Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ignore ACT Reading and Science scores?

At least in MA, the generalist model in elementary school is usually accompanied by heterogenous grouping. There may be three teachers in each grade, and each teacher is supposed to get a similar mix of students. Based on our teacher's frequent communications, the idea is that each class is like a family or community, the class largely progresses together, and during the year she gets to know each student. Being cynical/realistic, this model is not a disaster because the affluent MA towns restrict land use, keep home prices high, and attract mostly affluent parents, most of whose kids have IQ >= 100. As I mentioned earlier, I support a specialist model with less emphasis on community and more emphasis on each student learning at his/her level in all subjects.
If there were ability grouping and teacher specialization in elementary school as in high school, the parents of the children in the bottom group might be unhappy. The heterogenous model is easier politically for principals and conforms to their philosophy, so it is entrenched.

Not necessarily. I know parents of slower learners who are unhappy for the same reason that people here are: the pace is wrong for their kids and their kids don't learn. Recall the debate in the 70s and 80s, when parents of disabled kids and slower learners got very loud about their dissatisfaction with the schools. They were unhappy that the needs of their kids were being ignored.

My cynical opinion is that lockstep teaching is easier for teachers and administrators (even when enhanced by IEPs). It probably also reflects the romantic idea that everyone can learn at the same pace if we just give them a chance.

Why? What's better about it?
[/quote]

I love the elementary school climate and community and while I strongly support homogenous grouping for targeted academic work, I believe in the value of a diverse and heterogeneous classroom community. I realize that there are many places where this is not done well, which makes me sad. However, there are also places where it is done well, and my hope is to see more schools beginning to move toward team models of teaching. My building uses an instructional team model in which 3 teachers work with 30-34 students (in K,1 or 2/3 classroom) or with 45-52 students (in a 4/5 classroom). We are able to create much tighter instructional groups under this arrangement than would be true in three stand alone classrooms, without sacrificing the opportunity for kids of vastly different backgrounds and abilities to get to know and appreciate one another.

With a few exceptions, students are with us all day, and we get to know them extremely well. Especially in high poverty schools like the one I work in, that makes a huge difference. I don't think this community is only important in high poverty schools, however. I have strong, mostly positive memories of my own elementary classrooms and classroom teachers (save for a horrendous fourth grade teacher), vs. the fragmented memories I have of my middle and high school teachers and classmates. DD11, who is on the shy side, bonded strongly with her classroom teachers in elementary school. It took a long time for her to be comfortable even in those environments--she barely spoke in other classes (P.E., music, etc.) and it often took a long time even with that steady classroom teacher for a teacher to "see" her. If she'd been shuffled from teacher to teacher she not only would have been miserable, I believe she would have been nearly invisible.

Her transition to middle school was an unhappy one. She felt that none of her teachers knew her well, and I would tend to agree with her. When teachers specialize, they are likely to work with 120+ students at a time, and I think it is very difficult to really know that many students well enough to program well for them. By middle and high school we expect our children to be self-sufficient, to advocate for themselves, and to be more adult-independent. Those skills are cultivated in a smaller elementary environment, especially when they aren't well cultivated at home, or when with kids like my DD, they are shy and sensitive to criticism. It is difficult to learn to take constructive criticism (especially for our perfectionists) and I believe that it is an easier skill to learn when there is opportunity to build a strong, trusting relationship with a teacher and peer group.

Again, I acknowledge that children at the "tails" need some variations in approach and grouping. They may also need different things out of their elementary years then most children do. However, they don't all need the same things, and just as it is inappropriate to force children at the tails into the structures and instruction that meets the needs of a larger group of children, it I believe that it is also inappropriate to sacrifice the needs of the larger group because some children at the tails don't have the same needs.

I want elementary school to meet every child at their next level of challenge, but I also want it to be fun, and I believe a generalist model lends itself more easily to creating a fun overall experience.

True...but my point was that teachers need to be competent in the subjects they teach, not necessarily the brightest.

But the GRE is not a subject competency test. Similar to the SAT, it is more of a test of aptitude or even intelligence. Teachers take Praxis tests to prove competency in the areas they are going to teach. Now I wouldn't fault you for criticizing the Praxis system (the math test is a JOKE), but you are talking GRE. Also, please remember that the only people who take the GRE are those who are planning on attending graduate school. This is not a snapshot of the general population, so these scores don't mean that teachers have below-average intelligence.

Not these days. High-IQ organizations like MENSA don't accept GRE scores. Example: MENSA won't accept post-2001 GRE scores (check their website). The math section of the GRE is primarily a test of algebra, geometry, and arithmetic. The verbal section is primarily a vocabulary test, and there are dozens (at least) of sources that can be used to study for the test. I agree that there's a cognitive element there, but it's all junior high and high school-level.


Praxis is used in Connecticut. The authorities there lowered the passing score in math several years ago from 141 to 137. Before they lowered the standards, only 51% of teachers could pass it the first time and only 70% passed it eventually ( see link ).

I also found some numbers for Pennsylvania. Just under 79% passed math on the first attempt (test code 5730, which is the one I reference below). This is better than Connecticut, but given the low standards of the math exam, those numbers should be higher. Overall, the numbers in the spreadsheets weren't encouraging.

Here are some sample questions from the Praxis. They include, "Which of the following numbers is equal to a quarter of a million?" and "Which of the following fractions is the least?" The values of all but one of the fractions were greater than one.

What does all this say about the people taking a test you've described as a "joke?"

Val,

I don't think that the Praxis is rigorous enough to determine competency. It's not really the type of questions on the test, but rather the scores required to pass. For example, the Math Praxis does test a wide breadth of math knowledge. I needed to review trigonometry, geometry, and matrix algebra before taking the test, because it had been many years since I had studied any of those subjects (I had continued using calculus and statistics in my job). Even after reviewing, I knew that there would be a few questions that I would not be able to figure out. However, I came to discover that I only needed to answer about 50% of the questions right to pass. I think that this is absolutely ridiculous, and that it does a real disservice to secondary math teachers. BUT, if passing scores were too high, we would not have enough teachers to go around! Teaching is not a profession that is very popular with our best and brightest citizens, who can sometimes have much more rewarding careers in other fields.

I think that there is a big difference between wanting teachers to have higher Praxis scores (which would demonstrate knowledge of the actual subjects that they will be teaching) and higher GRE scores. I know that there are people out there who "study" for tests like the GRE and SAT, and I think that the trend of preparation programs has decreased the validity of these as IQ tests. This is why these two tests are no longer accepted for IQ - not because they suddenly are testing achievement instead of aptitude. Why can intelligent kids do well on tests like the SAT before actually learning the information in high school? Because they purposefully pick subjects that don't have to be formally learned to test. Smart kids can figure out questions about geometry without going through a course of formal proofs, and they can figure out questions involving algebra without using formulas that we learned in school.

Education programs typically have low GRE score requirements (and don't base entrance decisions on them), and so there isn't usually a big incentive to prepare for the exam like there might be for more competitive programs. If you want to get into top-tier PhD programs, you need top scores.

I'm sorry - I'm sure it seems like I'm "beating a dead horse" here, but I think that teachers already get such a bad rap and we don't need any more attacks on our intelligence and competency. If you want smarter, more qualified teachers, you have to make the profession more appealing to smarter people. I think what we could stand to have is a little MORE respect for our teachers. It is hard for teachers to do their jobs when the students get the idea that they are unintelligent and/or incompetent. In my day (and I am not that old) it was the parent's responsibility to keep their kids on track and the student's responsibility to do the work. The teacher was merely a guide on the journey. These days, it seems like we blame the teacher first without even asking if the students and parents are putting in the slightest effort. It's kind of like blaming doctors for their patients' unhealthy habits. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

I just noticed that the Praxis you're talking about is Praxis I, which is required by all educators, but I am talking about the Praxis II Mathematics: Content Knowledge that is required for secondary math teachers. It has algebra I and II, geometry, matrix algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics on it.

This is what bothers me so much --- that so many people can't pass a very basic test on the first attempt. Then add in all the borderline and near-borderline ones. That's a lot of people who teach math (and tell us that our kids don't need acceleration) who aren't really competent in the subject, even at a very low grade level. If they can't pass this test, how can they teach math --- even elementary math?




I'll send a reply to this tomorrow afternoon; I actually have to go teach right now. And then I have a deadline tomorrow.

I'm not trying to dump on people and I may have sounded too aggressive (that's the argument-dissecting scientist in me). But the reality is that people who can't pass a very basic math test like the Praxis I (as well as the borderline cases) are simply not competent.

I looked at the higher level math test and agree that it has real meat in it. But I'm not talking about people who take that test. People who do well on it know stuff. I'm talking about the ones who barely pass the basic tests. I honestly don't think they should be teaching (especially because according to a paper I found, they tend to end up in lower-income schools). Just because some teachers get criticized wrongly doesn't mean that all criticism is wrong. Honesty is important on both sides: teachers do an important job and often don't get credit for the challenges they face. But this doesn't detract from the fact that some of them lack sufficient knowledge to teach even lower-elementary classes.

I'll pull that paper up tomorrow.

Val,

I agree with most of maybe even all of what you're saying. The reason I jumped into this conversation in the first place and started defending teachers is that WAY back at the beginning there was some serious bashing of teachers as a group because their GRE scores were the lowest out of the categories on that one table. It really bothered me to see teachers portrayed that way to the very people from whom they need the most respect.

Part of the reason that the "talent" of the country tends to shy away from teaching is the way that the people think that old motto: If you can't do, teach. It's kind of a dangerous circle where the brightest people are choosing NOT to teach, because there is this idea that teachers are stupid and are not respected, so teacher prep programs actually have to keep digging more and more to the bottom of the barrel. The only way to stop this cycle is to fundamentally change the way that teachers are recruited and somehow make it a more respectful profession, and yes that has to mean tougher requirements for teachers, but at the same time you must increase the benefits of the job or you will not get nearly enough people applying!

It's a tough issue, and one that won't be solved overnight.