Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Circle Sixties
How affective is the circle sixty? For several years, many school systems have required their teachers to not assign any numerical score below a 60. The rational behind this unwritten policy is to not place the student in a situation that will allow them no chance of recovery. The problem arises when it is time to pass or fail the child and they have reached a passing numerical grade that promotes them to the next level but have not even come close to learning the proving the mastery of the material from the previous level. This policy in my opinion leaves educational gaps that may seem minor at the present level but will escalate to large proportions due to the lack of true representation by the numerical grade. If a student in math for example is not able to do algebra for the first semester and passes with a 60 (should be a 20), but is good at Geometry and passes the second semester with an eighty, he will move on to the next level not ready for Algebra 2. In the school system where I am employed the promoting of children that are not ready is a common occurrence and with the use of the circle sixty, the supportive evidence to do this has become less allusive. I understand that AYP and Federal funding all depend on children staying on schedule, but when do we forget about all that and make sure our kids receive the adequate education they need.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Research studies consistently show that overage students have a greater risk of dropping out of high school than their fellow on level classmates. I agree that passing a student on without changing our approach to the student makes no sense. You know the old saying - Keep doing what you are doing and you'll keep getting what you've been getting. However, holding them back and doing what you've always done won't work either. I am in an inner city school and I watch kids in 6th grade who are 14 years old. What a crime! They are physically too mature for the grade and emotionally miles above their classmates. Accelerated programs appear to have some success - allowing students to show progress through several grade levels in a year's time. Hopefully, we will continue to think outside the box and develop new programs for our overage students.
I believe that we must find a different program for those that need different instructional levels. The problem runs into creating equality among programs and preventing stereotyping. Children are not in a position to make the appropriate decision towards their future and many immature or less motivated students fall behind and could be placed in an inappropriate program, but we must find a way to prevent the injustice that the No Child Left Behind Act has created. Financial reasons prevent educational systems from having multi-programs for children with different needs. Instead, the educational community has taken the less expensive stance of lets put all the kids in one class and label the teacher a based on her or his ability to teach the same lesson in 12 different ways in order to accommodate all learning styles. I understand and agree with the theory of differentiation, but I do not believe it can be done properly so that all children are fairly treated. I do believe that several learning styles can be taught by one program very effectively and students could be divided based on these styles. Again, this would be expensive, but would provide the greatest achievement level for the children.
The practice of giving students grades is unethical and illegal. I believe that studnets should have to work for the grades they receive. Padding the report card paints an unrealistic picture of the childs ability.
There is research that supports both grade level retention and promotion in relation to drop out rates. Retained students need differentiated instruction. I agree with Robin we cant keep doing what we have always done and expect better results.
Our district is trying grade 8.5 for those students that dont pass 8th grade and aren't ready for high school. There has also been some talk of a grade 5.5 for those that are not ready for middle school. Maybe somewhere between promotion and retention lies the answer.
Howard,
I have a problem with the concept of "circle sixties." There is no perfect solution to low performers who are too old for their grade, but simply giving them points for doing nothing neither helps that nor teaches any lessons about the real world. I find it problematic when 8th grade students are promoted to high school because it would hurt their self-esteem to be held behind. Even students who fail basic tests are promoted anyway, and even the students themselves recognize this. I am teaching a girl for the second year in a row who did not pass the reading portion of her middle school exit exams. She cannot read well, and is in her second year of failing nearly every class she takes. I wonder if she had been held back or given focused reading instruction (Grade 8.5, a la Kirby?) would allow her to succeed. As it is, she takes up space, understands material once in a while, and struggles to keep a 60 (we do not do circle sixties at my school), so that she can do the quickie computer-based credit recovery. Circle sixties gloss over a greater problem.
I have also heard of grade 8.5 and how it is beneficial to childrent hat are not quite ready for high school. This would be a valid middle ground for those students to not actually make them repeat eighth grade but allow them to remediate while still moving on to new standards. I can't remember exactly, but is this program one that is time adjusted as needed or is it a fixed period of time? I also think this would work for fifth grade students as well. The problem arises with expenses associated with the extra programs. I am concerned that if nothing is done, we will continue to move kids along that will continue to create injustices for our youth and damage our society through uneducated citizens.
Post a Comment