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

My DD has been both used as a teacher's aide and been in a full inclusion classroom with kids who had more serious issues. She loved it and got something out of it. A child who never spoke started speaking with DD, and both girls benefited from the relationship.

My complaint is that this went at the expense of my child having some time during the school day to be taught to her own level. Academically advanced kids also need to be challenged to their level academically to develop appropriately. Little children also shouldn't be used as a teacher's aide for a child with impulsive physical issues, such as the more severely autistic boy in her class that lunged at his classmates...as it is the job of the adult aide to keep all the children safe and protected.

The problem of this model, like many things, is that it strays from the theory and when not implemented properly, some team members benefit while others lose.

I wonder how I feel about this practice. I know it's the most common. I don't think I mind my son volunteering for part of the school day but I don't want that to be his only accommodation for being advanced. Some thoughts I entertain are actually sending work to school with him to keep him busy learning in his seat once he's finished the classwork. If he has enough time to teach another reading group then he has enough time to sit with another class and learn how to do classwork for part of the day too then I would be ok with that. Ideally I would want him to have to sit and pay attention during the day like the other kids if I had my druthers.

I think that my DD9 would love it if she got to do this. She would probably be thrilled to run the entire classroom by herself.

I should probably wait and see what it's like when ds 4.6 starts school. A few people have said, "he'll be teaching the class by the time he starts school." I remember doing just that when I was in school so I think it's more than just a compliment. I was partially homeschooled when I was a kid. I've noticed a few people here say they're considering it for next year. I plan on "letting" him go to school as long as he behaves himself and as long as he likes going. That's fine I'm all for the right to homeschool but I know the three I've seen say so would rather send their kid to school to get an education. They can socialize and be taught new stuff at the same time.

I'm with bzylzy. My DD10 loves to help her classmates in math. I think it helps her solidify her skills....you really need to understand something to teach it to a 4th grader!

But she gets no math instruction at her own level. At school that is. I'm doing math with her at home. On the bright side, her (team) teachers do realize they are not challenging her and she is not required to do the work the other kids do. She does that work when she wants a review and does the work from home the rest of the time. She keeps a math log for them as a way of being accountable.

The teachers wanted to send her to the 5th grade teacher for math, but the principal believes that you can challenge a kid by going deeper. I pointed out to him that that's what 5th grade math IS, 4th grade math, only deeper. Fell on deaf ears.

I would ask him for examples. "Can you please give me an example of "deeper" methods in fourth grade math?

Failing that, maybe the 4th grade teachers could start giving her 5th grade stuff.

I'm not sure where I fall on this issue, probably a little on both sides. (Although these discussions always make me thankful for our school district, which has its faults but also tries to do right.)

I do think there's something to be said that teaching someone else skills can truly solidify your own skills. You have to understand something completely and thoroughly to be able to teach it, IMO. So I see the benefit, but not at the cost of not having equal time being taught new skills, which can clearly be the negative side effect of this type of grouping.

I'm happy to say that our principal recently brought up (at a parent forum, no less) the reality that it's the most advanced kids that are making the least progress each year. And that he, and the school district as a whole, are working on fixing that. That the gifted kids shouldn't be short-changed just because they achieve "Advanced" on the tests. We'll see how that plays out, given that our gifted support program is really a pull-out enrichment program with no acceleration piece to it. But, I do think his comments were one of the reasons that the math specialist no longer only works with low-skill kids but also has pull-outs for the high-achieving kids as well.

As someone who was forced to teach other kids but never taught HOW to teach the other kids, I'm concerned that this is more of a form of babysitting. I used to get fed up with the other kids and tell them the answers because our brains just didn't work the same way. I didn't understand until much later in life that some people need every single step spelled out for them and that they often had no idea what I was talking about.

My DD9's school use this as a method of stretching her (with our agreement) and it is working really well.

However it is not all the time (once a week at the moment) and she has one to one time with the teacher to discuss what she wants to teach the class, how she will approach it, what her plans are for particular children in her class with learning difficulties etc.. The teacher is obviously present at the back throughout the lesson, then they debrief after on how it went.

It makes DD think about things in more depth and have better appreciation and understanding of how her peers think.

The other kids also like it as she puts lots of effort into being creative (and often lessons seem to involve chocolate!) and sometimes it is easier for them to understand something from someone who has only recently learnt about it themselves, plus they will ask her in the playground to teach them more!

Admittedly she does not learn much more about the particular topic, but she learns an awful lot about people and communication and the process of learning itself which I feel is more valuable to her.

G

My DD was asked to do this in kindergarten and it was not a big success.

One particular concern I have with this is that I think it is often tried with gifted girls, on the theory that they like to "help." Here we go, reinforcing that that is the way girls are supposed to be (pat on the head, what a good girl) and meanwhile, their own intellectual gifts can go ahead and wither on the vine. Or, alternatively, if they are NOT good at it, as DD was not (she is not the mother hen type), then there may be an unsaid, but still present message of "What is your problem that you don't know how to do this thing? Why CAN'T you mother-hen like a good girl should?"

It's true that teaching others is a great way to reinforce skills. However, there are other ways to have them do this. I am very interested in closing the education gap, but this particular method is a little too much social engineering for me.

Here, "deeper" meant doing reports on the lives of famous mathematicians after the normal math work was done. I told the school at the last meeting that if any such idea is ever introduced again, we'll leave the meeting and our next step will be immediately applying for a finding of academic hardship, to allow transferring to another school or district.