“I find rowdy kids intolerable and just plain annoying.”
This is not a teacher talking, but a student describing what it is like for a smart kid to be in a class with kids of lower ability.
About 15 years ago, a shift began in high schools instituting an open door policy that allows any student access to an advanced class regardless of prior achievement. No more prerequisites.
This experiment has not worked. In fact, little evidence exists proving that lower ability students succeed at a higher level when sitting next to their higher ability counterparts.
Gone are the days when all my “honors” students earned A’s and B’s. Now I have students all over the grading scale.
In following an “all classes for all students” policy, all students are harmed by a system where competition is de-emphasized.
When I began teaching, there were English courses tailored for each ability level: high, middle, and low. That makes sense.
A teacher can do a more effective job tailoring lessons for homogenous groups rather than having to differentiate for all levels within the same class period.
Students who struggle need a properly trained teacher for their needs just as special ed kids need specially trained personnel. Many low ability learners feel inadequate so having them sit next to geniuses is not to going to raise their self-confidence. And gifted kids gamely sit through redundant lessons that their peers can’t handle.
More than 80 percent of advanced students believe strongly in having separate classes for high ability learners and low ability learners, according to a survey of my students.
The reasons they oppose grouping all abilities together include the harm it does to the advanced student due to the slower pacing and the disruptive environment.
“They frustrate you because they aren’t understanding what everyone else is talking about or they won’t do any work,” says one.
“The smarter people who understand the lesson have to wait for the others to understand the topic before moving forward which is wasting their time and keeping them from having harder and more challenging problems,” says another.
“I dread coming to class. The concepts are dumbed down, the students are less mature, and they make a lot of noise and interrupt the lesson.”
Several students don’t feel their needs are being met.
“It is unfair to treat us as a collective body rather than teach each students’ personal needs.”
One exasperated student wondered, what’s wrong with “rewarding those who work for” high achievement?
How ironic that the higher achieving kids which school administrators love to spotlight as evidence of a school’s excellence actually are short-changed in their learning.
A long-running belief among education officials is that they don’t have to worry about the smart kids, and because of that view, they do nothing for them. Funding for gifted students barely registers a sliver on the education budget pie chart. In other words, the children who become contributors to society are held back from even greater achievement.
In a way, public school is the antithesis of the American economy where competition does not exist. Some schools have done away with ranking students which means there no longer is a valedictorian for graduation. For an institution that is supposed to educate young people about the real world, this anti-competitive approach fails kids.
The one area in school where competition is allowed to thrive is athletics. The coach is not forced to provide equal playing time for each athlete. The same philosophy should be applied to academic classes.
If it weren’t for the College Board’s Advanced Placement courses, schools would not even offer any of those classes.
Probably the most help higher-achieving students provide for lower-achieving ones is by supplying free paper and pens.