Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

I have gotta second everything i2amroy just said. Perhaps with the caveat that I want the separation thing to happen by self-selection by the students more than by way of assessments or teacher decisions, but that's an implementation detail more than an objection to anything you actually said - not everybody's equipped to accomplish the same things in school, and they shouldn't be expected to, is the point I'm getting from you and agreeing with. And that works both ways. Setting up the people who need challenges to have none at all is as catastrophic as setting people up against challenges they can't do (see Vector's experience, above).

EDIT: They actually did something like that in my school system, and I was a pretty high achiever right up until high school when I stopped caring about things because I assumed I could just handle whatever. I mean, what I'm saying is, I can say from experience that it has significant and positive effects (and high school, perhaps not coincidentally, is when the whole program more or less collapsed).

[UXLZ]

• Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other
  

THIS. This is, like, my entire life. I missed so much school and caused so much goddamn trouble.

Also THIS. I felt like I learnt literally nothing except maybe a bit of new math up until Year TEN! And it wasn't until LAST GODDAMN YEAR that I REALLY started seeing things that were new. (A single year before my last year of high school, which is this year.)
If I had been accelerated or even given slightly more advanced work during Year 7, 8, 9 I would have been so much more. But I wasn't, so I'm not. It's a shame, really, and looking back I should have fought harder or even just learned new things in my own time. I got accelerated during Grade 6 and the knowledge I gained then I've used constantly to this very day.

I actually feel like I had a very important developmental period stolen from me, in a way. I'm confident I could have been at the level I'm at now by Year 9 if they had just taught me things that I didn't already know.
Seriously, I can't emphasize that point enough.

Anyway, I know this is the 'calm' thread, but that little rant felt relevant. [/list]

[Helgoland]

• Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other

THIS. This is, like, my entire life. I missed so much school and caused so much goddamn trouble.

Did we rope you back in, Vec?
Germany already does this to an extent, by having separate schools for various levels. There are some problems with that: Everybody wants their kids to go to the highest-level school, which right now takes about half of each year's students; as a consequence of this, final exams get easier (hell, I got the best average possible, and I hardly ever studied - that's just messed up); the spread within each school is still big; the lower-level schools gain a bad reputation, and so do their students, with the lowest-level school being practically worthless and popularly seen as immigrant-heavy (think poor black inner city schools); and there's a big degree of separation between parts of the population (I know/knew maybe three people my age who ever went to something but the highest-level school).
Reform in this direction needs to be done very carefully is what I'm saying, especially in a country like the US.

[Antsan]

Yeah, separation of students is not a good idea. It reinforces class differences. [Edit]quote removed[/Edit]

Another way to fight against student boredom is the introduction of multiple teachers per class while dropping teacher-centered teaching.
I'd even go further and say we need to get rid of lectures and classes in school, instead providing a prepared environment filled with incentives to learn what catches a child's fancy and only keep the teachers as mentors to turn to and maybe as people to make sure that the children realize what they'll need later, but I guess that's not hugely popular.

[scriver]

I think you're letting your own experiences get in the way of your thinking, here. I was a "smart" student in every class but math (and gym, of course ) and were always chapters ahead of my class in the books (if I hadn't read through them already), I doodled my way through class time and waltzed in at tests without having studied and still got straight A-equivalents. Even in math, although that took work. I really don't think people like ne are the ones school should cater to. I learned because I liked learning, because it came natural to me, and because I was curious. I learnt despite not bring focused on. I learnt without help or guidance, and even if I did (math Dx ) I could always ask my parents or even my brother.

Now in math class they actually did separate the "smart" and "dumb" students (as in based on who got the highest points on a test) during year 7-9 (age 13-15). The result was one class of good students who also got the good teacher, and one class of students who didn't give a fuck with a teacher who didn't give a fuck - and I'm pretty convinced that line ran almost exactly along the lines of which kids had parents or other social contacts that could (or would) help them at home, which who had a social "education security net", so to speak. And really, those students didn't need more confirmation that they were dumb and useless at school. Those were the people who needed focus, encouragement, motivation, and teacher time. Not people like me who soaked everything up anyway, and still had a wide "education security net" to fall back on when I didn't.

[Helgoland]

I really don't think people like ne are the ones school should cater to. I learned because I liked learning, because it came natural to me, and because I was curious. I learnt despite not bring focused on. I learnt without help or guidance, and even if I did (math Dx ) I could always ask my parents or even my brother.

Now imagine being stuck in a class with a mediocre teacher and all other students ask dumb questions that have been answered many times before. Maybe you're the type that can put up with this, but I'm very certain that with different parents I'd have flunked out of school because of chronic boredom from the curriculum being too easy - and I was at a decent school, with decent teachers and decent students!
Schools should cater to all students, to the best of their ability - and this can only be done by separating them to a degree. The classism issues you mentioned must be avoided, of course: I think that's why i2 mentioned the difference between 'smart' and 'hard-working', where I'd add the group 'has helpful parents' to the 'hard-working' one.

Antsan: At my school, everybody hated non-teacher-centric lessons, because they're very hard to do right - I've seen good lessons like that maybe five times in my entire life. The teachers hated them because they saw that the students didn't learn anything, the good students hated them because they didn't learn anything, and the mediocre and bad students hated them because they had to do something but didn't feel like they were being productive.
Also, don't underestimate the power of laziness: Your ideal classroom requires a very Rousseauian human nature, a rather optimistic assumption...
I take it you did Gruppenarbeit in school as well - you're from the ex-DDR, right? How is non-teacher-centric learning implemented there?

[UXLZ]

Oh god, the boredom, the boooreedooom. That's probably why I've developed such a bad homework ethic. (Not that I ever had an amazing one, but...)

It's worth noting that my teacher's were fairly good and my Y11 one was incredible, but they're still forced to cater to the lowest common denom.

I think you're letting your own experiences get in the way of your thinking, here. I was a "smart" student in every class but math (and gym, of course ) and were always chapters ahead of my class in the books (if I hadn't read through them already)

You're also somewhat misunderstanding. This wasn't me being mere 'chapters' ahead, it was stuff being taught in class that I learned two years ago in primary school.
Let's take Year 7 for example: At least in regards to math, I already knew the entire curriculum before the year had even started.
Year 8 wasn't much better. There were a few things I didn't know, though.
Year 9 was about the same as year 8.
Year 10 was more than year 9 but still not all that much.
Year 11 was when I really started to learn new things.

[Descan]

Boredom is what kept me from graduating for so long. I learned early that I knew all this crap, and for a while it was true. But since I wasn't paying much attention, when it started getting into areas I didn't know, I didn't realize, and fell behind. Couple that with being too bored/lazy to actually do any work (this is still a problem: I have no work ethic) and I'm lucky to have graduated at all

End result is that I'm in first year of university at age 21 and am kind of floundering because of not studying, not knowing how, and from very little work ethic/lots of procrastination.

[SirQuiamus]

I really don't think people like ne are the ones school should cater to. I learned because I liked learning, because it came natural to me, and because I was curious. I learnt despite not bring focused on. I learnt without help or guidance, and even if I did (math Dx ) I could always ask my parents or even my brother.

Now imagine being stuck in a class with a mediocre teacher and all other students ask dumb questions that have been answered many times before. Maybe you're the type that can put up with this, but I'm very certain that with different parents I'd have flunked out of school because of chronic boredom from the curriculum being too easy - and I was at a decent school, with decent teachers and decent students!
Schools should cater to all students, to the best of their ability - and this can only be done by separating them to a degree. The classism issues you mentioned must be avoided, of course: I think that's why i2 mentioned the difference between 'smart' and 'hard-working', where I'd add the group 'has helpful parents' to the 'hard-working' one.

Antsan: At my school, everybody hated non-teacher-centric lessons, because they're very hard to do right - I've seen good lessons like that maybe five times in my entire life. The teachers hated them because they saw that the students didn't learn anything, the good students hated them because they didn't learn anything, and the mediocre and bad students hated them because they had to do something but didn't feel like they were being productive.
Also, don't underestimate the power of laziness: Your ideal classroom requires a very Rousseauian human nature, a rather optimistic assumption...
I take it you did Gruppenarbeit in school as well - you're from the ex-DDR, right? How is non-teacher-centric learning implemented there?

Non-teacher-centric groupwork provides school bullies a great chance to crack down on the studious dweebs. Not recommended. The best learning results could be achieved by making the students study alone in front of the computer, but that would impair their development in the all-important social skills.

[Darvi]

A worthwhile tradeoff, I'd say.

[Antsan]

Antsan: At my school, everybody hated non-teacher-centric lessons, because they're very hard to do right - I've seen good lessons like that maybe five times in my entire life. The teachers hated them because they saw that the students didn't learn anything, the good students hated them because they didn't learn anything, and the mediocre and bad students hated them because they had to do something but didn't feel like they were being productive.
Also, don't underestimate the power of laziness: Your ideal classroom requires a very Rousseauian human nature, a rather optimistic assumption...
I take it you did Gruppenarbeit in school as well - you're from the ex-DDR, right? How is non-teacher-centric learning implemented there?

Yeah, I'm from the ex-DDR, was even born half a year before the reunion.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I still wish they'd left it a driving out the government and skipped all that reunion stuff. There had been a chance to do something new!
But no, "We need to be reunited with our brothers and sisters! We want to eat bananas! Kohl is such a nice guy and he promised us florid landscapes!" Frickin' nostalgia…

I had Gruppenarbeit and it was awful, as that took place in a hostile environment with classmates who mobbed me and teachers who had learned to do teacher-centered learning. I think a part of the problem is that in that kind of school one class always does one thing and everyone needs to be involved all the time.

Just as an example: I was (and am) pretty good at mathematics. We had an awful maths teacher. The only student who understood what she was talking about where the ones who had been good before. Normally I sat next to someone who was generally intelligent, but didn't get what she was talking about, so I took the time to explain it to them. The teacher didn't like that at all – we had to concentrate on the lesson, goddammit, and we were disrupting it instead (because a classroom has to be quiet).

My ideal classroom doesn't require very much by my experience.
My littlest brother went to a free school (which is partly inspired by Montessori). He had this "ideal classroom" (although there were no classrooms or classes, only a distinction between kindergarten, primary school and secondary school). The dropout rate there is approximately the same as in standard schools. The people who leave that school, including the dropouts, normally act as if they are in charge of their life and don't act as entitled or dependent as I see this from others. They normally know what they want, what they don't want and they actually do stuff based on that knowledge without much hesitation.
This school normally doesn't take children after they have been at another school, as those children normally already have learned that learning is tedious and that discipline is the only way to learn anything.
Bullying still happened there, but it wasn't as much of a problem, as teachers actually had the time and skills to deal with it.
Also they not only got a school certificate but also a document of over 50 pages detailing their development in different areas throughout school. I wish I had something like that.

Boredom is what kept me from graduating for so long. I learned early that I knew all this crap, and for a while it was true. But since I wasn't paying much attention, when it started getting into areas I didn't know, I didn't realize, and fell behind. Couple that with being too bored/lazy to actually do any work (this is still a problem: I have no work ethic) and I'm lucky to have graduated at all

End result is that I'm in first year of university at age 21 and am kind of floundering because of not studying, not knowing how, and from very little work ethic/lots of procrastination.

Same here, although for me the tipping point came after I left school.

[Antsan]

A worthwhile tradeoff, I'd say.

It's not. I learned social skills after school and I really wish I'd learned them earlier, especially as I should have done other stuff when I was being social.

[Darvi]

Suit yourself, then.

[Antsan]

It's gone.

[Antsan]

Makes sense. I'm too lazy to edit it once again, I'll just leave it.