This is a bit like comparing apples to oranges due to the demographic differences, however here is the data for Wayzata.
Just keep in mind how much easier it is to help at risk kids if it is only ~10% of your student population, and not ~40%. Just the student peer pressure and focus would make a difference. (ie lots of good examples) Also, only 3 challenging kids in a class of 30 instead of 12.....
Wayzata Demographics
RAS Demographics
9 comments:
It is easier to teach 3 kids versus 12 in your class.
Although, Wayzata continues to outperform Robbinsdale year after year. I have a child going into 8th grade at PMS. Her bestfriends are going into 8th grade at Wayzata Central and Wayzata West. The homework load at PMS is hours larger each night versus her friends at the two Wayzata middle schools. All friends are in AP type classes. I asked Wayzata parents why they don't get much homework at all. They said because the teacher teaches the kids in class instead of handing them stacks of paper as they walk-out out of the room like PMS. There are now studies that prove homework doesn't do any good in the teaching our kids. Studying for tests is different story. They should be studying for tests instead of worksheets after worksheets. Our kids are tired! Wayzata Central is looking like a good option vs PMS!
I have no means of comparing the districts, however I do know some about comparing middle school kids and their homework load. (ie 7th grader PMS and 10th grader Armstrong) And my comment is to be very careful.
The ability of the kids to complete assignments in class seems to be very dependent on the student's methods, sensitivities, capabilities, study habits, organizational skills, self starting skills, social behavior, etc. I know pre-AP PMS kids that have little or no homework, and I know others that have 4 hrs/night. (in the same classes....)
From my own experience, things got better after 7th grade. Either the kids learned better study habits or the method changed.
I am not sure if Wayzata has some better way to push the info into those little brains without as much homework, however I would definitely look into the details.
As my friend says about places where the grass looks greener... "They just moved the brown spots..."
Good luck with your decision.
Someone smarter than me proposed this theory...
Assuming the teacher has ~30 minutes of lecture material to cover, and the class is well behaved. Then the class will have ~30 minutes to work on their problems. (with assistance from the teacher during focused time)
However, if the class is very disruptive and it takes ~60 minutes to cover the material. Well, the kids have lots of homework. Especially if this happens in many classes.
To make it worse... The kids have to then rely on the Parents to hold them accountable and assist them... Which often does not happen in homes where academics are not job 1. Then it simply compounds over the years.
Thoughts?
I LIKE that theory! My question would be why the teacher needs even 30 minutes of lecture time, if the material is adequately explained in the textbook? Why not turn the kids loose with the textbook, say the night before, and then spend the entire 60 minutes answering individual questions and working examples/writing essay questions/ whatever to prove comprehension? Public education hasn't had a productivity improvement in 150 years. The "lecture" is one reason why. Long ago, it was created because kids didn't have textbooks. Today, it must be because the kids can't read 'em.
J. Ewing
The unfortunate reality is that people (including kids) learn in different ways. (ie reading, listening, seeing and doing) Many simply can not learn by reading a textbook, that is why we have human teachers, lecture, examples, etc. Now maybe you have something, if we get into computer tutorials that support these learning methods.
Unfortunately, even this will require someone at home that can help the kids and hold them accountable to doing the work ahead of time. (ie pre-class homework)
Remember what I typically hear from the teachers. The vast majority of parents that show up for conferences are those with the best students. Ironically these are the students that least need the conference...
With that in mind. How do we get the parents that are neglecting their parenting responsibilities and obligations to take them seriously !!!
How about this: Give the parent a voucher that they must then take to the school of their choice. Signing over a $9000 check would tend to show parents the value of an education, and they would be far more concerned that their child got what they paid for. Even if no child changed schools, you would see a change immediately, especially in parental support.
Besides, I think you're making too much of the "learning differences." I agree with what you say, but most teachers lecture far too much, and computers these days can lecture just as well. Computers do repetition and re-explanation very well, too, and there is no reason we couldn't reserve teachers for the one thing-- individual interactive teaching and learning-- that machines cannot. We could get a 100% productivity improvement, and problem greatly improve learning at the same time.
J. Ewing
As we have discussed many times before, the voucher would have no value to most since it would not really be a check for $9,000... It would actually be a coupon redeemable for $9,000 at the school of your choice. (ie no change back)
Then if the education cost for your child exceeds $9,000 due their circumstance or your choice of schools, someone would need to make up the difference.
Let me think about this... Oh yes, the irresponsible or poor parents will continue to send their kids to the public schools so that they will not need to spend any cash on their kids. And, more folks in my circumstances could then even more easily justify running from the kids with irresponsible or poor parents.
Therefore the rich get more proficient and the poor get less proficient. Even more so than now.
If the economic and test score gaps were not so great, I may agree with you. However given the current reality I think it would be disasterous for the unlucky/poor kids.
Of course, I see huge problems at home for the at risk kids and needed improvements in the public schools. Whereas you see huge problems in the public schools for the at risk kids and needed improvements at home. Two totally opposite paradigms.
I think the graphs I have posted make my argument better. Same districts, schools, teachers and curriculum, with a 20% proficiency gap almost across the board, whenever the eligible for free and reduced lunch percentage exceeds 30%. No matter their race.
The problem truly starts at home. Many times due to bad luck, poor choices and/or not knowing better.
By the way, computer tutorials may be a good way to start the class. Then kids could proceed at their own rate and the teacher could persuade the non-interested while the others remained focused. This would ensure half the class period or more was available for working problems.
Now we need to find the money for a computer on each desktop or a laptop for each student while keeping the teachers. Might work well.
When we're spending $8K-$12K per student per year, finding $500 for s computer on every desk would be insignificant. Increase class size by one student, which you could do easily with your new computer "teaching assistant," and watch the magic happen. I like your idea of having the teacher do not only the one-on-one teaching where needed, but also the one-on-one "coaching" and encouragement. Of course, not all teachers are good teachers, but that's a different subject.
By the way, I object to your characterization of this "gap" as something that happens to poor kids (who tend to be black, by the way, so be careful) and that cannot be overcome by the education system. It's nonsense. I've seen it done. Where my kids started school, name withheld, incoming K students were separated out by testing-- those reading well, those starting to read, down to those who didn't know the alphabet yet. They were split into four classes, and the "best" teacher (yes, they somehow knew) worked with the lowest testing students. Each year, the students would retest and be reassigned based on their new levels (some "blossomed" and some struggled to keep up) but by third grade they were achieving close enough to the same level that they could be assigned freely to their third grade classes, without regard for where they started. The "gap," in current parlance, was largely gone.
J. Ewing
C'mon, tell me the district name so I can post the graphs and demographics... Lakeville? Burnsville?
The graphs I have posted lead toward a conclusion that the gap is smaller when the percent of kids in poverty is lower. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Wayzata can intensely focus their resources on helping that smaller group of kids, and it seems to work. Also they have a lot of good role models, and support from the parents and community.
Robbinsdale on the other hand has 4 times the number of kids in poverty, and that much fewer resources and support. Therefore it is very difficult to make a difference, as the gap shows.
This leads me to believe that there is a critical mass where things head the wrong direction. This would be the point where the challenged kids/families overwhelm the resources and good role models. At this point, the culture shifts and the gap increases significantly.
Ironically, this is about the same point where many of the key supporting families and good role model kids start to bail out of that school system. Therefore the percentage shifts faster and worsens the situation.
If this hypothesis is true, the schools, teachers and curriculum may all be operating equally well and have totally different results. Now for the big question...
How do we keep the poverty level below 10% in all schools?
As for race... The economic gap seems to be similar for all races. That would be a different discussion.
Post a Comment