Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Children as teachers in public education?

http://www.examiner.com/article/children-as-teachers-public-education
Children as teachers in public education?
Kumar Singam
DC Gifted Education Examiner

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has embraced a new teaching paradigm: group learning as differentiation. Students in a classroom are divided into multiple groups that work independently while the teacher deals with a small group. Just in the last few days alone, the new MCPS superintendent, Joshua Starr, has tweeted numerous examples of the process in action throughout the school system (for example see here, here, and here). It is part and parcel of a new curriculum being developed by MCPS in collaboration with education publishing giant Pearson.

Pearson hopes to market the curriculum nationwide.

According to Pearson, group learning or collaborative learning, is based predominantly on the research of Noreen Webb, especially her paper published in June 1997, Equity Issues in Collaborative Group Assessment: Group Composition and Performance. According to Webb, two decades of research has shown that group learning increases student learning and social-emotional outcomes such as social skills, self-esteem, etc.

Webb asserts that the opportunity to learn from each other is an “equity issue,” especially because some students have access to better resources. She cites Neuberger as arguing that group work “may” help equalize resources among students with different educational backgrounds “to make testing more fair.”

The justification for using high-ability students as unpaid teachers in the classroom is to be found in Webb’s assertion that “low-ability students learn best in groups with high-ability students, high-ability students perform well in any group composition, and medium-ability students learn most in relatively homogeneous groups.” Webb cites five references to assert that high-ability students typically participate actively and perform well whether they work with other high-performers or with lower-ability students.

Webb’s own research, a single study cited in her 1997 paper, leads her to conclude that the quality of group discussion “was a significant predictor of achievement for below-average students but was usually not a significant predictor of achievement for above-average ability students.” In other words, Webb seems to be acknowledging that high-ability students help raise the achievement of low-ability students but not necessarily the reverse.

One could argue that high-ability children as teachers helps “reduce” the achievement gap by lifting the performance of low-ability children.

What about high-ability students? Webb throws in an “unexpected finding” that high-ability students working in groups with medium-high ability students, performed worse than high-ability students working in other group compositions. A growing body of research shows that public education is failing our best and brightest.

While Webb’s methodology may be criticized, her biggest oversight seems to be the failure to recognize an important consequence of her findings: if low-ability students did benefit from the teaching of their high-ability peers, it is unequivocal proof that low-ability students would have benefitted from the full attention of the teacher. In other words, Webb seems to demonstrate that low-ability students would benefit the most from homogeneous grouping.

Pearson is apparently set to market the MCPS curriculum, known in Montgomery County as Curriculum 2.0, under the name Pearson Forward: A single, digital K–5 integrated curriculum.

Superintendent Starr’s message on the new curriculum is found here. A flyer describing the curriculum is found here. The Superintendent’s TV show on the new curriculum is found here. Pearson’s partnership with MCPS is described here. The research and validity behind the curriculum is described here. An unofficial compilation of data on MCPS is found here. The official MCPS Results Book is found here. School enrollment and demographics are found here.

********************************************************

Good grief. Bad ideas in education never seem to die. I think the Montgomery programs for gifted students have a good reputation, but that can be fixed .

I knew where this was headed as soon as I saw the words "equity issue." And sure enough, the way they're addressing this "equity issue" is by consuming the high-achiever's school day to pass on their knowledge to their peers. Drag the low end and the high end towards the middle, and the result is mediocrity.

I'm all for equality of opportunity, which is why I'm so bothered by this, because high ability children deserve an opportunity to learn, too.

This is like trying to establish income equality by forcing the wealthy to counsel people on how to budget or make a business plan, while their own business ventures wither on the vine.

Yes, of course they do. Unfortunately, the educators I've talked with on this subject don't seem to care about the high performers because they're "already proficient." There seems to be no concept of the idea that someone proficient at third grade math might benefit from moving to fourth grade math while still in third grade. The idea just isn't there, and when I've mentioned it, I get blank stares or annoyance in response.

What can be done about this?  I know it's going to happen.  I doubt that many parents are anything other than proud of that suggestion.  Ideas I've read and I agree with include if you're going to use my child as a teachers assistant then they should receive a salary.  

Ooooo. Sounds like a unpaid child labor claim. I like it!

Been there done that with DD (including the suggestion she get paid : 0 )

To add insult to injury a couple of the parents "complained" about DD's teaching methods...and she was only in K. Sorry, she's smart but at age 5 hadn't quite gotten her BA/teaching certificate yet, not that makes any difference with the quality of some of the the grown-up teachers!

When DS's school used him as a teaching aide, I wrote to them and told them he wasn't an employee of the school and that they should desist from treating him as free labor. I wrote it just like that. They stopped.

Cool, Val. Good for you!

I wonder if I would write a letter or just file a lawsuit.

I like filing lawsuits.

I don't like anything that comes *after* the filing the lawsuit because it involves a lot of work and is generally frustrating, but the filing part is fun.

JonLaw I love reading your posts you always crack me up.

I am torn on this topic. I can sympathize with the idea to a degree - I know from experience that teaching can be a great way to solidify your own knowledge in a subject (in Karate, the higher belts are expected to help teach the lower belts partly for this reason). I know in middle/high school my DD enjoyed helping other students learn and she took satisfaction in being able to explain things better than the teacher.

I guess if they are teaching at or just under their own level and at the same time are being challenged themselves, it may be a good thing. But if the gifties are being forced to work with the students who never should have been promoted and in lieu of being taught anything new themselves then there's a problem.

I remember at my DD's gifted magnet elementary school, the district decided it would be a good idea to move the severely disabled (non-communicative, diapered, tube fed) students to their campus with the theory that gifted kids would be mature and sympathetic to these extremely special needs students and this would be positive for them. I remember a lot of parents being outraged because they thought the district was using their kids for free therapy. I remember fearing that my sensitive DD would be overwhelmed by sorrow for these kids and fear of their fate befalling her or a loved one.

I don't know the answer but I used to think ability grouping was it. Now I wonder if separating people strictly by ability in school really prepares them to deal with the life after school - i.e. have patience for the rest of the people they will eventually be working with. The gifted kid in math may help a student who then turns around and helps them in language, this would seem positive, no? Kind of like the workplace where the engineer with no people skills relies on the planner to get the plans through the public approval process and the planner relies on the engineer to produce plans that are viable.

Okay that's my random 2 cents on this