@engineer,
Back to point two, that the purpose of placement, "gifted" programs and advanced placement courses (AP) are to move resources from the average student to the privledged one.
The author makes this statement as a given
Quote:Granted, it is hard to deny the superiority of the instruction in gifted-and-talented programs and some other honors or high-track classes, what with hands-on learning, student-designed projects, computers, field trips, and other enrichments.
I deny the superiority of the instruction in those programs. Wow, that wasn't all that hard. I can do that because 1) there isn't any "hands on learning", 2) there are not additional student-designed projects, 3) there are no additional computers, field trips or other enrichments. Of course, this article is over a decade old and my experience is only with what I see in schools today and in the 70's, but it seems like the author thinks that honors classes and gifted curriculums are all milk and honey, but what they actually are is work. Six outside book reports per quarter instead of one or two in middle school. Covering two years worth of math in one year so that the student can take geometry in eighth grade instead of algebra I. My experience watching my son in AP classes is that he gets an
extra three hours of homework per week over the two or three expected in a standard class for each AP class. These courses are available to everyone, but unless you are angling for college credit, who is going to sign up for them?
Quote:So if parents of those students were concerned about the quality of learning, they would have no reason to object to extending those benefits to everyone.
Nope, no objections at all. The idea that the parents of stronger students are looking at the way average classes are conducted and demanding that students in those classes be taught ineffectively is very strange.
Quote:This posture, she adds, goes beyond a simple and commendable desire to do everything possible for one's own children. "When parents tell me they're terribly anxious about their kids getting ahead, I'm sympathetic. Everyone wants the best for their kids. But when it extends to sabotaging programs that are designed to help people, I have to draw the line."
Notice what is going on here. It isn't just that these parents are ignoring everyone else's children, focusing their efforts solely on giving their own children the most desirable education. Rather, they are in effect sacrificing other children to their own. It's not about success but victory, not about responding to a competitive environment but creating one. As Harvey Daniels of National Louis University sees it, "The psychology of those parents is that it's not enough for their kids to win: others must lose -- and they must lose conspicuously."
Exactly how do those parents do that? I have enough trouble finding out how teaching is done in my children's classes, how on Earth can I deviously sabotage other classrooms to make other children fail? Once again, I am limited in my exposure, but I can't see how even the most well connected parent goes about harming other students and how that benefits his own. Maybe I could take the best teachers: oops, teachers are selected to teach courses for a variety of reasons, but none have to do with teaching skill. Just like in college where professors are chosen more for how much they bring in in research dollars without regard to teaching ability, teachers in public schools get courses based on seniority, who is out on medical leave and who has the right certifications. While I think most teachers are pretty decent, I've seen examples of uncommitted or ineffective teachers at all levels. The article notes "AP classes at the high school level are usually difficult but often poorly taught." Doesn't that imply that parents are
not using their clout to steal the best teachers? New teachers with all the latest training in the newest equipment and techniques are
not typically assigned honors or AP courses. I don't see how these courses drain critical resources from other classes.
Quote:The second article, published in the Harvard Educational Review, contains a very serious charge leveled by Wells and her colleague Irene Serna: tracking, advanced placement (AP) courses, and gifted programs do not provide differential instruction for legitimate pedagogical reasons -- or allow for a system based on merit -- so much as they represent a naked grab for artificially scarce benefits by those who have the power to get them.[9]
Think scientifically for a moment about how this disturbing hypothesis might be tested. If it were accurate, the beneficiaries of these educational advantages would "be more concerned about the labels placed on their children than about what actually goes on in the classroom."
Well, no. (I can't see how the last statement "scientifically" follows from the hypothesis at all.) If that hypothesis were accurate then the more scarce resources are, the more you would expect AP courses to be demanded by those with the power to influence the decision. In cases where there is an abundance of resources, you would have no driving force for AP classes (if the purpose was to grab scarce resources), so we should expect less in the way of AP classes. I can only discuss this area, but the big private school in the area that charges $10+k/year tuition seems to have tons of AP courses. The article itself says
Quote:just as the fact that a disproportionate number of truly progressive schools are private doesn't mean that a disproportionate number of private schools are progressive. The parents who prefer worksheets and lectures can use their clout to reverse or forestall a move to more learner-centered classrooms.
OK, so if the goal is to take resources from the less well off, why would these tactics continue in private schools where everyone is well off? Not saying that worksheet driven education is superior, but the theory of this paper is that parents are pursuing these actions not because they believe (right or wrong) that it produces better education for all children, but because they believe that it will specifically benefit their child without regard for (or at the expense of) other children.
In summary, I think "scientifically" looking at the argument shoots if full of holes. The article quotes this opinion (like it quotes lots of opinions):
Quote:Beyond attitudes toward children and community, there is the question of how we view education itself. In a new book titled How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning, David Labaree of Michigan State University argues that schooling these days is not seen as a way to create democratic citizens or even capable workers, but serves more as a credentialing mechanism. "The purpose of education from this angle is not what it can do for democracy or the economy but what it can do for me," and this shift turns our school systems into "a vast public subsidy for private ambition." One implication of such a transformation is that education becomes "an arena for zero-sum competition filled with self-interested actors seeking opportunities for gaining educational distinctions at the expense of each other" -- precisely what we've seen affluent parents doing so relentlessly and so well...
The point is not to get an education but to get ahead -- and therefore, from the student/consumer's point of view, "to gain the highest grade with the minimum amount of learning."
Actually the goal is to get ahead
by getting an education. Those honor students can easily get A's without all the hard work. Really, they can. I think we want to push them to achieve just as we want to push every student to achieve.
Quote:For starters, it must be conceded that some parents are genuinely worried about the extent to which their children are learning, or would be learning, in a heterogeneous classroom. They are afraid that the curriculum might be "dumbed down," resulting in boredom and lack of appropriate challenge for their own children. In some places, there is legitimate reason for concern, but as a rule too much attention is paid to the difficulty level of what is being taught, the simplistic assumption being that harder is better. To judge what goes on in a classroom on the basis of how difficult the tasks are is rather like judging an opera on the basis of how many notes it contains that are challenging for the singers to hit.
Harder might not always be better, but appropriately hard is something we should strive for and I think my school system does that without diverting resources away from the average student. (I think the football team does a lot more of that for far smaller impact, but that is another thread). I'll switch from opera to music since I know nothing about singing. If you teach every violin player to play the basics, but don't ever challenge your best violinists to reach higher, you are set for your basic weddings and art openings, but you will never hear
Paganini. (For those of you who made it this far, I am amazed and thankful for your attention.)
