The "Default" Classroom

"Even though teachers think they are teaching to the middle, Slavin noted that the steering group general represents the 19th to 23rd percentile of ability in the class - far too low for the majority of learners in the class."

.....

"In general, the research studies show almost no instances in which whole-group instruction of students of heterogeneous ability is more beneficial for gifted children than some form of differentiated small group instruction. If educators should want to level the playing field of achievement so that all become mediocre in their output, then whole-group instruction is the answer!"

.....

"There is this feeling among all too many educators that what they offer in the classroom is not only necessary, but also sufficient for all learners."

-Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D., "Re-Forming Gifted Education"

The quotations above are within just a couple pages of each other in Rogers' book. In this particular section, she is discussing the "default" option of mixed-ability classroom groups. I find it disconcerting that, given all the evidence Rogers provides, we are left with the impression that not only are gifted children's needs not being met, but those of the average child. If 85% of children can pass grade-level pretests with fairly high proficiency, if the bottom third of the class is being targeted for instruction, if only the slowest children are learning anything new, then why aren't the majority of parents complaining about the state of education?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I have a few theories:

1 - Most parents aren't sure what is going on in the classroom. They only see that their child is doing sufficiently well, and that is enough to assuage any concerns.

2 - This method of instruction makes average children feel very competant and thus not likely to complain about boredom.

3 - Parents do not heed their children's complaints of boredom seriously. (I know that I began this journey by telling my son that we all have to learn to do things we don't like or find boring.)

4 - Parents are too intimidated by the thought that teachers and administrators are "professionals" or that teaching standards are written by "professionals". They don't feel like they have enough knowledge to advocate for their child's educational needs.

5 - Even when parents and/or children advocate on behalf of their own learning, teachers respond as above: they believe they are teaching to the average student in the class or that they are professionals and know more about education than parents and children.

In essence, the system perpetuates mediocrity because teachers refuse to accept their instruction may be flawed or feel compelled to follow standards exactly. Parents don't feel empowered or sufficiently knowledgeable to push for changes. When children voice concerns about their lack of education, they aren't taken seriously. These possibilities may factor into the reason that the majority of the students in the classroom continue to be unchallenged in their educational setting.

Are standardized exams really necessary?

How do homeschooling parents know their children are learning? The answer to this question is, to put it most simply, direct observation. I have only one child. If a teacher had only one child in her classroom, and was unable to describe the reading skills of that child, everyone would be dismayed -- how could a teacher have such close daily contact with one child and miss something so obvious? Yet many people unfamiliar with homeschooling imagine that parents with just this sort of close daily contact with their child require outside evaluation to determine that child's progress. This puzzles homeschooling parents, who cannot imagine missing anything so interesting as the nature of their child's learning.

-Jan Hunt, Ph.D., How do you know your (homeschooled) children are learning?

I recently was involved in a discussion with a person who insisted that homeschoolers who don't wish to have their child evaluated must be hiding the fact that these children aren't learning. I couldn't fathom where the idea originated. Perhaps they were convinced that No Child Left Behind implied all children weren't learning? Or perhaps they tended to be highly suspicious. After reading the above article, it became clear.

Parents whose children are at school all day may or may not have a clear idea of what their children are learning. Their teachers may not, either, given they may be juggling the abilities of 20-30 children at once. My sibling managed to get through three years of elementary school without being able to read. No one noticed!

Aside from the point that parents make direct observation, there really is no compelling reason for a homeschooling parent to compare a child against national norms until they are probably in their teens. Children often learn at different rates, and many homeschoolers have the luxury of giving their children time to learn at their own rate. This is a great benefit to the child.

According to David Elkind, Americans are tied to the notion that education is a race:

Although Head Start is an important and valuable program, it gave rise to the pernicious belief that education is a race - and that the earlier you start, the earlier you finish. This encouraged educators like Carl Bereiter, Siegfried Engelmann, and, more recently, E. D. Hirsch to introduce early academic programs based on the learning theories of E. L. Thorndike and B. F. Skinner. These writers assume that learning follows the same principles at all age levels-ignoring both children's developing mental abilities and the fact that academic skills vary in their logical complexity and difficulty.

One of my arguments in not testing children at such young ages is that this is quite harmful to their self-esteem and desire to learn if they are constantly compared with their peers and don't measure up. The implication seems to be that if they can't learn something right away, they will never be able to learn it.

This reasoning is faulty. Learning to read, for instance, requires a multitude of skills, such as decoding symbols and having the physical ability to focus and move the eyes correctly. It sounds easy, but for small children, it is a serious challenge. Forcing a child to read when they don't have the physical or mental ability will only cause a resistance to learning in the child.

I do believe there are compelling reasons to test a child earlier. If a child has a strong desire to learn, it is helpful to know if the child is gifted. Parents of gifted children, especially parents of exceptionally- and profoundly-gifted, may need to understand where their child's unusual drive and energy come from. Testing provides the benefit of providing the gifted with educational opportunities as well.

If a parent suspects a child may have learning disabilities, it is almost certainly helpful to find out how the child can and cannot process information so that a curriculum can be adjusted to cater to that child's abilities.

And there are children who are both...and sometimes the enigma of these children is only solved when the child is tested.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but for the most part, children need to be given time to learn. As they come closer to adulthood, they probably would benefit from learning where their abilities are relative to where they want to be in order to attain certain career goals, for instance. There is also the issue that test-taking is a skill, and most students will have to deal with our society's obsession with quantification through exams. They will need to take tests at some point or another, and practice at this skill is essential for success.

At one point during my time as a homeschooler, I had to give my son a standardized exam to comply with state homeschool regulations. I was both amused and disappointed with the results. He aced the exam, which was designed for his chronological grade. However, I was very disappointed that it didn't provide information as to what his achievement level really was; it merely stated that he was achieving at the top level for his grade.

I could have told them that without the silly test. All they had to do was ask!