In 100 words or more, comment on the following:
In his article “Excellence for All,” Robert J. Sternberg describes four models of excellence that appear in schools today. Some schools focus on getting their low-performing students to meet minimum competency standards. Some focus on their high achievers. Others define excellence as intellectual conformity, and still others look to average test scores for their definition of excellence. How does each model fall short? What can your school do to avoid falling into one of these traps?
Don’t forget to comment (in 50 words or more) on another participant’s comment on this question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Each of these models fall short by not looking at the students as individuals, and not addressing the needs of all learners. With so much pressure on schools, teachers and students to out perform each other, it is easy for a school to fall into one of these traps, or “models of excellence”. The most important thing that my school, or any school can do to avoid falling into one of these traps is to acknowledge the fact that each student is an individual with unique needs and abilities. We must strive to meet the needs of all of our learners, and encourage their success through the “three R’s” that Sternberg discusses in his article. If we focus more of our attention on encouraging our students to strive for excellence through resiliency, reasoning, and responsibility, the academic excellence will follow closely behind.
I feel it is fairly evident how each model falls short in educating all students. When a school only educates its average students, it may be educating the larger population, but it is not taking into account the diversity of others. We need to celebrate all students and the unique contributions they make to the school as a whole.
The story about the Sunnyvale school is frightening. The thought of an administration catering only to the most advanced students and implying that the weaker students do not really belong in school is crazy. Unfortunately, the example given about the academically challenged students receiving the weaker teachers and diluted courses may be more accurate in most school districts. In order to help the students who struggle the most, they need to be taught be our most capable and gifted teachers.
I agree that the models do not look at all children and their needs as individuals and because "one size does not fit all," it is imperative that a variety of teaching strategies be used. This is a differentiated classroom. Our district provided training on this for 3rd year teachers. As educators, we know and agree that it is critically important to have a classroom that meets the academic and emotional needs of each student. Focusing on a model instead of students distracts us from this. Oftentimes, we as teachers feel overwhelmed and under prepared to effectively run a classroom focused on continuous academic progress for all students. To do this differentiation must take place. Using differentiation in the classroom means designing and implementing curriculum, teaching strategies, and assessments to meet the needs, interests, and abilities of all students.." It's. The best way to meet pupil’s different learning needs is to deliver the curriculum in a number of different ways; to differentiate the vehicle by which the skills, knowledge and concepts arrive, as well as presenting a range of tasks. The reason for doing this is because it ensures the maximum amount of pupil involvement, ie pupil planning, pupil assessment and pupil decision-making.
Four models of excellence exist within our school systems. I will examine how each model falls short and how one can avoid these shortfalls. The first model is the model that places heavy academic emphasis on reading and math, trying to get everyone meet the minimum standards. High emphasis is placed on remediating the low achievers, to do this many times important programs like music, arts and physical education are dropped. To avoid this trap…teach to all, put a heavy emphasis on high expectations, strong teaching and a well rounded school program including music and arts. The second model is the complete opposite of the first. This model puts all its energy in the academically “gifted” leaving the “strugglers” in the dust. The problem with this model? Everyone has the ability for greatness given the right tools, support, and guidance. Model three hits the middle gap. The high functioning students aren’t challenged and the struggling students aren’t given the extra help they need, yet are all functioning well for no one is challenging “the system.” The problem here…these kids will not be prepared for challenges or diversity in the real world. To overcome this shortfall, all their students need to be challenged and step out of their comfort zone of conformity. The last model looks only at the statistical average. It is in this model that all students’ abilities are jammed together and “graded” as one, while some low achieving students are commonly left off. It is here that so much pressure is put on teachers to teach to the test and kids to learn just to get good scores. Life is more than just good scores. To avoid this pitfall, give students authentic assessments and treat students as individuals!
After ten years of teaching, the “old school” three R’s have become an manageable task. I am lucky working in a district that offers so many programs and extra training to give me the skills needed to assist my kindergartners. When it comes to reading we use Harcourt, Zoo-Phonics and ReadWell. When it comes to arithmetic I use Harcourt, Marilyn Burns and Math Their Way. Kindergarten writing is entwined with our Harcourt and we use sight words found on the Dolche lists. To make all these programs work I teach using different modalities, value creativity and hold each student to a high academic standard. The “other 3 R’s”:reasoning, resilience, and responsibility can be much harder to teach for our district does not hand us a manual to teach these three R’s. Reasoning in Kindergarten can be difficult for kids due their development. Some kids can mentally have the ability, others just are not ready. I have the students that are capable model it for those that are not. On the other hand, resiliency comes very natural to students ages 5-6! They ARE willing to defy the crowd, to stand up for what they think and believe in themselves. At this age the students are ready to conquer the world. When it comes to responsibility it is about practice and training….when kids walk into my classroom some are very responsible, others…not so much. Together we role play, practice and model personal responsibility. My kids know that I want them to be successful, and with that comes being a responsible empathetic kind person!
The first model discussed in the article is focusing only on low-achieving students. This model falls short because it neglects to enhance or encourage the skills and abilities of high-achieving students, who also have the right to an education that helps them realize their full potential. The second model focuses only on high achievers, which is damaging to middle and low achieving students who need more resources in order to shine. The third model expects all students to fit into the same mold, which is detrimental because students are not encouraged to think creatively or to make their own decisions. Lastly, the fourth model emphasizes test scores and that is dangerous because performance on a test is not necessarily an indicator of true learning or of excellence. I think my school can avoid falling into any of these traps through knowledge, training and discussion among teachers, staff and parents. One thing I like about my school is that we never quit trying. If an idea doesn’t work, we admit it and try something else. If it does work, we celebrate our success. It has been frustrating trying to deal with the requirements of NCLB, but the most important thing is to keep the best interests of the students first in our minds and in our decision making.
A:Response to Jolene
I worked at a high school that sort of had the attitude that lower achieving kids did not belong in school. One of my students was getting in trouble in some of his other classes and his attendance wasn't so great, so the solution was to put him on an attendance/behavior contract with the consequence of not following through with the terms of expulsion. Well, he didn't meet all the terms and was kicked out of school. When I talked to the vice-principal about it, she said one benefit of the contracts was getting kids like him out of school who didn't need to be there anyway. I still wonder what happened to that student.
A:Response to Jolene
I worked at a high school that sort of had the attitude that lower achieving kids did not belong in school. One of my students was getting in trouble in some of his other classes and his attendance wasn't so great, so the solution was to put him on an attendance/behavior contract with the consequence of not following through with the terms of expulsion. Well, he didn't meet all the terms and was kicked out of school. When I talked to the vice-principal about it, she said one benefit of the contracts was getting kids like him out of school who didn't need to be there anyway. I still wonder what happened to that student.
A; Response to Jolene- I agree with her statement that "The story about the Sunnyvale school is frightening. The thought of an administration catering only to the most advanced students and implying that the weaker students do not really belong in school is crazy." So many times in life the attitudes of some can effect SO many, they sad part of that is, it effects those without a voice. The reality is as an citizen in this country I want everyone to have a chance and the knowledge to be a productive citizen. When society "dumps" these kids as worthless we all end up suffering the consequences...not only the child but we citizens financially as many end up unproductable relying on public services or within our incarceration system.
I'm not sure if the described approaches could even be classified as "models." To me, a model is an intentional approach to a problem or challenge that people beleive in and others emulate because of it's effectiveness. I think most of the approaches described are more of a reaction to NCLB or pressure from communities or outside forces, than true educational models. I believe that no educator would truly think that any one of these approaches was effective. The weakness of each is obvious. The bottom focus obviously leaves out not only the upper end students, but also the middle. Mediocrity is celebrated, and no one sees the value of truly trying if they are already meeting minimum standards. The top only approach leaves many students feeling alienated and unimportant and places too much pressure on high achieving students to be the best. The students do not feel valued for who they are only for what they acheive. The middle only focus does not challenge the upper students and does not motivate the low-end students. Focusing on test scores has never been the reason I've heard any student want to come to school or pursue knowledge. A student is so much more than a score. I feel that the way to avoid the pitfalls of these trends is to do what good teachers have done for centuries. Value the students as individuals and recognize their strengths. Celebrate progress no matter what the ability level is. Challenge your students to be in competition with themselves and to grow. Condemn stagnation. Use test scores as information to enhance learning and do not treat them as the driving force of your class. NCLB is a mess that may have had good intentions, but the result has largely been to break something that wasn't broken. By placing pressure on teachers and schools to raise test scores, many wonderful learning opportunities have been lost. Teachers know when a lesson "clicks." They know when students truly buy in and learn something and grow. We know when that light bulb goes off. Let's face it, it's why most of us became educators in the first place. I think a return to best practices, and an awareness of teaching to student needs is the best way to avoid these pitfalls.
Response to Bobbie Sue:
I completely agree that differentiation and focus on the individual student is the key to truly improving student learning. I only wish that I had more time to differentiate. That is a time-consuming process that I am working on stream-lining. Someday I will have beautiful files full of differentiated lessons for all of my curriculum. The only problem is that it will probably be changed by then! I guess the best I can do is develop units as I go, and try to focus on some "big ideas," mostly relevance to the real world and morals and ethics that students can learn. I would love my students to become more aware of their actions and their potential.
Initial Post for Article #2
The first model puts all efforts into assuring that the students must meet AYP and meet NCLB standards. All funds are geared toward the lower achievers, but at the expense of the remaining student population. The premise is that by reducing or dropping specials such as music, art, physical education, and gifted education, more time (and money) can be devoted to assisting the lower achievers. The opposite is more likely to occur, as these "specials" actually do a great deal to enhance academics. The school is even considering a redistricting plan which would reduce the number of lower achievers in attendance.
Our district would be wise to increase the amount of time with specialists. Scientific research is determining the positive impact that classes as music actually have on other academic subjects. Thirty minutes per week is just not enough time!
The second model puts all efforts into achieving an extremely high standard of excellence--but only for its top students. These highly gifted students receive the best instructors and resources; however, the remainder of the school population receives a minimum education. The average students of this system are also made to feel inferior, which may actually cause some to work below their ability level.
Our district would benefit by integrating, instead of isolating, these very gifted students. Often times, heterogenous mixtures can be beneficial for all students.
The third model teaches to only the "average" student, yet there is no such thing as an average child. This district is robbing its children, staff, and community of its creativity and diversity. The world in which we now teach will not be the same world in which our children live and work in tomorrow. We must teach our children to be creative problem-solvers, not just someone capable of regurgitating facts.
Our district can better prepare our students for the future by teaching them to be independent thinkers. Also, we must teach our students to see "the big picture" in life.
The forth model only considers the value of its average test scores, not its individual students. Administrators are even becoming dishonest in their reporting methods. This emphasis on test scores puts an extreme amount of undue pressure on the entire staff and student body. Student are no longer valued as individuals, but are now just a statistic. If the pressure is too great, the students may self-sabotage, find dishonest ways to improve, or simply give up.
Our district must always remember to put the focus on the best interest of each individual child. Once we lose site of who we are teaching, we also begin to forget why we became teachers in the first place.
Comment to Sherri Moore (Question 2A)
I very much agree with your analysis of each situation. I also notice a commonality among your solutions for each model: balance! I believe that each of the four districts has a partial idea that may be beneficial; however, each model is also on the extreme edge of acceptable teaching practices. The first model emphasizes the need for improved reading and math scores. This is not a bad thing, but, as you say, this should not happen at the expense of other programs such as music and art. The second model is correct in that gifted students deserve challenges, but we cannot forget the remainder of the student population which is obviously gifted in a variety of ways as well. The third model simply lacks that balance of incorporating all of its students, including the diversities of each. Finally, the fourth model pushes for good test scores without considering the individual. As you say, students must receive authentic assessments, as opposed to simply being taught to the test.
The common theme that can be read through all of our postings here is that the most important thing to stay focused on are the students and meeting their needs, not basing our strategies solely off one particular model.
Post a Comment