My son recently said to me, "I'm not made for school, I'm made for soccer." It's true in some ways, but more so, I think he's not made for the kind of school he's getting. He's not made for sitting still, for drilling answers, etc... He (along with most boys) are getting on the wrong side of their teachers because they are failing to follow the factory rules. It's such a difficult situation for me as a parent - trying to decide whether enforcing this kind of structure good for him or whether it's actually increasing his chances of failure. I do know that a bored boy is a disruptive boy and that the amount of energy in the arms and legs of an eight year old, if properly harnessed, could solve a lot of our energy woes.
I will say that both of my girls had exceptional results with Montessori education (up through 3rd grade in our area), but any system is only as good as those who are committed to it. I've known other schools that work wonders with passionate teachers who are allowed to work their magic outside of the confines and regulations of public schools.
I think, at the very least, that these dialogues that are opening up are overdue so that we can figure out how to address this issue quickly.
When you have to drug kids at an early age to get them to accept your method of teaching, you Know that you are desperately in need of change.
The Divergent Thinking example is So Telling. Divergent Thinking = Creative Problem Solving in my book. And the way the current education system is pitched reduces this capacity in people?!
Duh-uhh, as the kids would say. The need to change that Now would seem to be a No Brainer.
Interesting video. I'm forwarding it to my teacher friends for their input.
I do agree that our system of standardization needs upgrading. Not everyone fits neatly into the box. It will be a challenge, though, even with regard to agreeing what the ultimate goal of the educational system is -- producing workers? Preparation for university? Producing well-rounded individuals? Do we stream students or is that limiting to them in a different manner? A lot to think about.
This type of thinking is an excellent way to conceptualize the education of children with disabilities. Inclusion education, while far from perfect, works to a limited extent on this model. Robert is adapted to the classroom and the classroom to him.
But I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from. If you're pegged with a certain level of 'ability' early on, or pegged, for example, into a particular type of interest or skill group, switching groups then presents social challenges, and wouldn't there be a disincentive to switch groups and grow in that case? Especially if the work is collaboratively focused, intensifying a sense of group dynamics and, possibly, enhancing a sense of clubbiness and inclusion?
I think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
This type of thinking is an excellent way to conceptualize the education of children with disabilities. Inclusion education, while far from perfect, works to a limited extent on this model. Robert is adapted to the classroom and the classroom to him.
But I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from. If you're pegged with a certain level of 'ability' early on, or pegged, for example, into a particular type of interest or skill group, switching groups then presents social challenges, and wouldn't there be a disincentive to switch groups and grow in that case? Especially if the work is collaboratively focused, intensifying a sense of group dynamics and, possibly, enhancing a sense of clubbiness and inclusion?
I think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
But I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from. If you're pegged with a certain level of 'ability' early on, or pegged, for example, into a particular type of interest or skill group, switching groups then presents social challenges, and wouldn't there be a disincentive to switch groups and grow in that case? Especially if the work is collaboratively focused, intensifying a sense of group dynamics and, possibly, enhancing a sense of clubbiness and inclusion?
I think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
But I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from.
I think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
Sorry, all. Google kept telling me my comment was too large to publish, so I kept cutting it down and trying again. I had no idea it was actually publishing the comments anyway until it published the last one.
Let's continue this form of education by doing away with all the picture books for young children!!
ReplyDeleteI'm off to purchase those that are left for my future grandchildren!!
Best,
Bonnie
Love your new look! Can't wait for that movie to come out. Education here in the States needs a total makeover.
ReplyDeleteMy son recently said to me, "I'm not made for school, I'm made for soccer." It's true in some ways, but more so, I think he's not made for the kind of school he's getting. He's not made for sitting still, for drilling answers, etc... He (along with most boys) are getting on the wrong side of their teachers because they are failing to follow the factory rules. It's such a difficult situation for me as a parent - trying to decide whether enforcing this kind of structure good for him or whether it's actually increasing his chances of failure. I do know that a bored boy is a disruptive boy and that the amount of energy in the arms and legs of an eight year old, if properly harnessed, could solve a lot of our energy woes.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is why I am a Montessori teacher...Montessori RULES...and needs to become THE SYSTEM of public education.
ReplyDeleteI will say that both of my girls had exceptional results with Montessori education (up through 3rd grade in our area), but any system is only as good as those who are committed to it. I've known other schools that work wonders with passionate teachers who are allowed to work their magic outside of the confines and regulations of public schools.
ReplyDeleteI think, at the very least, that these dialogues that are opening up are overdue so that we can figure out how to address this issue quickly.
When you have to drug kids at an early age to get them to accept your method of teaching, you Know that you are desperately in need of change.
ReplyDeleteThe Divergent Thinking example is So Telling. Divergent Thinking = Creative Problem Solving in my book. And the way the current education system is pitched reduces this capacity in people?!
Duh-uhh, as the kids would say. The need to change that Now would seem to be a No Brainer.
Thanks for sharing this, Elizabeth.
x0,
N2
I saw that recently and thought it was really well done, and a bit disturbing.
ReplyDeleteInteresting video. I'm forwarding it to my teacher friends for their input.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that our system of standardization needs upgrading. Not everyone fits neatly into the box. It will be a challenge, though, even with regard to agreeing what the ultimate goal of the educational system is -- producing workers? Preparation for university? Producing well-rounded individuals? Do we stream students or is that limiting to them in a different manner? A lot to think about.
This type of thinking is an excellent way to conceptualize the education of children with disabilities. Inclusion education, while far from perfect, works to a limited extent on this model. Robert is adapted to the classroom and the classroom to him.
ReplyDeleteBut I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from. If you're pegged with a certain level of 'ability' early on, or pegged, for example, into a particular type of interest or skill group, switching groups then presents social challenges, and wouldn't there be a disincentive to switch groups and grow in that case? Especially if the work is collaboratively focused, intensifying a sense of group dynamics and, possibly, enhancing a sense of clubbiness and inclusion?
I think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
This type of thinking is an excellent way to conceptualize the education of children with disabilities. Inclusion education, while far from perfect, works to a limited extent on this model. Robert is adapted to the classroom and the classroom to him.
ReplyDeleteBut I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from. If you're pegged with a certain level of 'ability' early on, or pegged, for example, into a particular type of interest or skill group, switching groups then presents social challenges, and wouldn't there be a disincentive to switch groups and grow in that case? Especially if the work is collaboratively focused, intensifying a sense of group dynamics and, possibly, enhancing a sense of clubbiness and inclusion?
I think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
But I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from. If you're pegged with a certain level of 'ability' early on, or pegged, for example, into a particular type of interest or skill group, switching groups then presents social challenges, and wouldn't there be a disincentive to switch groups and grow in that case? Especially if the work is collaboratively focused, intensifying a sense of group dynamics and, possibly, enhancing a sense of clubbiness and inclusion?
ReplyDeleteI think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
But I have questions--if you're not going to group kids by age, how are you going to group them? By "ability"? And how is ability measured? And couldn't that end up replicating the stratified system he'd like to replace? We're still creating intellectual hierarchies, but, possibly, intellectual hierarchies that would be more difficult to break free from.
ReplyDeleteI think children tend to and should fluctuate in terms of their interests and general skill levels. Age cohorts make it easier to shift within the group as skills improve. In my daughter's public school (not a charter), kids work in skill-level groups and the groups shift regularly, both to mix it up with the individual personalities, and to allow those kids who start to advance to work with a more challenging cohort.
I'm always a bit suspicious, too, about school reform that paints such a picture of possibility, but fails to mention the education of children with disabilities. No matter all this rhetoric of divergent thinking, I just imagine that children with disabilities will continue to be grouped as just that: children with disabilities, even though these kids all have wildly different issues that work against teaching them as a cohort JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DISABLED--this has little to do with age cohorts. When Robert attended the same elementary school, he was pulled out in small groups of other kids with disabilities who varied in age, and had almost nothing in common in terms of learning styles. But it was because of a prevailing attitude that children with disabilities are just all the same.
Not sure if I've made a lot of sense, but the video certainly was thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth.
Sorry, all. Google kept telling me my comment was too large to publish, so I kept cutting it down and trying again. I had no idea it was actually publishing the comments anyway until it published the last one.
ReplyDelete