When I was in school the Christian highschool used something called the P.A.C.E. packets in the A.C.E. Program.
This program divided everything into little packets. �You finished one packet, turned it in, they gave you the next one. � �The thing that made it work was that everybody was pacing through the same cirriculum and assignments with the same answer key as each other, just each in their own time. �One teacher could easily tutor a class of twenty-five different grade highschoolers each doing different work at a different pace because they really just answered quiestions and graded papers, no lesson plans or lectures. �A program like that would make it possible to teach each student within their own readiness level. ��(A.C.E. students and parents agreed it wasn't very good cirriculum, but it met some needs).�
What would make it not work is that the schools would then end up using the same cirriculum as each other. � This wouldn't work because the authorities are proud that the states and local school districts are free to chose their own books and programs, they're just accountable to meet federal standards. Even that would have to change to make a PACE style program work fairly. �The standard testing would have to be given to each student individually at different times, whenever they reached the end of a grade level. �The testing could be computerized in a quiet testing room in the school so the grading and filing wouldn't cost the Ed.dept extra money for not doing everybody at once.
Then the whole school system would have to change. You'd have to compare the student against their own history. �If their pace changed drastically from the previous year they need intervention. �How would you catch cheaters if their papers didn't look the same? �And this would only "teach each child at their own readiness level,"�
It would not come close to "teach each to his/her ability."
Sadly the latter would only add to the debt. �It would require better educated teachers doing even more extra work and really giving kids different cirriculums than each other. �I love the thought written somewhere around here that gifted education teachers should have their masters degree in something other than education, but who's willing to pay for it for everybody else's kids?
Maybe this would work for the local schools, so that no child is left behind and every child gets the same educational opportunity. �And having a different cirriculum at the magnet schools for kids that can and will work harder will help keep America's education competitive. �It's actually not a good idea. �I'm going to think some more. �It's cost effective, actionable, and equal opportunity but I'd rather see a plan where it's "each to their ability".
That's what I got from reading the Davidson webpage that the kids don't have to just hurry up and get through the same program as all the other school kids and graduate and go to college. They can spend the same amount of time in school as everybody else does without stagnating. �Also that PC or not this requires ability grouping. �Duh. �I'm eager to see how.
Could it involve a whole different cirriculum and a different federal test for at least the three different ability levels? �Or is that segregation into a caste system?
��
Wow Taminy, that last paragraph you wrote ought to be mailed in to the NAGC to be used in one of their lectures or brochures describing why we need better gifted education.
