Classmate selection...

[akmom]

We are winding down to the last quarter of the school year, and they are now taking requests for next year's teachers. I don't really have a preference for what teachers my kids get. I like all of them. I wish we could select classmates instead!

It seems that my children's school tries to "balance" the student body. They like a relatively equal number of boys to girls in each class. They like a gradient of skill levels in each class. And they also like to spread "behavior problems" equally among classes. I disagree with this philosophy. As they move to smaller and smaller class sizes (which is generally a good thing), I find that my daughter has fewer and fewer friends in her class. Because the kinds of kids she plays with are distributed throughout other classes.

I would like to see classrooms divided into skill levels, with the most advanced students in one class, the middle tier in another, and the struggling students in another. I think this would help teachers tailor to each kid's needs better. I know some of the logic behind "balancing" is that the higher achievers tend to help the struggling students. But I also know that the higher achievers challenge each other, which is also beneficial. What do you guys think? What kinds of classroom configurations do you like to see for your kids?

 

[cybele]

This may sound terrible, but I've never really thought about it.

My kid's primary school is small, actually, by public school standards all the schools they attend are small, but that's just the nature of the area we live in. At current Sasha's grade is made up of two classrooms, 12 in one and 13 in the other, the older kids were similar.

We've had our fair share of "But I'm not in the same class as so-and-so" but my response has always been that class time is for learning so it doesn't matter.

I think dividing by ability is a strange idea because ability varies so much within each student. Are we ranking it on reading ability? Writing ability? Math ability? It would be too difficult. Very few kids are straight across the board with their abilities.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

The thing is... A child can be a high achiever in one year, but nobody knows what he/she would be next year, and vice versa.

 

[akmom]

Really? What I've seen is students are either good at everything, or struggle a bit with everything. And none of them have really changed over the three years I've been working in my daughter's classrooms. Different subjects are all pretty integrated at this age, I think. Some get reinforcement at home, and others don't, so they require more reinforcement in the classroom - while their peers are eager to move on.

There have been times I've slacked on making my daughter read or doing some of the suggested games at home to reinforce math, and I notice right away that she is slipping behind other students, because I'm in the classroom every week. So that is always a reminder to me that we need to step it up at home. But I don't see that variability much in other students. It's pretty consistent as far as whose caught up and who is not.

The way it is now, half the kids are boys, and at this age boys and girls don't really interact. Many of the girls differ in maturity level, and even though they are nice girls, my daughter just doesn't really relate to them. I mean, they don't fight or anything, but they've had a year to connect and it just hasn't happened. So she only has like one friend in her class, and a bunch of friends in other classes that she rarely sees. I know school is for learning, but I do think there's a social component. At this age, it just seems like there is so much hyperactivity and distraction, and that's just never been my daughter's disposition, so I feel like she doesn't have a lot of people to relate to in classroom activities. She's more quiet and focused, and she connects better with other kids who are.

 

[cybele]

I've always found that my kids really vary in ability. Dita was always goodat math, but always (and still does) had atrocious hhandwriting. Azriel is fantastic at English, history and the arts but cannot wrap his head around geography, science is just a lost cause with him. Sunny has creative abilities such as drawing and creative writing beyond her years, and got straight A's in LOTE, but anything more structured she struggles with. Lux is in the gifted program for math, and loves science but her spelling isn't up to year 7 level, probably more grade 5. Sasha reads well above his age level, but still needs an abacus to do basic addition.

I've never met a kid who doesn't have academic strengths and weaknesses.

 

[singledad]

My daughter's school basically orders all the kids' names alphabetically, and then chop the list into appropriate size chunks for classes, so it's pretty much random.

When I was a kid (primary school), they divided us into classes according to our marks. What I remember is that the kids in the so-called A-class thought themselves superior to all the other kids, and everyone else thought they were "nerds". The kids in the D (or as we called it "stupid") class... Well. I think our name for it says it all. It's all good to say that they should be together to be able to get extra attention, but most of those kids carried the label of "stupid" right through their school careers. Not something I would wish on any kid. All I can say is thank goodness my school marks didn't take a serious dive until high-school, where we didn't have that system, so I was spared the humiliation of being put in the "stupid" class.

Also, I would imagine that it if there were only a few kids in a class that were struggling, it would be easier to give them the extra attention they need, while their classmates who are able to, continue on their own, rather than if an entire class were struggling? Just a thought...

And yes, I agree with cybele on two counts -
1. I've never met a kid who wasn't better at some things than at others, and
2. Class time is for learning. It isn't that important to have friends in your class. That's what break time is for.

 

[akmom]

Yeah, I suppose any kind of accommodation is bound to turn into a source of meanness by someone. But how is that any different from special ed courses or personal tutors/shadows? You can't completely hide every students' needs.

I guess I just really liked the way my daughter and her peers worked together in group activities back in kindergarten and first grade. There was a great group of students who were at the same level and really motivated each other. Now it seems most of her partners end up being hyperactive, uninterested in the assignment, or simply take too long and so they don't get as far. It probably doesn't matter too much who her peers are on individual projects, but I'm not really in the classroom for those kinds of things, so that's not what I see.

 

[cybele]

I think part of it is learning to adapt to different personalities too.

As she goes on with school she is just going to be exposed to more and more different kids, and some of them are going to be so far from what she is used to, personality-wise, but that's life. I personally don't believe that there is any social benefit to only being exposed to people who are similar to you.

 

[akmom]

I personally don't believe that there is any social benefit to only being exposed to people who are similar to you.

Perhaps. But I feel there is very definitely a benefit to having peers at the same academic level. I came from a graduating class that our staff called the cream of the crop. A large number of us were very motivated, and ten of us were competing for the valedictorian spot. All ten had 4.0s, 100+ hours of community service, sports participation and/or held class office. The next year, only two kids had 4.0s, and they actually had to change the requirements for an honors diploma because neither had the minimum community service hours or the rigid courseload previously expected. We still keep in touch. There has been a lot of success among my graduating class, which has not been the case for subsequent classes. I would rather my children be surrounded by the kinds of peers I grew up with, who motivate and challenge each other and raise the bar. I feel like if she is consistently surrounded by people who are "stuck," she isn't going to have that opportunity to be challenged by her peers.

She's not a poor fit for her grade level at all. There are lots of other motivated students her age, and they keep separating them into different classrooms.

 

[cybele]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to be comparing 6yr olds to a graduating class. They change so much between now and then. Those who are motivated now may not stay on that path, and those who are 'hyperactive' now may end up being top of the class later.

I would hate for any of my kids to have their academic future mapped out from such a young age.

 

[mom2many]

I want my kids intermingling with everyone. Academics is important, but people skills is equally important. If people only intermingled with like minded people eventually their world is narrowed. Anyone not like them will be seen as someone less or unworthy of their time.

Each one of my kids has a strength. Strengths that would put most kids below them, but they also have weaknesses. Strong weaknesses, which class would they go into?

 

[nwcrazy]

I think part of it is learning to adapt to different personalities too.

As she goes on with school she is just going to be exposed to more and more different kids, and some of them are going to be so far from what she is used to, personality-wise, but that's life. I personally don't believe that there is any social benefit to only being exposed to people who are similar to you.

Yes.

I've simply told my (2nd grade) daughter that her classmates will change yearly. Her friends this year are completely different from last year. And I suspect next year, she'll have different friends.

It's a good lesson in adaptability.

 

[singledad]

I want my kids intermingling with everyone. Academics is important, but people skills is equally important. If people only intermingled with like minded people eventually their world is narrowed. Anyone not like them will be seen as someone less or unworthy of their time.

Each one of my kids has a strength. Strengths that would put most kids below them, but they also have weaknesses. Strong weaknesses, which class would they go into?

What they did with us, was to sort us according to our overall average marks. That had pros and cons. Mostly, it doesn't recognize strengths and weaknesses - your average (erroneously) determines your "intelligence", and therefor your status. Very crude.

 

[singledad]

Yeah, I suppose any kind of accommodation is bound to turn into a source of meanness by someone. But how is that any different from special ed courses or personal tutors/shadows? You can't completely hide every students' needs.

When a student gets help with one or two subjects (which is far more common than someone needing help with ALL subjects) he still gets recognition for his stronger subjects, regardless of what his average mark is. No one is bad with everything, unless there are external factors like learning disabilities or emotional/psychological issues. Simply dividing kids by average academic achievement hides these finer nuances.

Needing extra Math classes, or flunking History just doesn't have the same weight as being firmly and publicly grouped into the bottom 25% of students. I saw this in action when I changed schools in high school. The kids in the new school had never been subjected to the hierarchical system, and even though there were still bullies and bully victims, and there was still a known group of top-achievers, there was no known group of "stupid" kids - just kids who got bad marks in some subjects. The few who struggled in most/all classes, would these days probably be diagnosed with learning disability of some sort, or ADD, and I don't recall that they were bullied as badly as the "stupid" kids were bullied in my old school. Perhaps I was just too preoccupied with my own stuff to really notice, but I don't think that is the case.

In the end it all comes down to labels. Perhaps it is because not all the labels I've had to carry in life have been flattering, but I have a strong aversion to labeling kids. Sure, give the achievers the credit they deserve, but never at the cost of humiliating those who form the bottom ranks. (Also take into account that children tend to live up to labels they are given, regardless of how accurate those labels were to start with.)

I guess I just really liked the way my daughter and her peers worked together in group activities back in kindergarten and first grade. There was a great group of students who were at the same level and really motivated each other. Now it seems most of her partners end up being hyperactive, uninterested in the assignment, or simply take too long and so they don't get as far. It probably doesn't matter too much who her peers are on individual projects, but I'm not really in the classroom for those kinds of things, so that's not what I see.

First - surely there is SOMEONE in her class who can challenge her? Maybe it isn't one of her particular friends, but perhaps it could rather be seen as an opportunity to make a new friend?

Secondly, I know this will sound harsh, but being able to work with people who are less than motivated and easily distracted is a skill that will be incredibly valuable to her later in life. In the workplace, everyone isn't always motivated or even capable. And yet, the only result that matters is the combined result of the team. No one cares if one part of a project is a success. Only the success or failure of the entire project matters, and if you are the motivated/skilled one on the team, sometimes you have to suck it and pick up the slack. It sucks and it's unfair, but it's life. Life isn't fair. She will deal with that until the day she retires, unless she follows a career where she will always work by herself, or becomes a SAHM.

Thirdly, I believe that someone will never be truly successful if they need someone else to challenge them in order to succeed. To truly succeed in life, you need to be self-motivated. You need to want to do better than YOU did before, not just better than the next person. (Having someone who challenges you is just an added bonus.) That, too, is something that can and should be nurtured from as young as possible.

In short - perhaps not having the perfect team mates will hurt her marks a little. But really, how important are second-grade marks by the time you walk into your first job? Aren't the life skills she will learn by being forced out of her comfort zone perhaps more valuable?

 

[akmom]

I don't know if I'm articulating my thoughts well. I'm not really talking about labeling kids or ranking them by grades.

Most recently, the kids were doing a project where they compared mass and speed. They'd make their hypothesis about which ball would be fastest, then they'd race two balls. Well, my daughter's partner was so upset about having a wrong hypothesis twice in a row that she had to have a good long cry about it, and by the time she was done being comforted, the time was up and they didn't get to finish all the comparisons. Another time they were doing a computer simulation, and her partner was so mesmerized at mashing the buttons that he wouldn't stop long enough to let the simulation go through so they could observe the patterns. It's just that so many of the kids still learn like toddlers, and she's actually interested in learning what they are supposed to learn from the activity. I guess there is value in being exposed to that, but how many assignments should be wasted to teach her that everyone approaches things differently? It just seems a waste to pair kids who grasp concepts on entirely different levels. Sure, there's a few other kids in her class who just do the assignment like her, but they only end up paired occasionally. I would say there are only two this year.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

I don't know if I'm articulating my thoughts well. I'm not really talking about labeling kids or ranking them by grades.

Most recently, the kids were doing a project where they compared mass and speed. They'd make their hypothesis about which ball would be fastest, then they'd race two balls. Well, my daughter's partner was so upset about having a wrong hypothesis twice in a row that she had to have a good long cry about it, and by the time she was done being comforted, the time was up and they didn't get to finish all the comparisons. Another time they were doing a computer simulation, and her partner was so mesmerized at mashing the buttons that he wouldn't stop long enough to let the simulation go through so they could observe the patterns. It's just that so many of the kids still learn like toddlers, and she's actually interested in learning what they are supposed to learn from the activity. I guess there is value in being exposed to that, but how many assignments should be wasted to teach her that everyone approaches things differently? It just seems a waste to pair kids who grasp concepts on entirely different levels. Sure, there's a few other kids in her class who just do the assignment like her, but they only end up paired occasionally. I would say there are only two this year.

They're 6. What you described, is different behaviour just like if they were playing a game. It hardly says anything about academic ability.

It is also easy to overestimate child's ability if he/she does something faster than peers.

 

[singledad]

I don't know if I'm articulating my thoughts well. I'm not really talking about labeling kids or ranking them by grades.

You're not? Then what did you mean with this:

I would like to see classrooms divided into skill levels, with the most advanced students in one class, the middle tier in another, and the struggling students in another.

I'm confused

 

[cybele]

Akmom, is there a chance that the teacher is intentionally putting your daughter with kids who learn/act differently?
It just comes to mind because Lux had a teacher who did that.

 

[akmom]

The kids rotate partners constantly. I think it's great. I just wish she had more kids in her class with similar learning styles or personalities, so she could more frequently get paired with kids who challenge her. The problem this year was that they reduced class sizes, so instead of having maybe 5 high-achievers in three classes, they have like 3-4 in four classes. Plus there is such a learning gap between boys and girls at this age, it is almost like having two different grade levels in one class.