Helping Some Students May Harm High Achievers

palegray.net writes "According to a new study performed by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, increased emphasis on helping students with a history of lower academic achievement results in lower performance for high achievers. This trend appears to be related to the No Child Left Behind Act. Essentially, programs designed to devote a large number of resources to assisting students who are deemed to be 'significantly behind' leave little room for encouraging continued academic growth for higher-performing students."

No Child Left Behind

It's all about finance really. If you pay more teachers to teach smaller classes, most of these issues go away. The other thing is that children with learning disabilities get taught by themselves or in small groups because they are a special case. I would say the same should be available to gifted children.

Re:No Child Left Behind

No. It's not about finance.

It's about finding ways to challenge the studnets.

When I was in elementary and junior high, the school split us into classes based on academic results so far.

It worked very well. There was far less variation between the bottom and top of the class and the teachers could do a much better job of teaching to the class.

This is now deemed to be prejudicial and so the school no longer does this. The students are the losers across the board.

Re:No Child Left Behind

When I started high school I was the dux of the grade (split up across 5 classes). It was a boys school, and academic performance was looked down upon, so I was roughed up a fair bit, and was actually trying NOT to do well, but like it or not I still came dux.

The next year the Year Advisor thought it might be fun to take the worst performing kid from the bottom class and put him in the top class.

Guess who he targetted for a fight every day? That's right, the best performing kid in the top class - me.

So one day he gives me a good going over on the station after school.

Finally my parents woke up and sent me to a different school.

Needless to say I don't believe in mixing the stupid and lazy with the bright and talented. Physical assault is just not on, even between kids.

Re:No Child Left Behind

When I was in highschool I was in the top percentile of the school. The some of the smartest kids were just as bad as the dumbest kids. Instead of resorting to physical violence they went on verbal diatribes and basically were just being douches. My school was an inner city school with a nationally recognized magnet program (to boost the grades). I grew up with these guys and they weren't necessarily bullies but they could smell fresh blood in the water. If you were meek you were an easy target. A lot of them have been told they were dumb or remedial their entire life and some douchebag that likes to remind them by insulting their intelligence only drives the knife deeper. My friends came from all walks of life and I respected their opinions and helped them when I could (homework, food, money). Because of the company I kept no one tried to fight me because I was smart and had good grades. I never resorted to calling anyone stupid. And you learn there is a lot of different smart. Some were great musicians and composers, rappers, poets, and negotiators. I've had to intervene on a few occasions where a friend in the smart class just didn't have the "street smarts" to avoid a bad situation. I do believe the No Child Left Behind Act is doing a great disservice to everyone. It strips the schools of their ability to educate and reduces them to diploma mills. I was their when the last woodshop class came to an end. There were no plans made to replace it with any options. Just get the kids to take and pass the test.

Re:Stupid and lazy.

Not the same AC so I can only reply on the first question:

I was both, that is having an easy time in school and often being in fights (both starting and defending). I totally agree that violence is not something that should be in schools, but I don't think for a second that separating the "stupid" kids from the "bright" kids helps.

Also, really smart people often have a really hard time in school and kids with good/great marks != geniuses.

I think a bigger problem (and with a less obvious solution) is how to spot the bright people, and keep them motivated and interested during schools. I mean, high school teachers aren't members of that group of people and tend to see creative solutions as failure rather than brilliance.

Re:No Child Left Behind

If you want the epitome of this 'one-size-fits-all' approach and witness its results upclose then please come to europe.

This fear of a middle-ages class-based school system that is encoded in every administrators head, has forged a bond inbetween civil servant and teacher so strong that they cannot be distinguished from another.

In fact this bond is so strong now that even the slightest form of desire for exellence is not just seen as an attack on the schoolsystem itself but also on the very fundaments of the society it's supposed to serve.

One giant self fulfilling prophecy if you ask me.

Re:No Child Left Behind

No, really, it is largely about finance. You need a greater teacher/student ratio than most schools have.

See, because even if you want to separate kids out based on their gifts, you need someone to evaluate which kids are gifted at what. You can give them tests, but that will only tell you which kids do better on tests.

What it doesn't tell you is which kids are smart but unmotivated or bored, and therefore not bothering to try. It doesn't tell you which kids might have skills and assets that don't show up well on tests. It doesn't tell you which kids are just nervous and don't do well on tests. It doesn't tell you which kids are smart but have learning disabilities-- yes, 'learning disabled' has become code for stupid, but there are real learning disabilities.

For anyone to really know all that about students, someone needs to know the students. You can't really get to know the students well enough when you have 45 minutes a day per class with a class of 40 kids. You'd improve our education system immensely if teachers were given a couple hours a day with a class of 15 kids, maybe with opportunities for private tutoring.

Of course, you can't accomplish that without hiring loads of new teachers, and you can't hire loads of new teachers without spending a lot more money. Plus, in order to attract good teachers, you might have to pay them better. I think I'd probably like being a teacher, but not if it means I'll get paid 1/4 of what I get paid now.

Re:No Child Left Behind

It's not so much about finance as it is about making a mass of drones who will never realise you're fucking them over and should revolt. The goal of any government is to have as little people who can actually think as possible, but not to have people so stupid they can't work.

The solution is repressing everyone who is smart so that they either become frustrated and stop trying or revolt in an anti-social manner at an age too young and are deemed a criminal for life, and to help everyone too stupid to be useful become useful.

All blatantly obvious of course ...

Schools award mediocrity

Story of my school's life. I don't know what kicked it off, but in 1999 a group of parents got together to stop the awarding of best-in-school awards to the top students, because it had the effect (they claimed) of causing all the other students to feel they weren't as good at school. The idea being that three students would end up awarded for excelling, and seventy others in the same year would be indirectly labeled as inferior.

Within two years we had academic success awards removed, and all kinds of other awards, including ones for one total misfit who'd been caught multiple times shitting on the bleachers. He got an award for exemplary social behaviour or some such, because he went a couple months without taking a crap on school property.

Now the smart kids go without awards, but the dumb shits get an award for not smearing their own feces all over the place. Mediocrity ftw.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

Never understood the issue with making people not feel inferior when it's so very fucking obvious that some people are simply superior to other people. It's just the way it is and always have been. Why are we trying to make everyone feel so bloody equal these days anyway?

I mean, if you're stupid or fat doesn't matter, you're still a good chap and there's nothing wrong with you. But if you're rich, smart or successful then you're a fucking pig for making everyone else feel inferior ... what the hell!?

Except when it comes to sports!

Interestingly, these sort of braindead policies never seem to apply to sports in schools. The focus is definitely on pushing and supporting the most athletic and physically skilled students, while those who are not good at sports are left to flail around and just do time. This makes a lot of sense, since not everyone /needs/ to be a hot football or tennis player.. but for some reason society feels that "everyone" has to be of average intelligence, which is just wrong (and totally impossible statistically).

Re:Schools award mediocrity

You shouldn't get an award because of your genes, but because of the work you put in. According to who? And why?

Actually, I shouldn't be arguing; if you're correct then I should be able to get a Nobel Prize just by trying really hard.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

You shouldn't get an award because of your genes, but because of the work you put in.

When was the last time this worked anywhere in the real world, outside of a school. I can't remember a boss saying "Well, John, you really got us that million dollar contract, but I'll still promote Jeff over there, he didn't make the closing but he worked really hard on it for a month, you persuaded your customer in just a day, that's hardly an effort."

What a surprise

As a teacher in a results factory, can I just say: No Shit!

I work in the UK education system, which is governed by targets and league tables.

The focus from management is on the "borderline" kids, those who might just fail (below a C). There are lists put out, constant checks on their progress and their photos on a wall in the staff room.

Our Gifted and Talented program consists of going to the local university to "raise aspirations" once a year.

This is what happens when you govern by setting targets without any thought over the actual outcome. Train your teachers then trust them to do the job that they love.

Fits with my experience

In norway we've practiced "no child left behind" in the lower grade schools for the last 20 years (up til high school). I've never read any official studies about it but I can confirm that teachers are indeed spending a lot of their time getting the "slower" students through the curriculum.
It's interesting to read that the lack of attention indeed slows down the high achievers as well. I would be interesting to know how much attention they would require to achieve what they are good for. Optimally you leave no one behind and you make your bright minds excel!

Re:Fits with my experience

Surely the parents should play a part here too? I wasn't exactly a genius at school, although probably above average. But my parents did their best to support my interests, ensuring that I had ample opportunity to apply myself. I'm not talking about financially here, although having money helps. I'm talking about spending time with your kids, helping them to help themselves. If I had a "high achieving" child, I certainly wouldn't expect the school to take on full responsibility for their education. That's just lazy parenting.

Also in the news

Siphoning away resources for "no shit sherlock" studies leaves little money for studies that would have provided some insight or solved some dispute.

Re:Also in the news

I realize this was meant to be a semi-serious funny comment, but I disagree with it. "No shit" beliefs change throughout time, and I don't think we are fit to judge what should and should not be studied. By condemning these types of studies, you are advocating a form of restriction in the freedom of academic scholars to pursue their academic interests. This is never a good thing.

Further, this isn't really a "no shit" issue. The theory behind helping struggling students is that struggling students need help, while those who excel can manage to do well by themselves. In fact, many people in /. post that when they were themselves in high school, they had levels of knowledge above and beyond their high school teachers. What significant, tangible benefits could these excelling students have in their high school teachers giving them more attention? These excelling students have already proven themselves to have a willingness and affinity to study subjects beyond course material on their own.

So while I realize that your comment was supposed to illicit some humour out of the submission, I don't agree with the particular stance conveyed. Academic freedom is highly treasured and should not be curbed in the name of "usefulness" by some arbitrary measure. This study did provide some insight - that excelling students do need encouragement and that the current strategy is not working. While this concept may have seemed "obvious" to some, that opinion is meaningless without some evidence to back up that stance. This study provides that evidence.

Bad headline -- top students have IMPROVED

I know no one actually RTFA, but it actually says that scores have gone up for all levels of students. Scores have gone up HIGHER for lower students, but they've still gone up for higher students as well. It's just that raising the very top is much harder than raising the bottom, so there's been more progress on the latter. There is NOTHING in the article that says top students are WORSE off now than before NCLB (as asinine as the law is in other ways).

this is why i am a mean teacher

this is why, as a teacher, I only focus on the top students in the class.

I'm sorry, but if you aren't going to try your best, then I would be a fool to waste my time trying to reach you. bugger off. Go and fail in life.

I'm a teacher, I'm in charge of teaching. The 'learning' part is your job.

If you are making an effort, I will do everything I can to help and support you. But you still suck after getting extra help, I'm not going to sugar coat things or give you an 'A for effort'. Some kids are just dim. parents need to learn to deal with it.

I'm sorry for sounding so grumpy and uncaring in this post. It's been a long 2 weeks of solid speaking/listening tests, and I just failed 75% of my 1154 students, because they can speak absolutely zero English, even after 7 years of Education.

Then I was told to make my questions easier, because if a student gets less than 40 points, they have to repeat the year, and the school administration doesn't want to deal with that, so we prevent them from failing by lowering standards.

Then I learned that my "zero" I was giving my students is actually being entered in the books as a 15 out of 20.

that's right...if you absolutely nothing, if you are complete failure as a students, who has learned nothing after seven freaken years of school, you STILL get 75% on your test. pathetic.

Re:this is why i am a mean teacher

I have worked as a teacher, and am currently studying to become a qualified teacher. My position is that as long as the pupil is trying in my subject, he/she will get his/her fair share of my time. But when the student shows no ambition at all (or simply too little) I will take that fair share of time and distribute it among those students who actually _want_ to succeed in my subject.

Ever tried to get people INTERESTED in succeeding in your subject?

This action is probably illegal, and most parents would object strongly if they realised what I consider is justified. But it boils down to a simple fact: you cannot teach someone who doesn't want to learn. If the student doesn't want to learn my subject, I am wasting my time on him/her, and could spend it better on those in the class who want to learn my subject.

Ever wondered why some people hate Chemistry while others hate Math and yet others hate CS? I think you have the answer. If I am not good at a certain subject and am disinterested in it and the teacher ignores me because of that, I will hate the subject.

Doing this does not bother me at all, and I will do it whenever I feel a student does not merit my time.

You don't decide what merits your time. The people who pay you do. As wonderful as it sounds, you aren't the architects of children's minds or anything fancy like that which puts you in a position to decide who is worthy of your time. You have a job where you get paid to teach people what you know. For all you cool talk about 'YOUR' time and how you decide to spend 'YOUR' time, screw you! The taxpayers or the parents are paying for your time and they decide how YOU spend that time.

This might be offensive, but let me assure you that if they paid teachers decent wages, with this attitude, you or the OP would definitely not have jobs as teachers.

Cheers!
--
Vig

Re:I thought this was common knowledge

This isn't a new problem. (I went to school in Texas, which has had standardized testing since long before Bush took office as either governor or president.) NCLB just made it worse.

I agree, however, that it is blatantly obvious that a system where your "success" as a school is determined by the percentage of students who pass leads itself to focusing disproportionate amounts of resources on the students who are most likely to fail.

Re:I thought this was common knowledge

I think every education policy needs to be aware of this: Gaussian Function. No matter how you do it, ALWAYS, there will be some brilliant children, some dumb children, and lots of mediocre children. And parents should be aware of this, children are just like any other group. A few winners, and a whole lot of losers, to quote George Carlin.

Just accept that not every child will be the next Nobel prize, and accept that maybe your child is one of the dumb ones, and will have to do simple manual work all his life.

If we leave some children behind, we can run much faster. Sad, but that's life.

Re:Better educate the masses

While generally a good idea, it is basically a tool to keep the poor poor. Why? Allow me to elaborate.

What schools do participate in something like NCLB? Public schools. Why? Because they get no money if they don't. Why can private schools simply ignore it and continue a policy of pushing gifted pupils? Because they don't care about pennies from the state, they care about big bucks from mom and dad.

So what happens to someone who is bright but poor? He's in a NCLB school, being bored and finishing with a degree that ain't worth jack because the dunce next to him has the same degree. Sure, the dunce had to work hard for it while the bright child spent most of his time slacking, the net result is the same: A worthless degree.

Re:Better educate the masses

The problem is that his degree is seen as worthless by a potential employer because every dimwit can get it. Actually, if the general population was well educated, any degree would instantly be worthless, because it could no longer be used as a measurement of your skill.

But that is not the case, it has never been and it will never be. Not all people are equally good at learning. And to make matters more complicated, not everyone is equally good at learning the same skills. That's what a degree should show.

When everyone can get the same degree, no matter whether they can actually acquire a certain skill, the degree is no longer useful as a tool to determine whether someone has certain skills, making the degree worthless. Especially when there are people who have a degree (from a private school) that can be used to measure whether someone has the skills. Because this school can actually "leave children behind" and avoid passing pupils that shouldn't pass.