Do "average" students get less out of education (college, public school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was wondering about this the other day. Do average performing students and those who are below average (but have not been diagnosed with a learning disability) get less personalized attention. It seems much of the resources are spent on helping the kids who perform very poorly and the kids who perform very well but not so much for those in between. Any one have any insight on this?
I was wondering about this the other day. Do average performing students and those who are below average (but have not been diagnosed with a learning disability) get less personalized attention. It seems much of the resources are spent on helping the kids who perform very poorly and the kids who perform very well but not so much for those in between. Any one have any insight on this?
Actually, I think it's higher achievers who get less out of education. For one, many of them are high achievers because school comes easily to them so they never have to study and, as a result, never learn to study. They don't learn to struggle and win.
During the two years I taught at a charter school, passing scores on the state science test jumped 40%. That's huge. I doubt the scores of the top of the class went up at all. I guarantee that many of those kids who passed the test didn't pass my class. They got something out of it anyway (I was the only science teacher to have all of the 11th graders and scores dropped right back where they were after I left). I think higher achievers get less out of school. I think many of them are quite capable of learning on their own. It's the kids who don't know how to learn who get the most out of school no matter what their report card says.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,660 posts, read 81,403,499 times
Reputation: 57907
Interesting topic that we were discussing just yesterday, check out this article about a former professor of mine and his study. It was meant to help managers in business but the study was on children in school.
Actually, I think it's higher achievers who get less out of education. For one, many of them are high achievers because school comes easily to them so they never have to study and, as a result, never learn to study. They don't learn to struggle and win.
During the two years I taught at a charter school, passing scores on the state science test jumped 40%. That's huge. I doubt the scores of the top of the class went up at all. I guarantee that many of those kids who passed the test didn't pass my class. They got something out of it anyway (I was the only science teacher to have all of the 11th graders and scores dropped right back where they were after I left). I think higher achievers get less out of school. I think many of them are quite capable of learning on their own. It's the kids who don't know how to learn who get the most out of school no matter what their report card says.
I believe more intelligent students get less out of our education system. Students learn at different paces, have different rates of retention, differing abilities to understand abstract ideas, differing levels of intellectual curiosity, different work ethics and different levels of creativity. Yet our education system does little to differentiate these abilities. Students are thrown in the same classes until middle school or junior high. The only differentiation is pulling learning support students and other special needs students out of the classroom for part of the day for more individualized instruction. Some differentiation may take place in middle school or junior high where higher level students take a more advance math class and may take a foreign language typically in 8th grade.
Our schools have moved away from the tracking that took place 40 years ago where students with similar test scores and grades were grouped together in classes. This allowed teachers to teach each class differently since more motivated and intelligent students were in the same classes. At the same time, students with average or below average abilities were in classes with similar students. This allowed teachers to teach at a slower pace and do additional review. I have been in classes where the pace is too fast and I have been in classes where it is agonizingly slow. It all comes down to challenging students but not overwhelming them. Too many students give up the fight once they feel overwhelmed.
I don't put much credence in Rosenthal's Pygmalion effect. This story is repeated in every social psychology textbook. Any teacher who expects greater intellectual development from certain children based on a standardized test and not from observed student performance over the course of a year should not be teaching. Yes, any teacher might be temporarily influenced by reported test results. Wouldn't any decent teacher reformulate their opinion of the students academic potential after the first month?
If anyone disagrees with my arguments, I suggest you spend time observing several classrooms and notice how teachers must slow their lessons to deal with students who have trouble paying attention, refuse to do homework, have trouble with reading comprehension, are unable to quickly learn new information, have little prior knowledge of the subject matter and just don't want to be in school. The brighter more motivated students put up with this every day.
I agree, but I will put it in easier terms for others to understand. If you already know the material what else can you learn? If you you don't know the material and you are bound to learn something rather you want to or not
It sounds like a fuzzy question to me. What does it mean to "get more" or "get less" out of education?
You mean which category has its needs served best by schools?
Which category will use the education they receive in school to make the largest leap in social mobility later on?
I am not even sure what the question is actually asking.
What's the rationale?
Not arguing. I was just curious as to why you think this is so.
Teachers are forced to teach to the vast majority, which is the average student. Catering to the middle of the bell curve is the most efficient way of teaching a group. It takes more resources to reach those on either end of the curve PLUS there are fewer students to actually reach.
I know that in my own learning experience in K-12 public school, until I attended college and went to an academically rigorous and selective enrollment private school, nobody really cared too much about whether or not the higher performing students were challenged. The unspoken (and sometimes spoken) rationale was that we were already ahead of the curve, so just keep doing what we're doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
