Students learn different subjects at different rates

So why do we think that forcing them to all learn the same material at the same pace could ever produce as good an outcome as letting the children work at their own pace and let the teacher be a resource of knowledge -- but let the children understand that they are encouraged in every way but THEY are responsible to do the work of learning.

They do learn at different rates and should be able to explore subjects as they become interested in them. Difficult for a world that wants to measure success on a standardized test.

I really think that within a generation technology will force the end of the "grade by grade" school year and students will be instructed at their actual learning level.

I hope the technology you refer to will enable teacher to student instruction, especially among younger students, as I think such is mandatory. Maybe technology will help teachers adapt to teaching at students' actual learning levels.

And it was a great success. The teachers loved it and the students loved it.

Apparently they've expanded the program:

Um, no, it's not a great success. Kids are NOT mastering the skills and are not moving on to new levels.

The article you linked was written before test scores came out. They were abysmal.

It's not in half the schools. And Covington resigned 2 months ago to go to Detroit to make a million dollars.

You: "Um, no, it's not a great success. Kids are NOT mastering the skills and are not moving on to new levels."
Me: Proof? Links? On record statements from teachers or principles?

You: "The article you linked was written before test scores came out. They were abysmal."
Me: The article stated that they expected test scores to be low but they were NOT as low as assumed. This is a totally new thing and it's going to take a while before students and school staff get used to it and work out all the bugs.

But I like how you are so eager to jump on it and slice away with your misrepresented half-truths.

You: "It's not in half the schools.
Me: It's in 5 schools... I don't know how many schools Kansas City, MO has but that is still a pretty good test sample. And as I recall those were some of the worst schools so you don't expect miracles overnight.

You: "And Covington resigned 2 months ago to go to Detroit to make a million dollars."
Me: Do we not live in a Capitalista society? Principles and anyone else who wants to are free to move wherever they want. The Superintendent of Schools here in Dallas just did such a move. Are Dallas schools better or worse because of it??? I doubt it.

edit: OOPS! Didn't see proud2b's post!

Sounded good for awhile though.

Links?

Test scores from before the schools were converted and from after, please!

On-record statements from the teachers and students, maybe...

How do you rate failure? Is it just your opinion or do you have some facts to back it up?

So yes, I know it's failing. It's actually very sad. Great idea but poorly executed.

Sorry but I am choosing not to take the time to do several hours of research to answer your questions. I have been a member here long enough to have established credibility, especially in this forum. I know how that sounds but it's been a long day, I am just now getting home and I'm not going to spend what little energy I have doing research for you. The scores are available on the MO DESE website. The district just lost its accreditation. That should be proof enough that silly plans by Broad superintendents are ineffective.

because it's impossible to live in one state and work in another. :sarcasm:

Why would you be so quick to dismiss someone who has seen and experienced the reality of the situation firsthand?

You demand proof. If you were my student, I'd tell you to do your own homework. Or you could just remain willfully ignorant. The choice is yours.

Their staunch clinging to the status quo would prevent any beneficial changes -- even ones that I propose that would greatly increase the number of teachers needed and be of great benefit to the students.

First hand experience, anecdotal experience, is not "most valuable" in any science.

You: "If you were my student, I'd tell you to do your own homework"
Me: I have. That is why I wrote the post in the first place.

If you had been paying attention to the posts of p2bl—or any other teachers, for that matter—you'd realize that we do want change; however, because the change we want does not create an environment in which business interests can profit, no one listens to us. Sadly, you are like those corporatists who insinuate themselves into public education: You are unwilling to listen to those serving on the front line in the War Against Public Education—teachers. It makes me wonder if you truly want change, or if you—like the profiteers—have some vested interest in their so-called "reform."

Your accusation of "unwilling to change" has some merit, but I view it as teachers' Occupy Wall Street moment. We have been pushed so far that some of us are willing to go no farther, because we realize the moneyed interests directing all this "reform" are pushing teachers and public schools over the edge of a cliff. Your accusations that anyone who disagrees with you is defending the "status quo" just tells me you have swallowed all this blame-the-teacher education "reform" down—hook, line, and sinker.

It's become the "America Love It Or Leave It" comment for teachers.

And it's just insulting.

I want experts in Math, Science, Music, etc., right there among the students assisting the teacher as well.

I failed to include the article which describes the system they are using in Denver, CO and Kansas City, MO. I want to take that concept and crank it up to "11" in order to give the children as much individual attention as they need/want but when they want to work it through themselves they should be given a little bit of leeway to do so (the teacher is critical in determining when and how much).

I love teachers. Look up all of my posts in the ED section. Some people are too sensitive or jump to conclusions. I want drastic change in the way our kids are educated but I want teachers to be at the forefront of making that happen. I hate charter schools because on average they do NO BETTER than public schools. I just wanted you to understand that.

There are many different types of learners: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc., I believe that a child should at all times be free to choose how he or she approaches learning a particular module (or sub-topic).

http://webhome.idirect.com/~kehamilt/spklearn.html - Presenting to Different Types of Learners

http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html - Gardner's Multiple Intelligence

lyceumbooks.com/pdf/HowToTeachEffectively_TypesofLearners.pdf
http://www.grapplearts.com/Learning-Styles-in-Grappling.htm
http://www.lessontutor.com/sm1.html

Perhaps that is MY reason for not providing YOU with more details.

Just sayin. . .

Please research my ED posts to see if I hate teachers or not. (quick answer: I don't, and have said that the problems in education today are in NO WAY the result of teachers nor their fault).

Yes, I want radical change but I detest charter schools and privatization of ANYTHING. The last thing I want is a minimum wage fire fighter or police officer showing up to an emergency situation. The same goes with teachers.

it's a "failure"... didn't you know that?

Look at the international standing of our students compared to The Czech Republic (nothing wrong with them, just saying that we didn't expect them to be kicking our butts so badly), Finland, etc. Our students are the laughing stock of the world. Yet our American educators say "that's just fine with me." How could this be. The teachers should be the first ones to be fighting for individual learning: it would require more teachers and FEWER administrators! That can only result in better outcomes for students.

It applies to adult students just as much as to children.

Kids are placed at levels instead of in traditional grades. Two levels per grade level. They start the day in home rooms that are grouped by age/grade levels. Then they move to different classrooms for instruction in Math and Reading at their instructional levels.

Seems great in principle. I love the idea of grouping them at instructional levels. There is also an emphasis on project based learning which I think is terrific.

But the problems - so far - outweigh the benefits. It's REALLY hard to move elementary kids around from room to room like high schoolers. So there is turmoil that leads to discipline issues. Support classes are also a mess. P.E. teachers are ending up with classes made up of kids of many different ages. It's hard to organize lessons and activities that are appropriate for 6 year olds as well as 12 year olds.

And test scores are down in these pilot schools. The district expected the scores to drop but it's still a negative.

So I'm withholding judgment for now. Still sounds great in principle but there are a lot of kinks that need to be worked out.

And I don't think that the other program mentioned up-thread does either.

Children obviously DO learn at different speeds, but it isn't nearly so straightforward as "Billy is advanced in Math and a bit behind in Reading" - one child may struggle with carrying but take like a duck to water when you get to borrowing. We all learn at different paces within each granular piece of a curriculum. There's no good way around this in an institutional setting unless you can afford many more teachers who can really focus on each individual student.

You know how it is... If you're teaching a one-week unit to 25 kids in a class, two or three of them will "get it" on day one and a couple might still be confused at the end of the week. You can't skip ahead on Tuesday to keep the first group from getting bored and you can't keep working on the same topic into week two for the benefit of the few who still don't understand. Sure, a great teacher has loads of techniques help with this, but the impact is still there... and it isn't always the same kids on the "top" or "bottom".

Maybe there's something that you can do once the kids are old enough to learn through guided self-study (there was a great program when I was in school that would take you from Algebra through Calculus in one summer if you could handle the workload), but I just don't think that this model lends itself well to a traditional classroom setting.

A more classical setting (individual instruction, tutor, homeschool, etc) accomplishes this naturally, but you can't design a system for millions of kids that way.

I think you CAN design an individualized, self-paced learning system for millions of kids. The first thing you need to do is tear down the walls of all the class rooms and have all the teachers available to all the students at any time. Only the kids that need the extra help will be asking for it and the kids who "get it" faster can move on to the next (I love your term) "granular piece of a curriculum.

This method will require more teachers but far fewer administrators. And they can hire assistant teachers with no teaching credentials but degrees in Math, Science, etc., so the kids can have access to professionals in the actual subject. And I would outlaw putting a teacher not trained in the subject into a class on whatever subject. Like a school coach teaching a Science class as I had during my high school. The guy knew nothing; just read from the book and was horrible at teaching.

With the computers, iPads, etc., that we have available today we should be able to do this nation-wide. I'm sick on this system where the teacher gets fired because the students don't care about learning. Fooey on that! I say that the students should be informed that it is THEIR sole responsibility to learn the material -- and there will be serious, in-depth tests on each module of a subject area to make sure they KNOW it before being allowed to move on. The teacher is a resource available to them at any time, as would be the expert adjunct teachers, but the child is ultimately responsible for his or her education... and will later in life suffer the consequences of not paying attention or not doing the work.

Perhaps all schools should be like boarding schools. Just throwing that out there. That way all students wear the same school uniforms and get excellent nutrition and a safe and comfortable place to live. That would give poor kids the same chance to excel as rich kids. What do you think?

The first thing the teachers did was put up new "walls" (bookcases, carts, whatever).

Not to put down the average teacher, but truly individual instruction isn't possible without MUCH smaller class sizes and a much less common skillset for the instructors. You have to throw the lesson plans entirely out the window and be prepared to discuss almost any topic at almost any time... contantly being aware of each child's current progress and having scores of possible interactions at your fingertips. That's great when the "teacher" is a well-educated parent, but we don't pay the average teacher enough now, we certainly can't pay them commensurate with that level of responsibility... and that's before we talk about the much smaller teacher/student ratios that we would need.

Fooey on that! I say that the students should be informed that it is THEIR sole responsibility to learn the material

Look... I'm very sympathetic to that idea. But it runs counter to the very reasons we have a public education system. I'm a big "personal responsibility" kind of guy... but public schools exist (among other things) to help people onto the bottom rungs of that responsibility ladder. Too many kids would "give up" WAY too early and that's it... game over.

Perhaps all schools should be like boarding schools. Just throwing that out there. That way all students wear the same school uniforms and get excellent nutrition and a safe and comfortable place to live. That would give poor kids the same chance to excel as rich kids. What do you think?

And I could take my wife on vacation for just the two of us almost any time we want!

When you come up with the bottomless supply of funds to pay for it... let me know. :)

I was just tossing that out as a "what if" scenario anyway.

Tearing down the walls: I think that most teachers would like it better that way -- once they got used to it. Of course it would be strange to have one teacher check out a student's question then call in a more expert teacher on that subject. That is why I brought up the idea of having adjunct teachers who have a degree in that subject only (no teaching degree). So if the first teacher doesn't know the answer then the expert in math will.

Like many other education "reforms", administrators failed to execute properly. Even the best idea can fail when you don't take the time needed for implementation.

That is why I always propose that the TEACHERS be put in control of curriculum and "reforms."

The success of Toyota Motors from the 1960s is due to listening to the workers -- ALL workers, even the janitor -- and taking their suggestions seriously. Who knows what problems there are in building cars than the people out there on the production floor.

Likewise, who knows what is going on inside the kids' heads better than the teacher?!? More teachers, far, far fewer "administrators" and our school system will be a lot better. Add to that self-paced learning and a recognition that some kids learn just fine by hearing the teacher drone on and on while some kids need to read it, others need to interact with the information and still others need to see it in practice before "it clicks" and they get it. That is how humans are built -- trying to teach a kid any other way than their natural learning needs is a disaster in the making.

It reinforces my belief that children need to go through the material at their own speed. My daughter has at times been so far ahead of all her other classmates that she got in trouble for wandering around the classroom (!), and a few months later she needed extra help and extra time on a subject. I think kids should be able to do that.

One day we'll have electro-chemical knowledge downloads and we won't need school. Until then, we need to let the children learn according to their current emotional, physical and intellectual development at all times.

We go through a charter school, meet monthly with a teacher/facilitator (public, fully-credentialed), and have access to helpful teachers, tutors and a warehouse full of books, DVDs, and maps. It's truly the best of all worlds. Additionally, each semester we get an allowance, if you will, due to the savings in terms of classroom structures, and this can be used for private vendors. We use it to get my daughter the best classic art education around. I really do think that this is the wave of the future for many; of course, one parent has to be able to devote a lot of time to it.

I want to see a future America where only one parent HAS to work in order to support the family. And I'd love to see more dedicated and involved parents like you!

PS, art? Way to go. The arts are being squeezed out of public schools and that is IMO the greatest crime against future humanity.

I've had careers and all, but the whole point, to me, is for every family to be able to choose what is best for them. I do want to see that future. Then each family can choose exactly what works for that family.

I hear a lot of teachers complain about parents not getting involved in their kids' education. Well when you work 3 or 4 jobs just to make ends meet there is no time to do that.

The first step is getting off this hamster wheel economy and get back to having free time and a family life. That is critical.