The culture of a class is more important than its size in determining whether students will learn, writes a Los Angeles teacher.
I have two 10th-grade classes of about 30 students each. One of them is an “honors” class; the other, “regular.” In my honors class, the 30 students are engaged and demanding. They probe texts, cultivate questions, encourage discourse and write analytically. My regular class, on the other hand, is allergic to homework; students belch aloud and feel no shame because this is “just school”; they bully and curse at one another; they cannot sit still; they cannot listen; and their distraction is heightened by the gadgets they carry.
Each of these classes has its own culture. At the root of the culture are expectations — mine and theirs. In both classes my expectations exceed the students’, as it should be, but in the honors class, the students feed on one another’s enthusiasm. Sometimes the parts fare worse than the whole, but when the whole grows, so do the individuals. In the regular class, the parts are often better than the whole, but when the whole fails, as it too often does, so do the individuals.
It’s hard for teachers to create a positive culture in a large class, she writes, though some teachers never stop trying.
About Joanne
This is an example of a time when a school administration can make a real difference. A principal who is willing to back up a teacher who diligently works to raise the culture can make a life-changing difference in those students’ lives. Passively accepting their current culture because “that’s the way they live” dooms them to replicate their parents’ lifestyle.
We HAVE to raise our childrens’ expectations; to do so, we must fight against the limiting cultural norms. They cannot just follow the way things have been done for generations – they have to be dragged, willy-nilly, into the reality of a 21st century world.
Students take on the products of a modern world, without accepting the culture that makes all those things possible. They are educated to be consumers of the culture, not producers.
I’m a college prof and I notice this all the time. Especially in the non-majors classes I teach – some semesters will be lots of fun, because the students want to learn, they try to relate stuff they already know to the topic at hand, they ask questions, they want to discuss.
And then some semesters – and it may not even be the whole class, it may just be 4 or 5 people out of 24 – there are people who are so resistant to learning (or so it seems) that the whole class just gets dragged down. And it’s not even that the students are so disruptive; it’s that they are totally unplugged – there’s this big wall of “I don’t want to be here. Why do I have to be here?” that I meet when I walk into the classroom.
The thing that kills me is that I don’t think *I* change from semester to semester – I can have a great semester right after a bad one or vice versa. The frustrating thing is when certain individuals try to tell the prof, “Oh, if you have a disengaged class it’s all your fault. Be more interesting.”
But I can’t ask my students to be more interested, that would be rude.
I wonder how early the attitude starts. My children are still in elementary school, but I have noticed in my children’s classes that the more heterogenous the class, the more likely it is that the negative culture develops.
I suspect that in the more heterogenous classrooms there are more children who are being presented material that is far out of sync with their needs. For some the material will be too difficult, for some it will be too easy. But I think both sets of children check out under that circumstance, and I am afraid that checking out tends to become a habit/defense mechanism to deal with school.
After years of physically sitting in classes while being elsewhere mentally, I suspect/fear that it is very difficult to develop the habit of mentally engaging in coursework and the class discussions.
“I suspect that in the more heterogenous classrooms there are more children who are being presented material that is far out of sync with their needs.”
I am not sure exactly how you are defining heterogenous, but I will assume that you are talking about levels of academic achievement, rather than any socio-economic or other demographic heterogeneity.
In looking at homo vs heterogeneity in the workforce, I believe that the findings are that homogeneous groups tend to provide greater efficiency, but heterogeneous groups provide greater strength, cohesiveness and creativity. That has certainly been my experience. I think the key in the classroom is to move away from highly individualized teacher-student interactions to more group focused interactions that provide impetus for students to work together and learn from each other.
Mago,
Can you give me examples of heterogeneous groups providing greater strength, cohesiveness and creativity?
Margo/Mom,
I am talking about heteregenous academic acheivement. I.e. a child learning to sound out words sitting next to a child reading Harry Potter. Or a child counting on her fingers sitting next to a child doing division.
>>The thing that kills me is that I don’t think *I* change from semester to semester – I can have a great semester right after a bad one or vice versa. The frustrating thing is when certain individuals try to tell the prof, “Oh, if you have a disengaged class it’s all your fault. Be more interesting.â€<<
I loved this comment as it is true with my classes also. Some of my classes think I’m the best thing since sliced bread; another class will think I’m just horrible, and yet I am the same in both classes. Or, I could be if the disruptive class would sit down, be quiet and listen to directions so they could do the assigned work.
I just graduated a class that for 3 years has been disruptive and ill mannered. Their grades reflect that behavior, too. It was as if, each day, we started all over again as they retained nothing from one day to the next. All of the teachers who had this group (they traveled together from class to class) felt the same way.
gbl3rd–My work has frequently involved workplaces integrated culturally and demographically, sometimes by design (as a part of the mission of the organization). The workplace community that I experienced in these places (because we first had to accomplish a certain amount of “levelling” of feelings, biases and assumptions about one another) has been long lasting. I could walk into one of these places (and sometimes do) and know that I was “home.”
glb3rd–I believe it was IBM(?), or it may have been ITT(?) at one point was in the forefront of heterogeneous workplaces.
Margo/Mom
I am intrigued.
What kind of racial or ethnic balance did ITT, IBM of the organizations you are directly familiar with have? How was their strength, cohesiveness and creativity measured?
Are there any formulas for ethnic composition to achieve the gains you are talking about?
gbl3rd:
SHRM has some research posted to their site. Try this one–which underlines the benefits within a model that supports diversity: http://www.shrm.org/foundation/kochan_fulltext.pdf
Interesting comments.
I have had similar experiences.
As for the comments about ability levels in a classroom and the effect on producing creativity or efficency: Shouldn’t we be more concerned with efficency in education, at least until proficency has been attained? The most disturbing trend I have seen in education in the last twenty five years has been the emphasis of creativity and self esteem over proficency.
You can’t compare workplace situations to the classroom, for the simple reason that if an employee is openly unwilling to work, they can be fired. You can’t fire a student, unless they bring Advil or some such contraband to school. It would be much better if we could expel students for being defiant and unwilling to work, but unfortunately it isn’t possible.
wahoofive
That is an excellent distinction.
I think the key in the classroom is to move away from highly individualized teacher-student interactions to more group focused interactions that provide impetus for students to work together and learn from each other.
That may actually be at the root of many learning problems in our classrooms. The teacher doesn’t teach, but she facilitates discussions where students learn from each other in mixed achievement groups. To begin with, I don’t expect most teachers have the expert skills or time to manage the group dynamics in the way needed to maximize learning. Additionally, I want my children taught by teachers who are experts in the content, not by their peers who are novice learners. Speaking as the parent of one child who is gifted and of another who is a slower learner with attention/processing issues, both were underserved by heterogeneous group “teachingâ€. Direct instruction in a homogenous setting would have been better for both.
Cultural and demographic diversity in the workforce is very different from mixed ability grouping in the classroom.
You can’t compare workplace situations to the classroom, for the simple reason that if an employee is openly unwilling to work, they can be fired.
Unless, I suppose, they are a teacher.
As employees pass through the filter of the hiring process, it isn’t a “heterogeneous” environment at all. At a minimum, employers look for people who won’t openly sabotage the process. If you give out “don’t want to be here” vibes, you won’t be hired.
A workplace generally contains people with different levels of education and different levels of responsibility, but the employees accept the business’ mission. A computer company, for example, will not hire the tech-phobic. A hospital will hire health care workers.
The closest educational community to a heterogeneous workplace would be a private or charter school, in which the students, or their families, have actively sought out the community.
I have worked in nonacademia settings where employees did not do their job, sabotaged others, and generally made life miserable, and no one fired them. It is not all that easy to fire people. I probably have a better chance of removing a troublemaker from my class than an employer has of removing a nonperforming worker.
“Additionally, I want my children taught by teachers who are experts in the content, not by their peers who are novice learners.”
Amen to that….
Nargo/Mom wrote: “I think the key in the classroom is to move away from highly individualized teacher-student interactions to more group focused interactions that provide impetus for students to work together and learn from each other.”
This doesn’t work for the child who is the highest in the class…who does she learn from?
And how is this model different from teacher as babysitter? I pay a lot less for daycare for my four year old than I pay in taxes for school my 6 and 9 year olds. I expect that when my kids get to school they will actually be learning from an adult who has significantly more knowledge and life experience than the child sitting next to them.
Parent2-
Exactly right… most “heterogeneous” workplaces aren’t heterogeneous at all. Despite differences in race, religion, sex, etc. the employees generally share the same motivation and have similar lifestyles outside of work.
This is completely unlike a classroom, where it is almost certain to have a handful of unmotivated students and malcontents in every heterogeneous classroom.
I had 1-on-1 working relationships with every one of my teachers… I was able to work at my own pace and got personalized feedback for my efforts, which is darn near impossible when students work together.
Its funny, we are told that teachers need to be able to develop individual relationships with each student, but we are to teach them as a group.
I don’t understand how teachers can talk about their students with the level of distaste she showed in that article. So what if they aren’t as demanding and motivated as the honors students? Not everyone’s an honor student. Cope. And stop being so unpleasant about them.
Cal -
Most of her distaste seemed to be targeted towards their behaviors… ones that have little to do with academic motivation but with basic respect for others.
“Speaking as the parent of one child who is gifted and of another who is a slower learner with attention/processing issues, both were underserved by heterogeneous group “teachingâ€. Direct instruction in a homogenous setting would have been better for both.”
Tex–I don’t think that the research (despite your “n” of two) bears this out. Longitudinal (SEELS) and other studies have generally shown that students with learning disabilities who receive instruction with non-disabled peers outperform their similarly labelled peers who are taught in non-inclusive settings. While SEELS did not look at how other students in the classroom did, I believe that generally the research on inclusion has revealed that other students did not suffer. And this does not take into account the quality of the inclusion–which I would suggest ranges from reluctant to quite good.
My own “n” of two would be supportive. My gifted child preferred not to be singled out. While our district doesn’t do much to foster inclusion, our personal life has–which has provided great benefit to both of my children. My son has repeatedly been denied access to regular classrooms (with the perpetual exceptions of phys ed, music, and art–when available). The education that he has received from special education is certainly LESS homogeneous (throwing kids together across grade levels and type of disabilities–as well as some kids that no one has been able to figure out), LESS connected to academic content (special ed teachers are not required to have degrees in the content that they teach) and far LESS successful. In addition, he has suffered from all of the biases and prejudices that create this bent on segregation (the “he doesn’t belong here” syndrome; the “I want to focus on the kids who really want to learn” syndrome; or the “my kid can’t learn from your kid–my kid is the highest in the class” syndrome).
I have seen schools that are serious about improving the education of all students. Among the first moves that they make is to move the kids who are in the resource room back into the classroom. Why–because that is where the education is. It’s just more efficient.
I simply could not agree more with the quote the Los Angeles teacher wrote. The culture of a classroom is the hinge on whether or not the class does or does want to be successful. As a semi-recent high school graduate (2005) and presently in college to become a Secondary English/Language Arts teacher, I remember vividly the contrast of the two “cultures†between the “advanced†classes and the “standard†classes in my own high school. The advanced students were there to learn and at least acted as if they were soaking up every work the teacher would throw at them. On the other hand, the standard classes would out right tell you that they were only in school because they had to be. Such vastly opposite classroom “cultures†is something I know, as a new teacher, I am going to have to contend with. While no teacher, student, or class if perfect, I believe it is the teacher’s responsibility to make the best of every situation and take advantage of such different “cultures†he or she may teach on a daily basis.
Kelly A. Mezick
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama
Yeah, Tex; who you gonna believe? The Research or your lying eyes.
Margo -
Inclusion and heterogenous student-centered classrooms are two different things.
Inclusion studies focus on the achievement of individual students (as you noted) and don’t necessarily indicate a significant level of student-student interaction, just a presence of a new teacher.
The concept of “no harm” is questionable regarding many studies because it usually (in my opinion) fails to fully take into account potential.
That being said, if you have research that contradicts this, I’d be up to looking it over.
Kelly, I have a suggestion. While high school is still relatively fresh in your mind, write a detailed description of as much as you can remember about it. I say this with several ideas in mind.
First idea, most teachers either consciously or unconsciously base much of their own teaching on what they experienced as students. The conscious part of this can be good, but I think the unconscious part is not so good. If we unsconsiously try to do in the present situation what worked well in a different situation, it may not work, and we may be totally at a loss as to why it doesn’t. Having a written record of what once was can help make it all more conscious, and therefore subject to reflection and analysis.
Second idea, memories are unreliable. They fade, but perhaps even more importantly, they morph. By writing now you freeze those memories, or at least some aspects of them.
Third idea, most memories are totally unanalyzed. In preparing to teach you may benefit by analyzing those memories of your own high school experiences, but if they are not written down, and thereby frozen, the act of analyzing them long after the fact may seriously distort them.
Fourth idea, cultural differences can be very subtle, more subtle than they might at first seem. The article by the Los Angeles teacher says culture differences can be very important, and I totally agree. But she describes these differences only in rather broad terms. Describing, in as much detail as you can, various classroom situations you have experienced may elicit many more details that can be important.
Fifth idea, what professors talk about in education courses (unless you are very lucky) is usually not grounded in reality. Professors seldom have a context in mind when they present an idea, or if they do they have an idealistic, but unrealistic, scenario in mind. If you have a written record of your own experiences I would think you would have a much better chance to get whatever the professor says grounded in reality.
Of course I can’t speak from experience. When I was young I didn’t write. My high school memories have always been pretty nebulous in my mind. But I have no doubt my high school experiences were always a very important guide to what I did, and do, as a teacher. However this past year I have made it a point to keep a daily “teaching log” of what happened. Now in the summer looking over it I see many things that are relevent, but have totally slipped out of my mind in just a few months.
I have long believed that simple, but accurate and extensive, description of what actually goes on in the classroom has been missing from the study of education. I have expanded my thoughts on this in an article. Here’s a link: http://www.brianrude.com/lackdes.htm
Supersub–while inclusion may differ from heterogeneous student-centered classroom; I was responding to Tex–who I believe was talking about the inclusion experience of at least one of his children.
No, I don’t know of any studies that take into account “potential,” or any measures of same. I do know that the courts have been clear, at least with regard to students with disabilities, that the right to an appropriate education does not imply a right to be educated to one’s potential (although I believe that one state did actually set that as state standard). The overused cliche is that they don’t have the right to a Cadillac if a serviceable Ford is available. This has been altered somewhat with the advent of NCLB, and the right of all students to access to the general curriculum.
But, while you are defining potential, do you think it might include such things as the ability to work with students who are not the same? And where would you place multi-exceptional students?
“But, while you are defining potential, do you think it might include such things as the ability to work with students who are not the same?
Do schools seriously consider this a goal? Wouldn’t a chronically disruptive student be considered a failure? I would think NCLB would ahve left this concept behind.
I have always considered the classroom was a poor place to teach teamwork. I think team athletics, musical ensembles, teenage gangs and theater were better environments for this.
“While SEELS did not look at how other students in the classroom did, I believe that generally the research on inclusion has revealed that other students did not suffer.”
There is a fair amount of research put together on hoagiesgifted.org that shows that high kids do suffer in heterogenous classroom.
The research results are intuitively plausible. Basically, when kids have access to material they don’t know, they learn more than when they don’t have access to material they don’t know.
In a heterogenous classroom, the teacher has so many different achievement levels that usually the kids at the far end of the spectrum (both high and low) get short changed. NCLB provides incentives to deal with the low kids, but there are few incentives to deal with the high ones.
Finally, as a parent, I think that teaching about empathy, teamwork, geting along with others is my job. The schools job is to teach math, history, writing, science.
I agree, Jane. The desire to have my children educated to their potential is pushing us out of the public system. If children enter the classroom above grade level, they are used as tutors and babysitters for the disruptive, and those who are struggling. I far prefer to send my children to school to be challenged.
“Working with others” is not quantifiable, except in the amount of time spent socializing. I do not think group work has made my children better citizens; it has, however, increased their frustration at the low level of instruction, and the unfair grading practices.
Jane and Parent2
I took a look at hoagiesgifted and browsed some links. You might want to go there and pay particular attention to some of the material regarding multi-exceptionality. Keep in mind that both giftedness and disability are constructions in the law and have some arbitrariness associated with them. The assumption of a hierarchy–from high to low, flies in the face of reality. I also stumbled onto some material (at Johns Hopkins) that was listed in a biblio that I couldn’t immediately access that pointed out that ability grouping and cooperative learning are not mutually exclusive topics.
There is a fair amount of mythology that suggests that “gifted” students are compliant, eager and cooperative learners. Their progress is impaired when they are forced to suffer in a classroom with students who are disruptive, non-compliant, poorly socialized. This mythology contributes to areas of “giftedness” being overlooked in students with disabilities and learning disabilities going undiagnosed in “gifted students.” Neither condition is to be desired. The penchant to label and separate has not served us, nor our students, well.
Parent2 wrote “I do not think group work has made my children better citizens; it has, however, increased their frustration at the low level of instruction, and the unfair grading practices.”
That has been our experience with the hetergenous achievement level grouping . We also got the added benefit of my then five year explaining that people of a specific ethnic group were dumb. The school does such a good job of separating the bright kids that she hadn’t dealt with a bright kid of that group.
“The assumption of a hierarchy–from high to low, flies in the face of reality.”
You’re using some strangely loaded words, Margo/Mom, so I’m having trouble following what you’re trying to say.
Also, repeating “mythology” as though there is no truth to what you don’t believe isn’t helping, either.
Yes, there are gifted/LD kids who get overlooked and shouldn’t be, but that has nothing to do with the average gifted kid (and we’ll just start with an IQ of 130+ as a starting point) being miserable in a slower moving classroom.
You can point to all kinds of things, but I’m sure I can dig out my own research supporting what the others have said. However, I don’t have to because I have also seen it with my own lyin’ eyes. You just don’t want to listen. That’s fine, but to what end? If my kid is suffering because of endless group work and a slow classroom place, then something needs to be done. It has nothing to do with labeling.
“You just don’t want to listen. That’s fine, but to what end? If my kid is suffering because of endless group work and a slow classroom place, then something needs to be done.”
Well Susan, suppose that what you believe your kid (at IQ 130+) needs, comes at the expense of what my kid needs? The “loaded” words (“low” and “high”) are those that were used by Jane to describe her kid–and presumably the others. Parent2 added the information that the others (that her child ended up “babysitting”) were strugglers and disrupters. Hence my comments about the mythologies of what “high” and “low” kids look like. Jane added the additional information (that I am not entirely certain that I understood) that in her school it appeared as though there was a racial/ethnic dimension to who was “high” and “low,” or in her daughter’s words “dumb.”
What my kid needs is to have his skills and abilities recognized and to be seen first as (his words) a HUMAN BEING rather than a category. He needs to learn math, reading, history, science, writing. Throughout his elementary years history and science were regarded as incidentals–completely optional. In high school science is taught via worksheets by teachers who never majored in science. There is not lab–those classrooms are for the “regular” kids. HIS giftedness (and he was finally identified–after years of disability, not that it has made one shred of difference–the district doesn’t know what to do with a kid that fits in two categories) needs to be nurtured. Actually, I had suggested this to the gifted specialist back in elementary school. Oh, no, says she–gifted students are ones who are able to sit in their seats for an hour at a time.
Margo/Mom,
I’m not sure how meeting the needs of my kid comes at the expense of yours, but okay.
“gifted students are ones who are able to sit in their seats for an hour at a time.”
Well, we don’t disagree there and that attitude still persists, but again, you seem very upset about the labeling of giftedness. I personally don’t like the word either, but there isn’t another one at the moment. It has nothing to do with anything but an academic fit in a traditional classroom, which is why the label is not really helpful (and off-puting). People have gifts that don’t include a high IQ.
btw, I do understand the difficulties with labels as I am also the mother of a special ed kid. Now, there’s some stigma for you.
Margo/Mom said: “Jane added the additional information (that I am not entirely certain that I understood) that in her school it appeared as though there was a racial/ethnic dimension to who was “high†and “low,†or in her daughter’s words “dumb.”
Let me try explain. The school my kids goes to separates out the bright kids…this means that there are one or two per classroom. This means that most of the other kids in the classroom are normal or low kids. That particular year (kindergarten), my child is of one ethnicity, the other bright kid was of another ethnicity. All the other kids (several different skin shades) were normal or lower acheivement levels. She looks around the classroom…notices who can’t read, notices that all the kids of one ethnicity can’t read are and decided they are dumb.
If they would group the high kids together, she could see that all ethnicities were represented in the higher achievement level and come to a different conclusion.
So, the needs of the gifted kids are being slighted so that the needs of the LD kids can be served, expect that the LD kids aren’t really getting the services THEY really need, and the kids in the middle are spending to much time be taught to take THE test.
People, it is after all, PUBLIC education. Perhaps, the idea that it’s possible for public education to meet all the INDIVIDUAL needs of each student is implausable. Perhaps individuality and the greater public good are oxymorons. Perhaps, differentiated classroom is bullsh*t?
Perhaps one of the reasons that the institution that is public education is in crisis is because of the self absorbed demands of the public?
One word, people, (or maybe two, depending): homeschool
Margo-
The point is that with homogeneous grouping your child would not have to suffer due to resources being given to gifted students… the most important resource being the teacher’s time.
I hate teaching heterogeneous classes. At any given time I will have 4-5 students vying for my attention, all asking questions from the most basic to the deeply profound. I don’t have the time to address them all, leaving some questions unanswered at the end of class.
I have noticed, though, that students of similar achievement groups generally ask the same or pretty similar questions, meaning that in homogeneous classes I am better able to serve the students.
This year, the students that made the most progress were ones that unintentionally wound up in a mostly homogeneous class. It was also the class in which I had the least behavior problems.
As for inclusion (a very different thing), I support the inclusion of many SpEd students into a class that best matches their abilities, and agree that they require a qualified teacher who is knowledgable about their subject.
At my school, our RSP teachers teach math and language arts for those students who have IEPs, and they are mainstreamed for the other four periods. Our school also moves the kids around in blocks: I teach 5 groups of kids Social Studies, someone else teaches the same 5 groups Language Arts etc.
Wanat to guess how different the experiences of the non-RSP Language Arts/Math teachers were like compared to mine this year?