Do you support grade/discipline based segregation in schools ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Barinthus
sorry, Kid I have to disagree with you there. Arranging students seating by their grades is just horrible. It doesn't help lower performing students at all and probably encourage them just to give up.

I hate to say it but your lower performing students have already given up. It depends on where you teach maybe though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Barinthus
sorry, Kid I have to disagree with you there. Arranging students seating by their grades is just horrible. It doesn't help lower performing students at all and probably encourage them just to give up.

Naah it better helps the jocks decide the order in which to pummel the nerds.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Barinthus
sorry, Kid I have to disagree with you there. Arranging students seating by their grades is just horrible. It doesn't help lower performing students at all and probably encourage them just to give up.

When I was in primary school, my teacher did this. It was rather subtly done actually: because of the way friendships had fallen out, it looked like we were seated with our friends, but as you travelled around the classroom, you went from the smartest table (rather blatently called Table A) past B, C, D, E to F where the thickies were sat.

The interesting thing was that AFAIK, only tables A B and C ever actually realised that this is how it was arranged. In an argument with one particularly arrogant and deluded denizen of table E, I rather cruelly informed him of this fact, and the look of surprise on his face was golden. His spirit was utterly crushed. It was hard to feel sorry for him, cos he was as irritating as an improperly wiped arse, but it did amaze me that genuinely didn't realise.

Anyway. I think it did help the much lower performing students (E and F). They all sat together, there was no smart kid next to them outperforming them at everything, and it meant that the teacher could deal with them as a group if they were having difficulties, and so spend less time repeating himself and more time teaching.

Table C I didn't speak to much, but I think they always enjoyed beating table B on tests and so on. They had some directed motivation to do well. The only group who I think found it a bad thing were table D, who were smart enough to know they weren't very smart and that they were being treated as not very smart. I'm not really sure, since they all hated me anyway.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Barinthus
sorry, Kid I have to disagree with you there. Arranging students seating by their grades is just horrible. It doesn't help lower performing students at all and probably encourage them just to give up.

I agree. I thought the idea of arranging seating by grades was the worst I have ever heard. In my school I always got the best grades but I didn't need a big bullseye painted on me every day by virtue of the seating arrangement.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ramo
To some extent, there ought to be ability-based segregation in schools. But there is a tendency in school systems to substitute segregation for addressing the underlying problems in the system. The basic problem is that the "bad kids" end up being saddled with an endless cycle of incompetent teachers and tedious, mindless curricula. It's remarkable how much more students learn with a little decent teaching and an expectation that students aren't total dumbasses.

If you do segregate by ability it should not be with the idea that the lower ability childeren get worse teachers. In fact, I would think that the students that would be harmed least by having the worst teachers would be the average kids

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
.


I am a student. I've been one most of my life. Sometimes the subject matter is hard and sometimes my teacher sucks, but I still learn it unless it's just too hard for me. That's what successfull students do. No teacher does it for me. I do myself.

I think this philosophy applies to life outside of school just as well.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ramo

I'll give you an example. There were two (single-variable) calculus classes in my high school, represented by two AP tests (the easier "AB" and the more difficult "BC"). The AB class was taught by a relatively inexperienced teacher who graded very generously, paced the class slowly, etc. The BC class was taught by a good teacher who graded harshly, paced the class quickly, etc. Nearly everyone in the AB class bombed their relatively easy AP test, while nearly everyone in the BC class got a 4 or 5 (the two highest grades) on their relatively difficult AP test. While the BC class was smarter than the AB class, they were not that much smarter (generally coming from the same previous classes).

This is more about teaching expectations and standards than anything. I had a similar experience in university calculus. My girlfriend and I took the same university calc. course from different professors. I "struggled" all year long to score 60s or 70s while my girlfriend was easily making higher grades. It made no sense to me as I was always better at math than her. It made sense when we sat down to study for the common final and she looked at my tests and had no idea how to do the problems. Result was that I found the common final a breeze while she and her classmates struggled.

Was my prof "better"? Depends what you think . . . She had the highest passing rate of anyone in the math faculty. She also had the highest rate of people dropping the course . . . maybe because she brought a stack of drop forms on the day she passed back the first quiz and stated "If you did not pass this quiz you should consider using one of these"

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I never did that, but for some reason it sometimes works well to control disruptive students. You never should have to use it unless you suck as a teacher.

.

True, embarrassing a student is a last resort. My dad taught for 30 years and he said he never had to intentionally embarrass a student. If a student was disruptive he would have them stay after for a little chat. My dad can be very persuasive.

[Spiffor]

Aneeshm
I onlky read the first posts, but I think there is a fundamental problem with your perception:

You seem to believe that indiscipline has strictly individual sources: Some people are just made so that they'll wreck havoc in school, while some others will behave. You completely disregard the fact that indiscipline also has strong social causes. If you hang out with anti-school kids, if the values of your peer group are to ridicule anybody that performs well, while encouraging those who make a mess at school, you're far more prone to become undisciplined than if you were in a studious peer group.

In France, this effect is blatant, as rich/educated cities have very little serious indiscipline, compared to poor/uneducated neighborhoods. I'd imagine the same happens pretty much everywhere an uneducated counter-culture exists.

(Note that I am not saying the causes of indiscipline are exclusively social. I'm pointing out, however, that it is a very important factor you seem not to have taken into account at all - at least on page 1)

What you are advocating is to make these ignorant gangs much more tight-knit. You basically doom to indiscipline (and probably to school failure and later failure in life) the many normal kids who have followed some hellraiser because they found him cool. These "followers" are actually the bulk of the indisciplined (at least over here), and they can change their ways. Actually, most do later in life when they have to pay the bills, but when it's already too late to have grand ambitions.

The real problem is not to isolate all the indisciplined, because most of them are actually soft, and could be rehabilitated fairly easily. The real problem is actually to isolate the hardcore hellraisers, especially the ones who also manage to convince others to follow their ways.
These few people are the actual threat to everybody's quality of education, and these ones should be sent where they cannot do their damage. A soft version is to orient them to teachings that actually interest them (and yes it can work). The hard version is to put them in special schools where they'll hang out with the same kind of irrecuperable ones. I think both methods should be used, because there is indeed a very small core of people who'll spit on any education they'll be provided with. However, these people are far, far less numerous than the indisciplined you want to segregate.

[Odin]

Spiff made a good point, many students that have the potential to do good don't because of peer pressure. Here in the US, liking school in many cases makes you "uncool" and a "nerd."

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Kuci stated that anybody can learn algebra. This is not not true. I havent learned it at all I guess this is because I have convinced my self that I dont want to learn it. I have struggled with math all my life. In the schools here they offer the real smart kids a chance to take honors classes. That way they can be taught at a different level but Its their choice to do so. I still say give them a choice.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Spiff made a good point, many students that have the potential to do good don't because of peer pressure. Here in the US, liking school in many cases makes you "uncool" and a "nerd."

That's why you create segregated schools, so that those with the potential are with others who have the potential, and don't face the peer pressure.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Kuci stated that anybody can learn algebra. This is not not true. I havent learned it at all I guess this is because I have convinced my self that I dont want to learn it. I have struggled with math all my life. In the schools here they offer the real smart kids a chance to take honors classes. That way they can be taught at a different level but Its their choice to do so. I still say give them a choice.

As I said, anyone can learn algebra - you just aren't willing to.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Flubber


This is more about teaching expectations and standards than anything. I had a similar experience in university calculus. My girlfriend and I took the same university calc. course from different professors. I "struggled" all year long to score 60s or 70s while my girlfriend was easily making higher grades. It made no sense to me as I was always better at math than her. It made sense when we sat down to study for the common final and she looked at my tests and had no idea how to do the problems. Result was that I found the common final a breeze while she and her classmates struggled.

Was my prof "better"? Depends what you think . . . She had the highest passing rate of anyone in the math faculty. She also had the highest rate of people dropping the course . . . maybe because she brought a stack of drop forms on the day she passed back the first quiz and stated "If you did not pass this quiz you should consider using one of these"

Sounds like my Dad. Now retired he used to teach anatomy, physiology, and biology. He taught for 30 years plus and was adamant about maintaining the integrity of content taught over teh years. As a consequence he often remarked that students of more recent years ran into more troubles with grades inhis class those of earlier years. Obviously he did not grade on the curve.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Aneeshm

You seem to believe that indiscipline has strictly individual sources: Some people are just made so that they'll wreck havoc in school, while some others will behave. You completely disregard the fact that indiscipline also has strong social causes. If you hang out with anti-school kids, if the values of your peer group are to ridicule anybody that performs well, while encouraging those who make a mess at school, you're far more prone to become undisciplined than if you were in a studious peer group.

You discount the ability of a teacher to control the room. Consider substitutes . . we had one that ended up leaving in tears pretty much every time she subbed. Obviously we were an undisciplined rabble right ??? Yet other substitutes had control of the room within 1 minute of the first time they encountered us.


My dad ( a teacher for 30 years) claimed that his education was almost irrelevant to his ability to control the room. he thought we would be much better served if prospective teachers were given a short 6 week training program and then tossed in the classroom ( WITHOUT the regular teacher there)-- He believed that those that could not control the room in that situation were unlikely to ever be in control of their classroom. Those that could convey or teach something would make the good teachers and should be the ones that would learn all the proper methods.