This is one of the "10 reflective or informative entries regarding technology and/or teaching."
This reflection is based on my classroom observations from February 11, 2008 (for a 7th grade language arts class.)
I'm having trouble resolving the 2nd period classroom structure. Since there are two teachers, there are two classes. Normally, the teachers just teach all the students as a whole. But in 2nd period there is a "high-cap" class and a "low-cap" class: one on each side of the room, with their respective teacher.
I asked whether adaptations were made for the lower level. The teacher said no, that the curriculum was the same, though the performance expectations were a bit lower. (I thought she made a good point by saying that she needs to challenge them and can't just adapt because she can't guarantee that future teachers will. Her students need to be prepared.)
I agree with all that. What disturbs me is the placement of the lower students with the higher students. The lower-level class needs so much micro-managing / individualized attention, which is fine; it just distracts the higher-level students on the other side of the room. Also, within the low-cap group, there is so much variation. Some of the kids are very capable at completing the assignments, while some are not at all. In fact, the teacher has requested that one girl be put in special education classes next year.
I say this only because I wonder how effective a classroom can be when it's like this. I guess I'll find out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What you are seeing in action is the effect of mainstreaming. My classroom is similiar - I am in a split class of 5th and 6th graders whose abilities range from 2nd grade level to 9th grade levels in ability. Among these children, I have one genius and two learning-challenged children. Enjoy the opportunity to observe how the teacher integrates the class and how she modifies lessons for the students with lesser abilities. This is a skill you need in the future.
Post a Comment