Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Knew Aproche to Edducashun

DoxaDoxa Registered User
edited February 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
A link to the full article


And the article spoilered
Spoiler:

TLDR: Colorado school district removes grades and implements the "standards based system" in which students progress through education by demonstrating mastery of material with the minimum of 80% grade.

So with the debate on the state of public education I'd like to see what others think of this system. Its new, and has had success in smaller district (Alaska). The school district is the first major school district to implement it so we have our guinea pig.

Is this a possible new way to approach our education system?

My opinion is that this system has a massive potential for success and I am excited to see a large district put it to a test and maybe spread it around. This is a good way for rewarding hard work and giving kids ahead of the curve room to flourish instead of forcing them to walk at everyone's pace.

Doxa on
«1

Posts

  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I dunno... it's too close to a Japanese way of doing school, which I don't really like. They gear the classes so people can pass the tests, which works great for science and math. But literature classes, and liberal arts, suffer because they don't really give a true understanding to the subjects.

    But, I'm curious to see how this would work out in the States, as a big difference is that you can fail in the States.

    工事中
  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Sounds awesome in theory. I remain slightly skeptical until I see it work in large-scale practice, though.

  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User
    edited February 2009
    I'm speaking from an Australian perspective here.

    When I was in high school I 'accelerated' in IT and Chemistry, which basically meant that I skipped a year. At the time it wasn't a hugely common thing, but now there are a large number of students doing the same thing, with all kinds of subjects. A friend's sister has accelerated in Graphic Design. They even have one class of selected students each year, who all work at the year above's level.

    I think it's a step on the progression to a system like that described in the OP, as students' abilities in different subjects vary tremendously, and tying them into a specific year level just serves to make them underachieve in subjects they are good at, and lag behind in subjects they are bad at. I tested several years above my age in a couple of subjects in Primary School, and it would've been nice to skip ahead in those classes.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    That's the kind of thing that can work well with math and science but the more liberal arts aspects? I'm skeptical there.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    How easy will it be for a teacher to fail a student in this system? I have a friend who teaches high school in the standard system and he tells me his administration makes it practically impossible to fail anyone.

    Unless the teachers can easily fail the students who really deserve to fail, it seems to me that raising the minimum percentage needed to pass will only cause assignments and tests to become more dumbed down and cause teachers to spend even more time teaching to the basics than before.

    Another thought - would a system like this actually encourage students (and teachers) to care less about mastery than they currently do? Right now we have letter grades and percents, and every student has his/her own goals - the top students aim for 100%. If we move to an "80% required" pass/fail system, some students who would otherwise aim for 100% will now feel like 80% is enough and shoot for that instead, since it comes out in the grade the same either way.

  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Well, if the smart top student is motivated, he'll still aim for 100%, and he'll aim to get it FAST.

  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    yalborap wrote: »
    Well, if the smart top student is motivated, he'll still aim for 100%, and he'll aim to get it FAST.

    Unless he can get 80% faster and move on.

    I may have misread the system. It looks like letter grades will still be around - just that noone can graduate without a B or better in every class.

  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Marty81 wrote: »
    yalborap wrote: »
    Well, if the smart top student is motivated, he'll still aim for 100%, and he'll aim to get it FAST.

    Unless he can get 80% faster and move on.

    I may have misread the system. It looks like letter grades will still be around - just that noone can graduate without a B or better in every class.

    Well, even if that's the case, that still leaves him at the top in some factor. He shows that he can grasp it good enough very, very fast, and isn't going to try and get blood out of a stone, which would be a commodity in some industries.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Accelerated math was awesome for me. It was called the Banneker program (I think), and it was the last year it was available.

    I took I think Geometry 1-2 in the span of one month instead of over 10. That was my most favorite math class ever.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    This seems insane...but on the other hand, I might have actually graduated high school had this system existed, albeit when I was 14 or so.

  • CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    This system sounds like complete shit to me. Tests have to now be dumbed down to the point that EVERYBODY gets 80% or else they can't move on? What about essay writing, research papers etc?

    To whoever said this like the Japanese system, I'm going to remind you that the "bar" to move up in Japan is a 30%. The system doesn't make kids good at math, all it does is force them to go to yobikou to get a real education because the schools don't provide it.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. However, I could care less about the idea, and more about the experimentation. Maybe this is pessimistic, but those kids probably weren't going to be much better off in an "establishedly" bad system anymore than a brand new attempt. And just to see somethingbeing done totally new makes me feel a lot better.

    So I can't wait to hear how it turns out, and I hope it'll be good.

  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Well, Cygnus, the idea seems to be more that you're gonna stay at X level until you fucking get it, and then you're going to move to Y level and stay there until you fucking get it. And right beside you will be young geniuses, less young normals, and older idiots. And that level is disconnected from any kind of actual grade, so you're not 'held back a grade', you just haven't moved up yet.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. However, I could care less about the idea, and more about the experimentation. Maybe this is pessimistic, but those kids probably weren't going to be much better off in an "establishedly" bad system anymore than a brand new attempt. And just to see somethingbeing done totally new makes me feel a lot better.

    So I can't wait to hear how it turns out, and I hope it'll be good.

    Yeah, if nothing else, it's nice to something completely different being tried, rather than the same non-stop whining about education going down the shitter while doing very little to try and change it.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I wanted to simply say, "I'm glad they're trying new things and it's refreshing to see new ideas experimented upon for education."

    But just to account for all the potential, "Experimenting? On my kids? It better be less likely than you say!" rabble, I made sure to include the apparent fact that their system wasn't working at all anyway.

  • ethicalseanethicalsean Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Well, we've been trying a similar program at my school for the most criminally minded students (oh if I could share my stories with these snowflakes). They basically work at their own pace, and can make up to 3 credits from previous years. They had to have failed the course previously though. Supposedly its been working fairly well (I'm not entirely convinced of the program, but more so to do with the teacher though).

    The "involve students in the lesson plan" is completely laughable. I have met very few students who understand what they need to learn, much less any that can agree if given such consideration. We have empowered students far too much in the modern education system as it is. This sounds to be more of the same "least restrictive environment" nonsense that gets a lifeskills level student placed in a resource or higher class because it looks good on documentation.
    That's the kind of thing that can work well with math and science but the more liberal arts aspects? I'm skeptical there.

    This is where I believe the weakness lies as well. A student can skip a month of school, and still come in and memorize a equation concept and complete a task. Much of primary school math revolves around addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. Whether they remember the quadratic function a month down the road is rather pointless, because it can be eventually relearned if they have mastery in these four concepts. In my experience, I've found it much easier to catch-up a capable student in math than I ever have in English.

    English? Not so much. Writing and reading need to be practiced consistently (especially for ESL students that usually do not interact in English outside of a school environment). I just don't see how a student has any ability to pass a test in English when they've missed a month of the curriculum or are playing catch-up on their own. I just don't see your average at risk student being able to critically read Thereau's Night in Jail.

    But, I'm curious to see how this would work out in the States, as a big difference is that you can fail in the States.

    Oh, you can't fail a special educations student in the United States. He could hold you at gunpoint, never turn in a piece of work, and play the Principal's head as bongos, and hes still going to pass. Otherwise, the teacher has to explain why he is at fault, and how he will improve himself in the future. These are the type of students Colorado is most likely dealing with.

    Actually, this whole policy sounds like a way to have special education without calling it special education (and thusly, avoiding a lot of the stupid federal regulations on things). Its not "resource math" anymore, its just a bunch of "mainstream" students stuck on the same objective in an environment of "least restriction."

    To hammer this point to those who may be confused, my current resource classroom has the following:

    AB Students (severe behavior problems)
    ESL Students (students who have language difficulties)
    Regular Resource (students with some form of learning disability or modication)
    Lifeskill Students (almost wetting their pants kids).

    Now, with regulations you can only have a certain number of students in a life skills program or an alternative behavior problem. Parents can also refuse to allow their child into a program (although academic scores will drop them into special education). You basically have four or more levels of student in the same resource classroom and it creates a lot of problems for the teacher, the students, and the school. It becomes even more problematic because these four classifications in themselves have large ranges of where the student could be academically (life skills for instance ranges from the comatose to highly functioning).

    It sounds like an interesting way to get around some regulation problems, but longterm I feel it may have a negative impact on the system as a whole. The wiz-kids may be able to speed through content, but Im worried about them being able to retain it. There is something to rote memorization. There is something to the social aspect of grade promotion. Heck, how do you even certify for a system? Do you switch teachers completely if you finish the course work in March? How do you review old material under this system after the summer lull? How does this mesh with previous education experimentation into building curriculum that will match with other subjects (first year algebra with first year physics & chemistry)? At what point do you stop dividing students through objectives (do you double up on the teacher, and leave them to potentially handle 10-30 students all on different objectives and plans)? How do you even lesson plan this without killing the teacher? Have they thought this through!?

    I learned long ago that experimentation in education usually ends in a lot more stupid shit than when you first started.

  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    CygnusZ wrote: »
    This system sounds like complete shit to me. Tests have to now be dumbed down to the point that EVERYBODY gets 80% or else they can't move on? What about essay writing, research papers etc?

    To whoever said this like the Japanese system, I'm going to remind you that the "bar" to move up in Japan is a 30%. The system doesn't make kids good at math, all it does is force them to go to yobikou to get a real education because the schools don't provide it.

    I said that it gears the classes for tests, which is suited more for math and science. And I also said that we can actually fail people in the States. And here the students are all still forced into the same classes and go at a slow rate, but it's all gearing them for the tests they have to pass. The Juku's are where people go to learn, yes, but that helps the advanced kids more than the ones who are middle of the road. I never said the Japanese system is good, just commenting about how it seems similar. I HATE the Japanese system.

    工事中
  • CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    yalborap wrote: »
    Well, Cygnus, the idea seems to be more that you're gonna stay at X level until you fucking get it, and then you're going to move to Y level and stay there until you fucking get it. And right beside you will be young geniuses, less young normals, and older idiots. And that level is disconnected from any kind of actual grade, so you're not 'held back a grade', you just haven't moved up yet.

    Some kids CANNOT perform well academically. The test has to be geared so that these students, let's face it idiots, can get 80%. So no, you're basically downgrading all normal education to what amounts to special ed.

  • Folken FanelFolken Fanel J.2C When's KoFRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    So... the class can't move forward until the smart kids get the slower ones to get it? Sounds more like holding kids back than accelerating.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    As far as the "students creating their own lesson plans", there are a lot of interpretations. Some students actually DO know what they want to do, but not quite how to achieve it, so the teachers become a sort of career counselor in addition to educators. One way I've seen the student-based lesson plans implemented is having a "buffet" of activities within a given class (say, Biology) and a variety of activities that they can choose from (raising frogs, identifying species, basics of genetics, etc.). You need to do at least 60% of the activities to pass the class (and each activity needs a "pass", so you can choose an activity and fail it). The sharp ones who get bored easily often complete all of the activities to 100%, while the non-Biology oriented students often go for the bare minimum. Most of the students fall in between 80 to 90% completion. There are still examinations, but the year that I observed this as an outsider, no one failed any of the exams (and these are academically the same exams that would be handed out year to year as before this method of teaching). Not to say that it completely works as an effective teaching tool, but it was pretty novel.
    So... the class can't move forward until the smart kids get the slower ones to get it? Sounds more like holding kids back than accelerating.
    I think the idea is that any individual student who passes with an 80% or higher gets "promoted" to the next level. They don't graduate classes. At least, I hope that's what they mean, because it would be terrible the other way.

    Steam ID: Hahnsoo, Steam Name currently: Hahnsopolis | PSN: Hahnsoo | Monster Hunter Tri: Hahnsoo, E8HJCA
  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    So... the class can't move forward until the smart kids get the slower ones to get it? Sounds more like holding kids back than accelerating.

    no, the slow kids get left in the class and the smart kids go to the next class.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    CygnusZ wrote: »
    The test has to be geared so that these students, let's face it idiots, can get 80%.

    No it doesn't.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    I dunno... it's too close to a Japanese way of doing school, which I don't really like. They gear the classes so people can pass the tests, which works great for science and math. But literature classes, and liberal arts, suffer because they don't really give a true understanding to the subjects.

    But, I'm curious to see how this would work out in the States, as a big difference is that you can fail in the States.

    That actually hurts science as well. A lot.

    It depends on creativity and real thinking over wrought memorization just as much as literature and liberal arts.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    In concrete, clear terms, what is the goal of the Adams 50 system?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Folken FanelFolken Fanel J.2C When's KoFRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    yalborap wrote: »
    So... the class can't move forward until the smart kids get the slower ones to get it? Sounds more like holding kids back than accelerating.

    no, the slow kids get left in the class and the smart kids go to the next class.

    I wonder they would ever really do this though. Would they honestly hold back someone for years if its necessary? I keep thinking of Billy Madison when he's in Kindergarten.

  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    yalborap wrote: »
    So... the class can't move forward until the smart kids get the slower ones to get it? Sounds more like holding kids back than accelerating.

    no, the slow kids get left in the class and the smart kids go to the next class.

    I wonder they would ever really do this though. Would they honestly hold back someone for years if its necessary? I keep thinking of Billy Madison when he's in Kindergarten.

    I'd think so, since the system is an entire decoupling of skill and age.

  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    One of the major problems I see with this system is purely morale, as it is a purely skill-based system. If an older student continues to fail to "get it," they will very likely be discouraged and the system will exacerbate that, likely resulting in more students lashing out. In addition, if a younger student keeps getting pushed through because they're unusually bright, well, kids tend engage in rampant ageism, and I can them getting picked on pretty heavily. One thing that isn't taken into account in a purely performance based system is that school tends to be most young people first major foray into developing social skills. I don't see this system adequately accounting for that. Admittedly, I don't think the existing system holds up standards all that well, either, but I think that this solution is attempting to fix one problem while potentially creating another one.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Well, currently they get discouraged already, because no only do they get it, they're "behind" their peers. And then the school just forgets them after they drop out.

    This system would allow them to spend more time on the material and still be in classes with their age-group peers. And once again, school doesn't teach you shit for social skills. But even if it did, this change would still have them interact with the same amount of people in a day.

    Kids are already getting picked on in schools already, too. You're stating problems that already exist

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    EDIT: Nevermind

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    So instead of kids learning we should just hold everyone back so they can talk to each other at lunch?

    Real social skills don't come in school, they come when you're out of a school and grow the fuck up. Maybe it would help teach kids that it's okay to have friends not exactly their age.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    So instead of kids learning we should just hold everyone back so they can talk to each other at lunch?

    Real social skills don't come in school, they come when you're out of a school and grow the fuck up. Maybe it would help teach kids that it's okay to have friends not exactly their age.
    I never knew a lot of kids who had a problem with that, at least after you got to high school.

    Also, everybody I've met who was homeschooled their entire life was pretty damned awkward (anecdotal, I know), so it would seem to me that yes, school does teach you social skills whether you realise it or not. Maybe your school was different than mine.

  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Well, currently they get discouraged already, because no only do they get it, they're "behind" their peers. And then the school just forgets them after they drop out.

    This system would allow them to spend more time on the material and still be in classes with their age-group peers. And once again, school doesn't teach you shit for social skills. But even if it did, this change would still have them interact with the same amount of people in a day.

    Kids are already getting picked on in schools already, too. You're stating problems that already exist

    Yeah, they do, but this is a system that could exacerbate the problem. Students do form attachment to people they are in class with most of the time and it's generally a first push towards developing those friendships and early social skills. This system doesn't allow for that. The current system isn't perfect on it either, but this new system completely ignores it. And like I said, this is likely not going to show kids they can form friendships with different age groups because, at this age, most kids engage in ageism anyway.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dalboz wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Well, currently they get discouraged already, because no only do they get it, they're "behind" their peers. And then the school just forgets them after they drop out.

    This system would allow them to spend more time on the material and still be in classes with their age-group peers. And once again, school doesn't teach you shit for social skills. But even if it did, this change would still have them interact with the same amount of people in a day.

    Kids are already getting picked on in schools already, too. You're stating problems that already exist

    Yeah, they do, but this is a system that could exacerbate the problem. Students do form attachment to people they are in class with most of the time and it's generally a first push towards developing those friendships and early social skills. This system doesn't allow for that. The current system isn't perfect on it either, but this new system completely ignores it. And like I said, this is likely not going to show kids they can form friendships with different age groups because, at this age, most kids engage in ageism anyway.

    Except that I bet you can't prove that the ageism is not itself a result of being divided into classes by age.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dalboz wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Well, currently they get discouraged already, because no only do they get it, they're "behind" their peers. And then the school just forgets them after they drop out.

    This system would allow them to spend more time on the material and still be in classes with their age-group peers. And once again, school doesn't teach you shit for social skills. But even if it did, this change would still have them interact with the same amount of people in a day.

    Kids are already getting picked on in schools already, too. You're stating problems that already exist

    Yeah, they do, but this is a system that could exacerbate the problem. Students do form attachment to people they are in class with most of the time and it's generally a first push towards developing those friendships and early social skills. This system doesn't allow for that. The current system isn't perfect on it either, but this new system completely ignores it. And like I said, this is likely not going to show kids they can form friendships with different age groups because, at this age, most kids engage in ageism anyway.

    Except that I bet you can't prove that the ageism is not itself a result of being divided into classes by age.

    That is a possibility I've considered, and I honestly don't know the answer to that. It would be interesting to see an actual study on this, particularly when considering a system like this.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Except that I bet you can't prove that the ageism is not itself a result of being divided into classes by age.
    I'd say the ageism is a result of the fact that kids grow as they get older and it's easy for them to beat up the younger ones if they feel like it.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm still not clear on what the purpose of this system is.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    So instead of kids learning we should just hold everyone back so they can talk to each other at lunch?

    Real social skills don't come in school, they come when you're out of a school and grow the fuck up. Maybe it would help teach kids that it's okay to have friends not exactly their age.
    I never knew a lot of kids who had a problem with that, at least after you got to high school.

    Also, everybody I've met who was homeschooled their entire life was pretty damned awkward (anecdotal, I know), so it would seem to me that yes, school does teach you social skills whether you realise it or not. Maybe your school was different than mine.

    Probably because they didn't spend enough time while not being schooled socializing.

    My brother who has been homeschooled his entire life has many friends and isn't socially awkward. I was in public school my entire life and I'm actually afraid of people. Wee, ancedotes!

    In fact, if you were to grade me and my 3 brothers on how 'social' we are, the more that one of us has been in homeschool, the more social they are.

  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    So instead of kids learning we should just hold everyone back so they can talk to each other at lunch?

    Real social skills don't come in school, they come when you're out of a school and grow the fuck up. Maybe it would help teach kids that it's okay to have friends not exactly their age.
    I never knew a lot of kids who had a problem with that, at least after you got to high school.

    Also, everybody I've met who was homeschooled their entire life was pretty damned awkward (anecdotal, I know), so it would seem to me that yes, school does teach you social skills whether you realise it or not. Maybe your school was different than mine.

    Probably because they didn't spend enough time while not being schooled socializing.

    My brother who has been homeschooled his entire life has many friends and isn't socially awkward. I was in public school my entire life and I'm actually afraid of people. Wee, ancedotes!

    In fact, if you were to grade me and my 3 brothers on how 'social' we are, the more that one of us has been in homeschool, the more social they are.

    I would like to talk to your brother on this topic for personal reasons. Just saying.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm still not clear on what the purpose of this system is.
    The cynic in me wants to say it's just a shakeup to try and pretend that they're doing something about educational reform. I saw this a lot in my grade school days - the state and, to a lesser degree, the school board would constantly change things. In elementary school we were in 'liquid' classes which integrated two grades together, alternating teachers and changing classes twice a day. In middle school they were constantly changing the calendars ("year-round", terms with vacations, one solid push through the whole year with just a break for Christmas...). As far as I know, none of these policies ever had any tangible effect on grades, involvement, graduation/dropout rates, or test scores, and as far as I know none of these implementations were permanent (although I think they did eventually settle on a calendar). It was all just a ruse to make the DoE think they were trying to do something about the educational problems in our state. I'm not sure if Colorado's system is as plagued with problems as ours was, but if it is, this is probably something of that nature.

    Barring that, it's somebody hoping to make a name and a career for themselves pimping this system out to other school districts, much like how NCLB was originally a Texan (Dallas?) thing before it went nationwide.

  • ethicalseanethicalsean Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    yalborap wrote: »
    So... the class can't move forward until the smart kids get the slower ones to get it? Sounds more like holding kids back than accelerating.

    no, the slow kids get left in the class and the smart kids go to the next class.

    I wonder they would ever really do this though. Would they honestly hold back someone for years if its necessary? I keep thinking of Billy Madison when he's in Kindergarten.

    It wouldnt happen. They will either modify the test or the curriculum (regulatory, parents, someone will get involved if large number of students are not progressing). They just won't call it special education and avoid pesky regulations and/or pay requirements. My campus does it now with life skills. You put them in a heavily modified class together (or with resource students), stamp "environment of least restriction" somewhere, and then state, "hey we're so great we've got life skills kids out of a life skills class!"

    Adams is a 40% ESL district (at least 40% which is incredibly expensive and I assume with 2/3rd of the district being latino, it much higher). I have a feeling this district is like some of the schools in HISD where entire schools are Special Education. With falling enrollment (no doubt migration back to Latin & South America due to the weakening economy) they're losing funding. I really think this may be a glorified way to avoid education expenses (how does Colorado or the district fund itself?) and a chance to experiment (did I mention I really hate experimentation in education... people want to reinvent the system every other year it seems). I've seen this in Texas recently, where districts (such as Dallas) are pushing for more students into In-Class Support because it avoids regulation and is cheaper (less ARDs, or tracking meetings) or just lowering standards across the board so resource students can be mainstreamed.

    How does this system handle state testing? How do Adam's levels mesh with 6th grade state testing? Do the students take the test when they hit an appropriate age, or does the district only have them take it when they reach the corresponding level? I can see why the program would work in podunk Alaska in a district of 200 students (but such tiny districts always have more local control to do things "their" way). I don't see it working in a district of 10,000 students in an urban environment. I feel for the Adams teaching staff when this is implemented.

    Interestingly though just because I find the reference humorous, I did know a student in elementary/junior high that would be held back like Billy Madison. He could not (or would not) pass any tracking exam/curriculum and would be held back a year. He would at some point be caught with drugs and bumped back up to his normal grade level. He would then fail whatever tracking exam/curriculum they presented in front of him and begin the process all over. My favorite was when he got bumped down from my junior high class to the elementary school and subsequently narc'd on by a 3rd grader. Its how he made it to 8th grade.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.