Do you support grade/discipline based segregation in schools ?

[Apocalypse]

The thing is, parents are going to complain about it and kids will be on levels they aren't supposed to be in just because the parents think their kid is smarter than the kid really is.

Even one dumb kid who asks questions can really slow down a class.

[Kuciwalker]

That is a problem, and it's why we shouldn't let parents have any say in the running of the school

Seriously, though, it doesn't seem to have become enough of a problem to outweigh the benefits of having advanced classes and schools.

[Apocalypse]

You guys act like it is a cure all though.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Sure, great idea. Brand them as soon as possible and reduce their chances of improving themselves. Concentrating all the kids with some diciplinary problems is probably the best way of ensuring that none of them will ever learn good behavior or change. Why don't you just throw them in prison?

Point understood but is it truly fair to kids who are motivated to do well in school?

Gotta break some eggs to make omelets.

Set up a seperate program or curriculum for those who are not as motivated. Something that would try to encourage them to rethink their priorities and try to do better at school. I wouldn't want to just brand them 'lost cause' and tell them they will never succeed. Every kid can succeed if they truly want to do so. It's the matter of the horse and water - if they refuse to drink why should I let them slow down those who are willing to drink?

Some ideas for this seperate program - boot camp, self-discovery activities, leadership building activities, and as a last resort a class field trip to a prison.

[Az]

A very simple idea stands behind this logic and tactic:

People who are smart and well-behaved in school grow up to be productive and good individuals.

unfortunately, this idea is also completely wrong.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Doesn't placing children with lower academic achievement in the same class make it more likely that the teacher will then pitch the lesson at their level, and ensure than everyone gets taught, rather than only the top 25% of the class? Taking out the 'smart kids' drops the whole thing a notch, so everyone has a chance to get something out of lessons rather than thinking that the teacher only cares about the kids at the top.

Good point.

More and more schools in America is tying teacher performance to their pay. Something called merit pay and its an evil idea.

How do you measure a teacher's performance? Often, administrators will look at students' grades as a measuring stick. So is it fair to the teacher to not receive pay raises because his kids would not (or cannot) commit themselves?

Based on my experiences, they are better off being in same grouping as their peers. This way, everybody do get taught at their own pace.

Which is worse - you're struggling to keep up with top students in your class and you're feeling frustrated and you don't understand what the heck is going on. Some kids would just give up and that often lead to negative attitude or getting into trouble which affect everybody else in the room.

Or you're in a class in which your classmates are of similar academic motivation and strength. You are learning at the same time with everybody else and if you make a mistake, that's ok. You've seen others make mistakes and it's cool.


In scenairo B, kids often behave better because they are earning better grades than they would in A and they are paying attention so they are actually learning more than they would in A if they were just being a trouble. Sometimes a kid 'get it' or realize he can really do this and his performance improve along with his confidence resulting him in 'promotion' to a higher level next semester.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Azazel
A very simple idea stands behind this logic and tactic:

People who are smart and well-behaved in school grow up to be productive and good individuals.

unfortunately, this idea is also completely wrong.

I proclaim a faux pas here.

Completely? Nah, good sir. Sometimes? Yes I can accept this.

[Az]

Let's leave it at an ambiguous "many times", Unless you have statistics.

In any case, the point stands.

[Barinthus]

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

On reading the thread title, I thought "discipline" referred to the stream of studies being undertaken- segregating pupils according to their field of study, as well as by intelligence etc.

I thought that would be a good idea. Why should promising pupils have their lives disrupted by dribblers with no social skills, like science students?

[Shi Huangdi]

In my experience back when I was in school, it seems that the discipline problems caused in a classroom was usually caused by one or two individuals who would repeatedly disrupt class or harass other students, and it made it much more difficult for the teacher to managet his class. I think if you just segregated out the worst of the worst who repeatedly show they won't follow the rules, it would become much easier to teach a class.

Widespread discrimination based on behavior level would create a situation where it is difficult for those at the bottom to improve themselves. But for the few problem individuals out there, if they have no interest in learning, why should they just be allowed to continue to come to class and disrupt everyone else from learning?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MarkG
school is not just about geting knowledge. realising that life is full of "disruptive idiots" (of any kind) is a very valuable leasson as well

Schools are just about learning, if the students only contact with the outside world is the school that is his, and his parent's problem.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Sure, great idea. Brand them as soon as possible and reduce their chances of improving themselves. Concentrating all the kids with some diciplinary problems is probably the best way of ensuring that none of them will ever learn good behavior or change. Why don't you just throw them in prison?

because solent green needs them.

[Flubber]

I don't see why this has to be an absolute. Segregation or no segregation. . . In larger schools, you can slice and dice the classes every which way and once students are in high school there is usually a form of voluntary segregation as some students take college prep work while others don't. There were ZERO poor students in classes like physics, chemistry, french.

In lower grades, you could do do something similar. Split the classes somewhat randomly for homeroom geography and history ( the bulk of the subjects) but on the subjects where skills vary the widest say language and mathematics it could be very beneficial to all to segregate based on ability ( and a student could be in the top class for one and not the other-- the idea is to teach to the abilities of the student in that subject). If a teacher has 30 students its much easier to teach effectively if those abilities are across a narrower rather than a broader range. The slower students may not cover as much of the curriculum but they will probably understand much better the studff they did learn. I can even see benefits of boy/girl segregation for say one class a day. Apparently girls feel more empowered in a girls only class and my thought would be that girls speaking out one period may be more likely to carry on with it the next.

The only problem I see with all this is that it contemplates students changing classes pretty regularly. I don't think most primary schools do this as I recall you generally had the same teacher all day long for everything. The downside is that teachers would end up having more students and would end up knowing them less well.

[GePap]

My middle school in NYc had this system of segregation by academic achievement- classes were divided into 4 tiers, the 1 class, 2,3,4, with the 1 class being top, and so forth. Kids could go from class to class if their grades inproved down the road, but in general, epople stayed were they were. The 1 and 2 class interacted, as did the 3 and 4, but the top two had little interaction with the bottom 2 outside of homeroom.

These assignments were based purely on academics, NOT behavior-there were still disruptive students who got detention in the top classes.

I had an interesting ride, when I went into the school, I was placed in bilingual education (which on this totem pole ranked bellow class 4) and took a few classes with the class 4 kids (like math). My mother felt, rightly, that the level of education at that level was piss poor and demanded that I be taken out of bilingual ed and placed in the general population. They put me in the 3 class, then a couple of weeks later in the 2 class, then about one week later in the 1 class, where I stayed the next four years...

There was certainly a massive difference in achievement between the kids in the 1 class and those in the 3 or 4 class.