Is it possible to achieve equity through the education system?

[SaiWa]

See the post above. Besides, it's not like it was a hoax made up by some right-wing douches. It's a flier that the ETFO really made for the event, just after it went viral online and the woman was contacted she said that the acronym was done over the top on purpose.

hey you believe what you wanna believe to help you sleep at night... I am not judging you...



actually yes I am...

 

[sangreporsangre]

I can't comment on Finland. But we have something similar in Germany now where they tried to include mentally disabled in a regular school.
IMO it's not working well mostly because the school system in my state is not set up like that. We have special schools for the disabled people.
So regular schools don't have the manpower, budget or facilities to handle those mentals.

That's beside the issue that ordinary students are held back. But I have to say in Germany this is not so much driven by the SJW.
But somewhat by parents that to a certain degree don't accept their children have to go to a special school.
So its a bit of an uncomfortable issue.
But in general, I would say it's not working.

Thanks for chiming in. So in your view the special ed kids in "normal" classes hasn't exactly been a huge success eh. Do you guys have this streaming process in secondary school in Germany? I would figure that Germany has a great school system and I'm curious if they have that process.

 

[sangreporsangre]

hey you believe what you wanna believe to help you sleep at night... I am not judging you...



actually yes I am...

 

[Swing]

So have you taught under both paradigms, streaming and de-streaming? If so, did you notice a big difference in the levels of academic success overall for the kids? I agree with you about that "menu of problems" deal, I don't like the sound of that.

It's been this way since I started (I'm in my 5th year), so I can't offer you any insight as far as comparing and contrasting the two situations. Sorry.

 

[sangreporsangre]

It's been this way since I started (I'm in my 5th year), so I can't offer you any insight as far as comparing and contrasting the two situations. Sorry.

Thanks anyway. I wasn't sure from your post if you have done both. Your post seemed to suggest that you don't think de-streaming is a good idea, but your follow up post to Pan made it seem like you think it may be a good idea with smaller class sizes. We have an average of about 30 kids per class here. I mean I've always heard about how they were going to lower it, or institute hard caps on the amount of kids in classes, but as long as my kids have been in school it's been around 30.

What do you make of the special ed thing, do they have special ed classes where you work? Or are the kids integrated into the classrooms?

 

[Swing]

Thanks anyway. I wasn't sure from your post if you have done both. Your post seemed to suggest that you don't think de-streaming is a good idea, but your follow up post to Pan made it seem like you think it may be a good idea with smaller class sizes. We have an average of about 30 kids per class here. I mean I've always heard about how they were going to lower it, or institute hard caps on the amount of kids in classes, but as long as my kids have been in school it's been around 30.

What do you make of the special ed thing, do they have special ed classes where you work? Or are the kids integrated into the classrooms?

They're integrated in with the rest of our students, although many of them have a period set aside each day when they work with a Special Ed teacher to work on anything they need help with (we call them inclusion teachers).

I don't think de-streaming is a good idea. I do think that a teacher who can manage a classroom of mixed students probably makes for a better teacher overall, regardless of whether or not students in a class are at widely varying levels.

 

[Swing]

My biggest issue with our ESE students (Special Ed) is that some of them receive accommodations such as extra time on exams. That is flatly unfair to the other students. One because it's no longer an accurate representation of how well they did against the other students, and two because we can't accommodate extra time on during the period itself. The kids often get to finish their exams the following day or some time later in the week. They'd be idiots not to take advantage of that time to look up or figure out answers.

 

[panamaican]

I guess my major problem with it is how intersectionality has basically become like a state religion. The entire school system is now underpinned by a pseudo-religious ideology. I definitely don't like how use our tax dollars to hire all these consultants for constant diversity training and so forth. As regards the de-streaming and the ending of special ed programs, I'm not sure how I feel about those which is why I was asking for opinions and if anyone has experience with this. The special ed one I'm really skeptical about if it's a good idea or not - won't these kids benefit from a more specialized environment? My step-sister teaches special ed and has told me about the kinds of outbursts and disruptions which are a daily event in her classrooms. I'm not sure that it will be the best idea to fully integrate all those kids into to the main classrooms. The de-streaming thing I'm not so sure of.

I think pseudo-religious ideology is a stretch since they are citing research related to the field. Most of the current research suggests that how you treat students has a measurable impact on how they perform. That's not to say it's the only thing that matters but it is something that matters. And if it matters then shouldn't the schools include that information in how they structure their environments?

To disregard the information would be akin to saying that we know that we can help X students perform better in the classroom but we just won't do it.

The special education element seems to say "appropriate placement" which I interpreted to mean you put them where they belong. So a kid who can only do 3rd grade work is placed where he/she will do 3rd grade work and then the appropriate resources are allocated to the classroom to make that a realistic possibility. It doesn't seem to say that you take that kid and drop him into the 2nd or 5th grade based on age and then hope the teacher can integrate them. So, to me, that seems dependent on what type of resources they're going to allocate to the classrooms. But since they already have a special needs apparatus in place, I gather it's more of a reallocation than a new allocation.

Streaming or destreaming as it's referenced seems to follow along the same reasoning. Instead of streaming students, you put them in the appropriate classrooms. Now there's some research out there about the negative affects of streaming on students in the short and long term since it doesn't account for students who have been send down one road becoming improved students and ever returning to the other road. Which can actually cause more students to tune out once they realize that they have been deemed inadequate by the very institution that is claiming to educate/support them.

That's a research debate point and I'm not deep enough in the material to claim which side is correct. But this direction by the Board at least follows some newer research positions.

In short, it reads like that part of the recommendations is to regularly assess the students and place them where they belong in classrooms as opposed to assigning them some place and then never accounting for the possibility of substantial growth later in the student's life.

I don't think anything I've read contradicts what education research suggests. And, more importantly, it seems done with the goal of improving student outcomes so I can't knock that. Whether or not it works remains to be seen. The biggest problem with these education reforms, imo, is that these things require years to bear fruit and instead they're changed every 5 years to something new. Completely negating the point. If it is stuck with, who knows, you might find better educated and better integrated students are the result.

 

[panamaican]

That sounds right. The class size is the biggest factor, I think. Obviously differentiating between 10-15 students will be easier than 20-25 and so on. Part of my reticence is due to how I wouldn't care for it as a student myself. I liked a standard lecture format just fine, and anything beyond someone telling me how things work always seemed like it was taking the roundabout way of giving me information (the exception being lab classes where the whole point is to be hands on). I figured that out about myself the first year though, and I do the best I can not to let my own preferences hold back how I teach.

Interesting. I hated the standard lecture format. I found it a tremendous waste of my time. 90% of the time, it was the same stuff you could find in the textbook and learn in half the time on my own.

I would have preferred differentiated or project based learning where I could learn the same themes but I wasn't tied to the pace/interests of the other students.

 

[Swing]

The biggest problem with these education reforms, imo, is that these things require years to bear fruit and instead they're changed every 5 years to something new. Completely negating the point. If it is stuck with, who knows, you might find better educated and better integrated students are the result.

I think one of the biggest problems is that teachers themselves barely get enough time to wrap their heads around these things. If something is given enough time, people will always find ways to make it work.

 

[sangreporsangre]

I think pseudo-religious ideology is a stretch since they are citing research related to the field. Most of the current research suggests that how you treat students has a measurable impact on how they perform. That's not to say it's the only thing that matters but it is something that matters. And if it matters then shouldn't the schools include that information in how they structure their environments?

To disregard the information would be akin to saying that we know that we can help X students perform better in the classroom but we just won't do it.

The special education element seems to say "appropriate placement" which I interpreted to mean you put them where they belong. So a kid who can only do 3rd grade work is placed where he/she will do 3rd grade work and then the appropriate resources are allocated to the classroom to make that a realistic possibility. It doesn't seem to say that you take that kid and drop him into the 2nd or 5th grade based on age and then hope the teacher can integrate them. So, to me, that seems dependent on what type of resources they're going to allocate to the classrooms. But since they already have a special needs apparatus in place, I gather it's more of a reallocation than a new allocation.

Streaming or destreaming as it's referenced seems to follow along the same reasoning. Instead of streaming students, you put them in the appropriate classrooms. Now there's some research out there about the negative affects of streaming on students in the short and long term since it doesn't account for students who have been send down one road becoming improved students and ever returning to the other road. Which can actually cause more students to tune out once they realize that they have been deemed inadequate by the very institution that is claiming to educate/support them.

That's a research debate point and I'm not deep enough in the material to claim which side is correct. But this direction by the Board at least follows some newer research positions.

In short, it reads like that part of the recommendations is to regularly assess the students and place them where they belong in classrooms as opposed to assigning them some place and then never accounting for the possibility of substantial growth later in the student's life.

I don't think anything I've read contradicts what education research suggests. And, more importantly, it seems done with the goal of improving student outcomes so I can't knock that. Whether or not it works remains to be seen. The biggest problem with these education reforms, imo, is that these things require years to bear fruit and instead they're changed every 5 years to something new. Completely negating the point. If it is stuck with, who knows, you might find better educated and better integrated students are the result.

I guess my problems are based more on what's already happening, how the ideology is already playing out, more so than what they've written here. This new draft plan just seems to me that they're ramping up their ideology. My daughter started in a private school this September and even though it's costing us a fuckin grip I think it's money well spent. We'll see how this all turns out with the public system, but I'm definitely not optimistic.

 

[Swing]

Interesting. I hated the standard lecture format. I found it a tremendous waste of my time. 90% of the time, it was the same stuff you could find in the textbook and learn in half the time on my own.

I would have preferred differentiated or project based learning where I could learn the same themes but I wasn't tied to the pace/interests of the other students.

Well the quality of a lecture can be pretty different depending on how well the teacher knows his subject. I think of it like the difference in enjoyment that I would have reading an essay that is simply full of citations versus reading an essay that is written by someone who has internalized the material.

 

[Swing]

@panamaican I take your point concerning differentiated instruction allowing a more gifted student to move at an accelerated pace though. That's a big plus.

 

[panamaican]

I guess my problems are based more on what's already happening, how the ideology is already playing out, more so than what they've written here. This new draft plan just seems to me that they're ramping up their ideology. My daughter started in a private school this September and even though it's costing us a fuckin grip I think it's money well spent. We'll see how this all turns out with the public system, but I'm definitely not optimistic.

I have mixed opinions on the entire line of thought. I've read enough research to know that these things to matter to student outcomes if properly implemented. How disruptive it is to implement them isn't something I'm familiar with. So, that's a balancing act. Doing what you need to maximize your current and future student population without overly disrupting your current students.

 

[HockeyBjj]

The way the school systems are possibly keeping an uneven plying field is how funding is based off the property taxes of an area. Rich district has high paying schools and therefore better ones for the education, while inner city schools are constantly underfunded and overpopulated and resulting in poor performance

Balancing the amount of money spent per student in public education regardless of district would go a long way to balancing them. Hyperfocusing on students skin color won’t do a damn thing except make things worse

 

[panamaican]

@panamaican I take your point concerning differentiated instruction allowing a more gifted student to move at an accelerated pace though. That's a big plus.

That's always been the thing that mattered to me but nowadays I have friends whose kids need a decelerated pace, even though they're not special needs, just the slow side of average, and in these neighborhoods, it's pretty much not accounted for because everyone wants the schools to go faster.

I think the push towards differentiated instruction is probably the best direction we can go until truly personalized learning becomes a thing. Implementation, of course, is a beast of a different color.

 

[snakedafunky]

Thanks for chiming in. So in your view the special ed kids in "normal" classes hasn't exactly been a huge success eh. Do you guys have this streaming process in secondary school in Germany? I would figure that Germany has a great school system and I'm curious if they have that process.

I am not exactly sure how it done in different states might be a bit different, but in my state we don't have specialled classes but rather special ed schools.
How it works is you do 4 years of primary school. And after that kids get divided into 3 different schools. Depending on how good they performed in primary school.
So its one for under average performer one for average performer and one for good performer.
But all 3 are for regular students. Then we have a 4th school that for Special ed or the disabled.
So of course, all funding for those disabled students goes to the 4th school, not to the regular one.

Lets say you close the 4th school and put the budget into the "normal" school system it might work.
But I still don't think that's a good solution. And I am all for trying to be inclusive for the disabled I just don't think its a good idea in education.

 

[HockeyBjj]

I don't doubt that there is a real push, but come on, you had to see that flier and think it was likely a hoax or joke.

From the Snopes article from the ones who made the poster-

Yes, the poster is genuine. The intent of the title was to draw workshop participants (teachers) by acknowledging that keeping track of diverse LGBTQ identities can be overwhelming, especially as our students are continuously identifying new ones.


That’s not just a poster done for laughs. They made the acronym that long to show that teachers need be able to Lee track of all the different identifies students have

I don’t see how that’s a hoax or a joke. Their point was to show how many sexual identities there are, and righties are laughing at it for having so stinking many

 

[Jack V Savage]

From the Snopes article from the ones who made the poster-

Yes, the poster is genuine. The intent of the title was to draw workshop participants (teachers) by acknowledging that keeping track of diverse LGBTQ identities can be overwhelming, especially as our students are continuously identifying new ones.

That’s not just a poster done for laughs. They made the acronym that long to show that teachers need be able to Lee track of all the different identifies students have

I don’t see how that’s a hoax or a joke. Their point was to show how many sexual identities there are, and righties are laughing at it for having so stinking many

It's a joke-y exaggeration to draw attention to the thing. That's what they said. It's the only usage of that acronym Google turns up.

 

[lifelessheap]

In 7th grade I was sent to high school for math. The advanced kids got to do advanced things. God, I can't imagine how boring it would have been to not be challenged.