentations I went to I thought the presenters did what was expected of them.  They were well organized and did a good job presenting.  Like I said early, I would blame the lack of new information learned on myself for presentation choices.  As I talked to fellow classmates, I wish I had attended some of the sessions they attended.  They filled me in on some great information.   I did have a good overall experience for my first time attending the Bright Ideas Conference.  I really enjoyed the keynote and I would love to return next year.  I think I made rookie mistake in my selection and I will do a better job of that next year.

The Root of the Problem April 13, 2007

As the semester has progressed I have looked at both sides of the argument to tracking.  This post will look at it from a different angle.  This article is actually from the UK, but I believe that the same concepts still apply.  The article as a whole is about gun problems in the UK.  About a week before this article was published there had been a shooting involving four black males.  The government now is trying to get at the root of the problem to see what can be done to control gun violence.  The interesting part of the article is when they take a look at the educational system and what effects it may have on the problem.  The overall point of the section on schooling basically says that teachers suppress the development of minority students by begging them as behavioral problems prematurely.   They peg this as institutionalized racism.  The result of this by the numbers is as follows:

Black children are three times more likely than white children to be prematurley excluded from school and five times less likely to be included in well-funded “gifted and talented” programs in schools.

These numbers are the same type of numbers we are battling in the United States.  In the UK they are realizing how these numbers are effecting the future lives of the students.  I also thought it was interesting that the article points out that there was a government leak that said they were aware of the institutionalized racism that exists.  This leak was later denied by certain government officials.  So, they know if exists and they are doing what about it.   This type of information is what turns me off to the whole idea of tracking.  We should in no way help promote this type of racism.

Other research that was equally shocking has to do with the way the teachers are managing their classrooms.  With so much training focused on this area one would think that teachers had a good idea on how to do this equally.  The article gives a different point of view on the subject.  It says:

A lot of research shows the tendency among teachers to fall into the trap of problematizing individual students, parents, students, families, areas, and forgein languages as a reaction to the inability of teacher unions and the left more generally to mount any notable defense on the level of ideas and organization of, “progressive education”.

The teachers do not use a real life approach with the students and they are not concerned with how the home lives might affect their behavior in the classroom.  The argument is the same in the UK as it is in the US.  The teachers are so busy trying to teach to the standardized test and the different regulations that they do not take the time to do any discussion on the social issues that may be influencing the students in their room.  This is a huge mistake made by teachers.  I think that this just goes back on the ability of the teachers.  They have to be able to get to the students on their level no matter what material they are teaching.  There has to be some element that can help tie the material to the students lives.   This way the teachers will learn more about the students and they may not be so quick to make judgements about their abilities.   The problem there coincides with the problems with NCLB in the US. 

Under this governments selective regime there would be an active disincentive for schools to accept students with more educational needs:  they get more money for being “beacon schools”, and teachers are on performace related pay.

This may be the root of the whole problem.  The teachers are concerned with the student’s performance on the standardized tests and nothing else because the results are reflected in their pay.  It seems like everything relates to the final product.  The teachers teach to the test.  Therefore, students with other issues that cannot relate to standardized tests score low on the tests.  The teachers then dismiss these generally colored, or lower class students as behavior problems.  These are the same students who end up leaving school early.  Thus, these students are on the streets and not in school.  Now, I know that I just made large jumps and it is a generalization, but they are all logical connections. 

This article shows ushow everything is connected.  Teachers perceptions can have an effect on student performance.  They have the power to help these students and they need to realize the important role they play.  Teachers need to realize that every student has potential to be gifted and every student is talented.  

Poverty, Crime, and Institutional Racism

February 23, 2007

Workers’ Liberty

Full Article

A View From the Other Side March 14, 2007

My mind has been racing with the tracking issue ever since our English 310 class had a great discussion on the subject.  I always considered myself to be an open person on the topic, but when we started discussing I was surprised that I felt very strongly about the usefulness of tracking.  I started to wonder why I felt this way, and I now I just had a very sheltered opinion on the subject.  Sure, I have read numerous articles on the topic, but none that made me think as hard as the one I came across today.  Actually, it is not an article per-say, but it is a radio commentary by a Curtis High School (Staten Island, New York) student named Jaimita Haskell.  She took a stand against the system by pointing out a negative effect it had on her high school experience. 

Jaimita admits that in middle school she was not the most motivated student and therefore she really didn’t take the time to think about what repercussions her effort and attitude would have on her future.  So, upon entering high school she was placed in all of the mainstream classes.  This is how she describes her classes:

But at Curtis, I was put into mainstream classes, where the challenge was focusing on my work while someone hummed a song they were listening to, or threw a paper at the teacher, or found out what happened on TV last night.

This is not the challenge that we would like our students to have.  This was not her only issue.  She also noticed the effort that her teachers were putting into the students in these mainstream classes.  There is a major problem with this sad reality.  Teachers may believe that when they are slacking on performance, students to not notice, especially the students who are in the low-track classes, but Jaimita proves that this is not true. 

Like, when you’re in mainstream classes, like, teachers don’t care, like, if you’ve got it or not. Like they only see people that’s in the front, or something.

Next she talks about how when a teacher took interest in her, the results spoke for themselves.  Her grades went up and she was recommended for an SIS History Class.  This is the way she elaborates on her brief experience:

 ”It was a whole other habitat. I got this teacher, Mr. Buxbaum, who could turn your worst subject into your best one. We got brand new books that crackled when you opened them and everything. If there was a debate going on, they’d raise their hands and say, “Well, I can understand your opinion, but, In mainstream, they’ll be shouting about your baby’s mother’s sister by the time the discussion ends. I was liking Mr. Buxbaum’s class, doing my homework, participating, you know. (Sounds of noisy school corridors come up and continue beneath the next segment.) But just as I was getting started, I got kicked out. “

Jaimita got kicked out of the class because of an overcrowding issue.  Since she was not in the entire tracked program, but was just in it for History, she was one of the first ones to go.   This also happened to a close friend of hers.   The move devastated her.

The day I find out I was dropped from the SIS program, I had a why attitude. Like, Why are you doing this to me?? I was mentally sick from the roller coaster. It brought me to the top, where I could see myself going to a good college. Then whomp-whomp it dropped me to the bottom, where I could see myself going nowhere.

Fortunately enough, Jaimita was no longer the type of student to sit back and let someone else control her education.  She started researching the issue, and then created the radio broadcast.  At this point her principle decided to do something about it and she was placed in the advanced placement program. 

But what about the other students who are capable of the higher level work and just do not have the platform or are shy?  I now see that with some of these programs students are falling through the cracks.  Many are capable of a better education and they deserve a better education.  It is not fair to put these students in mainstream classes as freshman because counselors and teachers do not believe they are college bound.  The reality is that these students will not receive the best possible education and that is not right.  Every student deserves a teacher that cares and is truly working for the benefit of all students, not just the labeled “smart” kids. 

This story really made me think about the other students who did not get placed in the higher level classes.  I was lucky enough to be able to be in any class I wanted to take, my grades permitted me.  It is interesting to hearanother point of view of a student who was hurt by the system and did something about it.  It makes me wonder how many other students there are, just like Jaimita.  Students that are unchallenged and not believed in.  How many students are the public school systems intellectually failing due to predetermined positions, lazy teachers, and “mainstream” education?

“Tracking in Schools”

Jaimita Haskell

Aired on WNYC Radio and NPR in October of 2002

Full Article

Why Hold Them Back? February 28, 2007

I was excited that the class discussion today revolved around my blog topic of tracking.  A question posed by a student in the class tied in with the idea of trying to distinguish what really is equal or unequal in tracking.  The article that I looked at today began with a quote by a very famous second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.

“There is nothing as inherently unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.”

Now, I am not sure what particular context this quote was given in back in the 18th century, but I can be almost certain that he was not talking about tracking in the public school system.  But, it is the perfect quote to describe the way the author, Frances Dubner, of the article titled “Gifted Students Need Our Support” feels.   It was also a point that I myself was wrestling with in class today.  Is it fair to possibly be holding the gifted children in our schools back because we are afraid that by separating them we may be discouraging or down-playing the efforts of the lower level students.  In her article Frances says,

“In 1993, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley declared, “The United States is squandering one its most precious resources — the gifts, talents, and high interests of many of its students.” Sadly, Riley’s observations have not been heeded; nor have his recommendations been implemented.”

Frances mentions NCLB as a possible supporter of tracking, but says that it has not done anything to avoid leaving behind America’s bright students.  She believes that this was not the intended purpose of NCLB, but then again not many of the intended purposes of NCLB have actually been accomplished.   Frances believes that nothing is being done to make sure that we, as a nation and as teachers, are working to challenge the bright students in order to turn out future leaders of the world.  I would agree with this.  I do not think that this means others get left behind.  I think that all students need to be challenged.  Frances stated,

“Admittedly, we should lift the learning levels of those students who struggle, but it must not be at the expense of those who crave learning opportunities that challenge them to utilize their skills and expand their minds. Bright students too often languish in classrooms where they already know the content and are bored.”

If schools do not like the idea of having completely separate classes for the different learning levels, they do not have too.  I think that there are ways to work within a classroom with different levels.  I also think that at the lower age levels it helps students to be mixed with all ability levels because everyone can benefit socially.  At that age I think that it is a good thing for the students who understand to help the ones that do not.  Often, elementary classrooms will be set up in groups.  A teacher could make sure that there are various ability levels in the group, and therefore the students will be able to work together and I think that future leaders will emerge.  That is not a bad thing to have happen and it can prevent the more advanced students from being bored.  They are helping and creating relationships with others in the class that they may not talk to if they were separated into the same ability groups.  I do not think that students should always be placed in the “teacher” position.  They are also there to learn and they need the classroom teacher to push and challenge them to expand their minds.

There are certain times when I think that separate classrooms are needed.  I know that when I was in high school I did benefit by going into classrooms that had students of my same ability.  Those students wanted to be there and they were interested in the work.  I think that half of my frustration in the required classes was that my teachers had to spend half of the class telling students to sit up, pay attention, follow along, and it was taking away from other’s educational experiences and I do not think that is equal.  Why should students who want to learn suffer?  This does not mean let the others go to the way side.  It is important to make sure that all students are improving and no one thinks that the teachers have given up on them, or do not care about their success, but,

“The emphasis on raising the level of underachievers should not be at the expense of our best and brightest.”

As I commented in class, I believe that the real struggle with this issue is getting teachers to make sure that they are equally interested in the success and improvement of all students–whether the class they are teaching is advanced or lower leveled.  They have to make sure that they are making the students stretch their minds and that the work is not mundane.  Teachers cannot have any prepositions that they bring into any classroom.  I do not necessarily think that all tracking is bad.  There are numerous ways to mix the kids so that they are still socially in contact with all students, and in high school it isn’t as if the students stay with the same twenty kids all day.  As the class found out today, there is no simple answer or explanation to solve the problems of tracking.  It is a system that will keep evolving and it is the teachers responsibility to make sure students do not fall through the cracks.  

So if it is unequal of track kids because minorities or low-income fall behind, and it is unequal to hold the gifted back–the question still remains as to what is equal?  Is there a middle ground? 

“Gifted Students Need Our Support”

Frances S. Dubner

February 12th, 2007

Full Article (no longer in the archive)

A Decline in Numbers February 26, 2007

When looking at the new articles fed through Google Reader, I decided to take a break from the for or against articles and look at a situation in which tracking has already been utilized.  I found an article printed on February 13th, 2006 about the gifted programs in Gary, Indiana.  There has been a gifted and talented program in Gary for quite some time now, but the issue is that the numbers in the program are rapidly declining.  Actually the numbers for most of Northwest Indiana show that the amount of students in these programs are dropping.

One of the problems with keeping the numbers high is the way they place the students into the programs.  They often are testing them, almost along the lines of a standardized test.  Administrators are finding out that this may not be the best way to admit students.  Honestly, I would think that this assumption is a fairly obvious fact, but apparently it has taken them five years to figure it out.  In Gary, of the 65 students that were enrolled in the districts program in the 5th grade (2000), roughly seventy percent of these students have dropped out.  The testing to get in and other outside influences, such as family reasons are all contributing to this problem (many of these students have responsibilities at home that need to be taken care of).  Bob Koval, the district coordinator has spoken on the issue.

“A child may not score well on a test, but be highly analytical or otherwise gifted. It’s important we find that out. Some students — 10, 11 years old — basically run the household, care for children, budget and cook. They are learning by surviving.”

Consistently having a lower number of students in these advanced programs is not a trend that the administration and teachers in Indiana are happy to see.  The programs have been beneficial and they would like to keep them working and filled with students.  The solution that they are coming up with is to expand the definition of gifted and talented in order to incorporate a greater number of students.  The hope is that more students would qualify under a broader definition.  Special incentives are also being offered.  The school used a 13,000 dollar grant to buy laptops, to enable the gifted students to accomplish more digital work.  They are trying to devote more time to these programs in and out of school. 

If these types of incentives and even the chance to be in a gifted and talented program is offered, I think that it is a great way to get more students involved and excited about what they are doing in a classroom.  Margaret Hanson, an instructor in the gifted and talented program is seeing results such as these.  She said,

“Word is getting around. Children are thrilled.”

 Atitudes such as these would be amazing to get out of students.  If getting them new material and challenging them to dig deeper into their intellect is what it takes to get them excited than it is something that we must do.   I think that this will probably be one of the hardest parts about being an educator.  Keeping the kids involved and working on items that challenge them is not easy and it will be work. 

The purpose of looking at this article and looking at a district that is fighting to keep it’s gifted program was to show that they can be very positive.  I think this article helps show one the programs implemented and show that the results will speak for themselves.  The results are why Gary is doing numerous things to attempt to keep the program going and keep the students involved.  They are past the debate about whether or not the programs are good.  They know they are, and they do not want to loose them.  These programs give the students a self-esteem boost.  They know that they are worth the extras and the challenges.  They know that they are capable of doing higher level work and that mind-set is so important to have.  I commend schools like Gary for keeping up the fight, and not letting the students slip into mundane and unchallenging work.

“Local Academic Gifted Programs Decline”

Sharlonda L. Waterhouse

February 13th, 2006

Full Article

A Greasy Irony February 19, 2007

It must be irony.  When I went to bed Wednesday night I was feeling pretty fat.  Then, I show up for class on Thursday and on the agenda is the movie “Super Size Me”.   Wow, now I feel even fatter.  On Wednesday, time became an issue and in my rush from teaching, to the mall, and quickly back to the school to make a bus time I stopped at McDonald’s to grab a quick lunch.  I was hungry and that was the only food place on the way back to the school that would take less than five minutes to grab.  I am not a fast food junky.  This was the first time I had eaten there in probably three months.   Then, on the hour and a half bus trip home, the only restaurant on the path was McDonald’s.  Obviously, the bus stopped and all three teams and coaches got off to eat.  How awful!  My only two meals of the day were chosen from a McDonald’s menu. 

After watching “Super Size Me” I felt bloated.  This was my first experience seeing the documentary and if the purpose of the movie is to make it’s viewers cringe at the thought of fast food, then it accomplished the goal.  Personally, I now am afraid of fast food.  But the bigger question to me found in the movie is, where does personal responsibility ends and where does coporate responsibility begins?  Can we blame fast food corporations for the fact that the United States has now become the fattest country in the nation?  In a review of the movie author David Foucher states a few facts with the same question. 

37% of American children and adolescents are carrying too much fat and 2 out of every three adults are overweight or obese. Is it our fault for lacking self-control, or are the fast-food corporations to blame?

I enjoyed the documentary created by Morgan Spurlock.  He is a funny guy and he came up with a good way of showing the effects of fast food on the human body, but this is not groundbreaking.  Americans know the effects of fast food.  I am a personal responsibility type of person.  I do think that we, as adults, have the power to make decisions relating to a healthy lifestyle.  Ah yes, the question of the child.  Children are the target of ads, but I have never known a six year old to get in the car and drive to McDonald’s.  I feel that at one point an adult makes the final decision in where and what to eat.  Sure, it is hard to tell children no sometimes, but if your child asked to drink fruit flavored poison you would tell them no.  Yes, McDonald’s taste good, but if you are truly afraid of it being detrimental to your children’s health than they would be told no. 

I know that I chose to eat at McDonald’s twice in one day.  If I would have made a little more time and not tried to go to the mall in-between than I would have been able to go home and eat a healthier lunch.  Even if McDonald’s was the only my option I could have chosen a salad (with no dressing).  I could have ate one of the fruit cups (I love the madrain oranges).  There are healthier choices on the menu.  It is a personal choice.  The corporation of McDonalds was not twisting my arm. 

This film may be used as critical pedagogy, but it wouldn’t be one of my first choices.  It does look at a topic and challenge the “oppressiveness” of the corporations, but most of this movie was spent watching him eat food, and showing the obvious effects of it.  We knew that without exercise and limiting his steps he was going to gain weight.  I need to see something a little more groundbreaking and then some sort of summary of what to do about it.  In a review, Sean Burns stated: 

 Given the obesity epidemic in this country, we need to start talking frankly about what we’re eating (and how little we’re exercising–a rather crucial side of the subject this slovenly flick sidesteps altogether). Yet the majority of SUPER SIZE ME is a not-particularly-amusing chronicle of the filmmaker’s rapidly declining health.

The attack was on corporations, but there was no solution offered.  There was no way to solve this social oppresive issue.  What about exercise regiments for people?  Or even with the topic of school lunches, it could be that the schools need more funding to buy healthier food.  Everyone knows that when you buy groceries it cost more to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.  The government has to give schools enough money to make the lunches healthier.  Another author, Ed Gonzalez offered his opinion on the topic.

But Spurlock ignores or misses important associations (Americans work too much, and as such are often too tired to work-out; the effects of fast food chains in especially impoverished areas), and if it seems like he has very little time to champion solutions to America’s obesity problem (you know: exercising, eating in moderation), that’s because he’s too busy getting fat.

Once again it comes back to some amount of personal choice.  If you don’t have the time or money to eat healthier, or you don’t have the time or ambition to exercise than you are going to make unhealthy choices.  The fast food corporations are not forcing you to make these choices.  This documentary seemed more surface level to me.  I would like to offer an example of critical pedagogy that digs deeper than the obvious.  I would like to look at one that makes solid, legitimate points.  Don Goerske who eats Big Mac’s at least twice a day and he refudes Spurlocks point.  He is a skinny man who eats a lot of McDonalds and proves that there are other factors.  It may be a fast metabolism or possibly exercise. 

Either way, I would want my students to look deeper into something that is directly related to them.  I like critical pedagogy in the classroom because it seems to be writing with a purpose.  It is writing that may or hopefully could elicit a sort of social change.  Students need this type of writing because they are forced to care or take a stance and make a point about something.  Whether it is a stab at corporations or at the class system in America, it’s important to have a point and back it up.

Full Article      Super Size Me

David Foucher

EDGE Publisher

May 7th, 2004

Full Article      Super Size Me

Ed Gonzalez

Slant Magazine

2004

Full Article    Super Size Me

Sean Burns

Philedelphia Weekly

May 12th, 2004

Whole-Group Instruction Must Be Divided Into Ability Groups January 31, 2007

In the previous post, the article that I referred to was more or less against the notion of ability-based grouping of students.  This time I focused on an article that is the stark opposite.  When I was in high school we had ability-based classes.  This was not necessarily decided by taking a test to see who was smart enough to be in the higher level classes, but most of it was based on teacher recommendations, scores in previous classes related to the subject, and the counselor’s recommendation.  I thought that by doing it this way the right kids generally ended up in the correct classes. 

On this note, the article that I read (‘Whole-group instruction’ drags down top math pupils) pertained specifically to proper way to teach math.  The authors of the article are particularly concerned with the future of the nation’s leaders, and where we will end up if we continue to teach math the way it is currently being taught, which is through whole-group instruction.  In this format all of the students are being taught the same material at the same pace.  The authors, Susan Goodkin and David Gold being there argument by saying:

“America’s recent sweep of the Nobel prizes in science and economics is a feat unlikely to be duplicated by younger generations.”

Personally I think that this is a very pessimistic attitude to hold.  The authors of this article are not teachers, but they claim to have knowledge of the educational system and to have that little faith in our youth is sad.  The authors want ability based classrooms for math, and they are trying to say that the whole group instruction is holding our future leaders back.  This may be true, but going as far as saying that we will not have anymore Nobel Prize winners based on this could be stretching it a little.  The authors do attempt to give a solution to the problem at hand.

“Frustrated parents nationwide will attest that the predominant method of elementary-school math instruction holds back our top young math minds and, as practiced under the No Child Left Behind Act, stultifies them. Remedying this requires the political will to implement a solution that is obvious but runs afoul of both liberal and conservative political agendas. “

I do not think that political action as suggested by the authors is the answer.  It would not be in the best interests of individual school districts to have a federal mandate on how different classrooms should be set up and how specific subject area should be taught to students on different levels.  While it is true that there are numerous ability levels in every school because no two students have the same capabilities, the format in which they are set up could not possibly be uniform.   That is the impression that I get from the statement above.  With all of the current problems with NCLB, I would think we would steer away from this sort of situation.  I don’t want to send the impression that the authors of this article agree completely with NCLB.  They point out that it has it’s flaws, but they conclude that what NCLB needs is another stipulation.

“The problems have increased under the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB threatens draconian sanctions for failing to bring all children up to minimum proficiency, but no penalties for failing to advance those children who already meet the standards. Thus, it pressures math teachers to aim the discussion at the least-skilled, and to ignore our future math and science leaders.”

The point is a good one, but there has to be more solutions made from school to school or within the state.  I also doubt that teachers ignore the brighter students.  It is true that sometimes they are helped less, because teachers figure they understand material, but they are not ignored.  I do think that it is especially important in subjects such as Math and English for there to be some sort of ability-grouping.  Math can be very difficult for some students, while it comes almost naturally to others.  This is why it is difficult to teach all students at the same pace.  Likewise, with English, children with high level reading abilities do not benefit much by reading below their own reading level. 

“Research consistently shows, and common sense dictates, that the best way to nurture high-ability math minds is to group these children together and give them a curriculum geared to their abilities. Rather than implementing such “ability grouping,” however, most elementary schools nationwide take exactly the opposite approach — “whole-group instruction.”

I think that when research backs up a finding as powerful as this, schools need to attempt some sort of ability-level teaching.  This does not mean that in the lower levels there must be separate classes altogether, but the teachers must make an attempt to challenge students.  There are numerous ways to do this.  One way may be grouping students in pods within the classroom.  I know that handing out different work can be difficult, but it could be done.  I liked what the authors had to say about what an equitable education would be.  This is a great response to the question that I posed in my last post.

“A truly equitable education system would provide all children, including the most advanced, the opportunity to learn at their own level — a goal that cannot be met through whole-group instruction.”

 After reading this article I do believe that it is important to make sure that students are not held back in areas where they could be striving, and if whole-group instruction is doing this than there needs to be a push for change.  The article concludes with a statement about the role of the Bush Administration in this change.

“Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has declared that this administration’s educational efforts will make sure we continue to lead the world in Nobel Prize winners.” However, if President Bush truly wants our public schools to develop math and science leaders, the federal government must provide incentives for teachers to group math students by ability. “

A change is needed, but is it a change that needs to be enforced by the federal government?  I think that it could be handled on a lower level, so that the teachers in charge of the programs have a little more say in the way the ability-based classrooms can be structured.  The teachers need to be at the center of the process and leaving the decisions up the lawmakers at the national level will not accomplish this.

‘Whole-group instruction’ drags down top math pupils”

By Susan Goodkin and David G. Gold
January 21, 2007

Full Article

Not Really Equal January 29, 2007

It may have been chance, but I came across an the perfect article for beginning this discussion on ability based classrooms, and whether or not tracking is positive or negative in the school setting.  When thinking about tracking, I tend to focus on the benefits or pitfalls created for the gifted students and lower ability students.  My worries about inequality in this area are generally based on intelligence levels.  The article titled, “Equality in Education is Nice, But Do We Really Want It?”, by Francisco D. Carranza and Vichet Chhuonbrings brings up the age old issue of racial segregation and the ever-present issue of desegregating American classrooms.   The article makes tracking another culprit of segregation in the educational system.

The authors begin their argument by stating: 

“Academic tracking, a system of ability-based courses, creates segregated classes where minority students — often African-American, Mexican American, and those not proficient in speaking English — are placed in lower academic tracks while their white and Asian counterparts are placed in college preparatory and advanced placement courses.”

Another study done by Jeannie Oakes, a professor at UCLA, showed that when the test scores of African American and Mexican American students were the same as the white students they were still a considerable amount less likely to be placed in an advanced level classroom.  Meanwhile, studies also showed that even in poor, urban settings there were still gifted programs created with a high percentage of the white students in them, which consequently segregated them from the minority students.  In the article Annegret Staiger a researcher from Clarkston University found that,

“Although the ostensible societal objective of integration is to increase educational opportunities for minority students, white students were often the ones who benefited the most because they filled most of the slots in these enrichment courses.”

These different viewpoints bring up some valid questions and arguments, but in some ways I believe that the arguments are based strictly on racial issues and not necessarily what is academically what is best for the students.  One of the most relevant pieces of information in the article comes from a study done by a principal in a diverse Los Angeles high school.  The principal decided to de-track his classrooms turning low ability classrooms into college preparatory classes.  This study yeilded positive results showing an increased number of non-white students were enrolling in extra-curricular activities, such as student government organizations.  This seemed to be a great idea, until the parents of the white students produced a negative reaction about what the classes were doing for their sons and daughters.  They believed that it was holding their children back, and no longing preparing them for college because the challenge was no longing there. 

There are two sides to every coin, and I believe that there is no easy answer for this topic.  I would hope that school administrators and teachers want what is best for each individual student.   With this idea about how tracking helps further segregate our already somewhat segregated schools, one might believe that it is a bad idea to track students.  But is that really fair to students who are bored and not stimulated in their de-segregated classrooms? What happens when the push for equality starts to hold back certain students?  One of the last statements made by the authors seems to pinpoint what they feel the heart of the problem is, in a sarcastic, snide way.  They state:

“After all, if you are on top, why acknowledge that it is the structural organization of schools that really determines who does well? Besides, these are other people’s children.”

The entire structure of the schools is what lies underneath.  This issue of the structure of classes relating to race and tracking presents an interesting problem for educators.  It is obvious that there is no easy solution to this problem.  Should teachers be blind to the issue of race when looking at which students to place in certain classes?  It seems like a simple answer to just remove the names and race of students, and look only at one’s academic progress when deciding which classes are suitable for which students. But, then educators may run the risk of segregated classrooms.  Classrooms could lose the aspect of diversity that is viewed as incredibly important in an increasingly diverse America.  It may not be a direct correlation, but this issue seems to be related to the choice Michigan residents made on last November’s ballot.  Proposal 2, which passed appears to aim at taking race among other things out of the mix when deciding whom to accept in schools or hire for certain positions (it is much deeper than this, but just for comparison purposes).  Personally, I am torn.  I do not think that it is fair to hold back students that deserve to, and should be challenged at the next level.  They need to be doing work that is stimulating to them or they will lose their desire and passion for education.  They need to work with other students that can challenge them to think deeper and move beyond what they think they already know.  This is very important in the today because the world beyond high school is more and more competetive and students must push themselves.  It is true that the cost of this could be possible segregation of certain students, and there are many other factors to be weighed in on in this debate.  Even after reading this article there is one question I am left pondering.  Are actions that are equal necessarily fair?

“Equality in Education is Nice, But Do We Really Want It?  (this article is no longer in the Livingston Daily Archive)

By The Gevirtz Schooll

January 1, 2007

Full Article

The Challenge January 15, 2007

I can’t wait to teach.  I actually have very few worries about teaching.  Most of the time I would classify myself as a solid public speaker, and I have always been told how much I love to talk.  I am prepared to be a good role model, and can’t wait to watch students learn.  Setting all of this aside, I have one fear.  My fear is that I am standing in front of a classroom, teaching a lesson, or just leading a conversation and not one person in the room is interested.  Their blank stares, and out of touch expressions suck the life out of me. 

Well, I hope this never happens, but if it does I would be interested in breaking down the question of why are they bored?  It could just be me or the material that the state board wants taught.  But let’s assume it is larger than that.  Is the discussion or work floating right over the heads of some students, is it intellectually below others, and I would hope there are some it is reaching at the correct level.  This is a problem that many teachers are presented with everyday.  This is why I want to look at the pros and cons of tracking gifted students, or ability separated classrooms.

At the current time, I am not sure if I believe more strongly in ability separated classrooms, or integrated ability rooms.  I am interested in finding out different viewpoints, and possibly looking at different statistics dealing with the topic.  As a teacher, the final decision is not ours.  It is much further up in the hierarchy, but we are the ones who must constantly deal with the issues, so it is important to be informed.  I hope to become educated in this area, and figure out different methods of dealing with ranging ability levels.  It is true that no two students will have the same abilities or learning styles, but teachers have to find a way to reach as many students as possible.  Do we risk holding students back?  Does it hurt the less abled when the abled are taken out of the classroom?  Are they still challenged?  There are numerous questions that arise from this intriguing topic.

Right now I have feeds from multiple news sources.  I have CNN, NPR, BBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  I have looked up “tracking gifted students” through Google News and I am browsing through the different blogs on the topic.   Right now the blog that I have subscribed to is titled Essential Blog.  It is loaded with educational articles and many deal with equality in classroom.  I have already read a couple articles of interest in the blog. 

In my high school we were separated by ability level, and at the time I never really thought much about it.  As I begin stepping out of the student role and into the teacher role, the perspective has changes drastically.  I see much more than a social life, and after school practice.  It is time to explore.