Schooling Central

In Victoria it seems quite unusual to find schools that stream kids within or across year levels. We are told again and again by principals that "individual differences" are catered for "within the classroom" using a "differentiated curriculum". I can certainly see advantages in this approach, however I'm yet to be convinced that it works better for the students or the teachers. Once kids are split up into ability groups within the classroom they can no longer be instructed as a large group. And since a teacher just can't be in several places at one time, a lot of self directed work needs to go on. I guess that's fine when kids are doing writing or maths exercises. But how does the teacher introduce new topics? For example, my son's (streamed) maths class is learning negative numbers. In a mixed ability classroom, how does the teacher introduce a topic like that to one or two kids who are ready for it, when some of the kids in the same class are struggling to add single digit positive numbers?

I'm really hoping someone can come and tell me how well the differentiated approach within the classroom works! The streaming at our son's current school is one of the biggest advantages of the school as we see it, and I need to be convinced that gifted education can work just as well without it before we seriously consider leaving.

Annabel.

Dear Annabel,

I'm particularly interested in differentiated curriculum in the classroom because it's an area I am working on with teachers to help them improve. At the same time, I feel as though I have plenty to learn in this field. I believe it's quite a skilled way to teach and far more widely claimed to be happening than truly occurring. At the same time, I think it's possible to do, and extremely valuable when done well.

A truly differentiated curriculum would leave few children bored, including gifted children. Many schools claim to be doing this but I think more so because the term is in vogue rather than because they really understand what it means.

I can't claim to be an expert on this, but I suspect that gifted children are better off in streamed classes rather than being in a 'non-differentiated' classroom. Even in a streamed class, it is not a given that the clever children are being challenged adequately.

I don't mean to be negative and put all schools down, but I can't help from objecting to schools claiming to do things that they don't support with professional development and true understanding.

In terms of introducing new topics in a mixed ability class, there are ways to do this such as introducing an open-ended question that allow most children to pick it up at a level that suits their ability. At the same time, it's likely that the teacher will then need to work with a less advanced group to teach more basic concepts. Once this group are off doing some independent work, then the teacher might go and work with a single or group of gifted child/ren and challenge them by shifting the level of what they are doing or ask them questions that will challenge their thinking.

I guess this is the way I tend to do this and no doubt there are other effective ways too. I just wanted to provide an example to show it is possible.

I hope this is helpful.

Penny.

I am not a teacher but I feel I have natural teaching skills that I picked up from my good old teachers. My feeling is that good teaching is easier said than done. All schools claim that they have strategies for differentiated teaching by grouping kids. In reality it's very hard. Teachers often struggle to find time to manage all the groups and help the struggling ones while cater for the smart ones. There must also be a balance between instructional time and activity time.

My experience in the past 3 years talking to different teachers and watch how my own kid learn from the teachers, I feel that it's all potluck. If kids get a gifted teacher, they are lucky. Teachers are often quite frank in saying they don't have enough time to care for individuals. And this is where a gifted teacher makes the difference. A gifted teacher can often engage the kids in a variety of ways making kids at all level get something to work on. The smart ones get more challenges. Motivated kids will try to do some research themselves so that they can have a voice in group activities. A good teacher know how to be fair and get kids to speak up, to voice their opinions and to think carefully and positively participate in activities. Poor teachers just let the bravest kids dominate groups and push shy kids into submission. It's not about telling kids what to do. It's about creating an environment for kids to feel that they are safe and belong so that they can participate.

This year my child is lucky for the first time to get a teacher that knows how to tell jokes, run quiz games, get kids to compete in group projects and will be prepared to discuss with a child why an answer is wrong. He took it well when my child pointed out that the answer in the book was wrong or the teacher was wrong himself by agreeing with the book. Kids laugh a lot in his class.

I am a big beleiver in the old fashioned socratic method of teaching. The method used by Plato's teacher is simply awesome. It's all about guiding the minds into find answers rather than taking the knowledge from someone else. I educated my child at home using an almost pure socratic method mixed with some instructions. It was hard at first but things got better later. At year 3 my child has become an independent thinker. She started to firm up her own points of views and developed her own ways to solve problems. At year 4, she managed to beat me in several complex logic and decoding problems. All this fits perfectly well with what I read in the NSW curriculum documents.

I think the average school teachers won't really care or cannot really manage differentiated teaching. In NSW, kids will have a chance to get into OC and selective classes, where they really learn more. I don't quite see the purpose of acceleration or streaming kids into higher classes. This approach only helps kids to be exposed to more information without going for the depth. A young kid who is accelerated to a higher class is likely to use too much memory to learn rather than having the time to leisurely dwell deeper into subject matters. That's why many kids in higher years and even adults cannot solve hard problems for younger years.

There are philosophers and there are technocrats. We value people who are deep thinkers and we value people who master a wealth of information and skills. There is a place for both, and other, types of people in society. So I'd say, let's look at the individual child, his particular strengths and his learning style. Let's not deprive any of them of extension opportunities if they need them.

I live in NSW but haven't heard of OC and selective schools as the place to nurture deep thinking. Quite the contrary, I gather that this is what they do in OCs: in Year 5, they teach Year 5 Maths in the first semester, Year 6 in the second; and in Year 6 they teach Year 7 Maths in the first semester and Year 8 Maths in the second semester. If the students are to polish their problem solving abilities and to dwell deeper into subject areas in these classes, they really need to have acquired the basic concepts BEFORE they get to the OC. And how do they do this? Extension opportunities before Year 5, inside or outside of school, for those who have the abilities.

Granted that some accelerated students may exhibit immaturity in certain areas as a feature of asynchronous development, students who are NOT accelerated are just as likely to exhibit immaturity. But I daresay that students who genuinely need acceleration to be engaged in class, but not given it, may be highly frustrated in addition to being immature.

I think acceleration is only the second best choice if you want to help gifted kids. It's because it does not matter what grade the child is put into, unless you are lucky to get a great teacher, the quality of teaching will be the same. If it is superficial at year 1, it will be probably the same at year 2 and so on. The only difference is that the child get a chance to do something a bit harder and a bit ahead of the others. A better way is to look for a better school where they ahev better facility and standards (and hopefully better staff). In Sydney, some public schools in the Inner West suburbs are well known for quality.

In OC classes (not selective schools), you have the best of minds. About 1% or less of year 4 kids would secure a place in an OC class. As all the kids are so advanced, the teachers can try creative teaching methods as they no longer worry about the basics. All the basic ability to read, write and doing mathematics at level of the average adult are assumed for these kids. Apart from this, they also offer speacialist teachers for OC classes. Therefore OC kids will eventually dominate the selective schools when they get to high schools. At selective schools, kids come from a many sources. Most get in officially by a test in year 6. But about 20% would get in later by direct test at the school or by transfer from normal high schools when they are the best performing kids at their local school (late bloomers). While I would not say that these schools really nuture "deep thinking" but I would say that their students do think deeper than students in normal schools. Again, the basics are assumed for these kids, they learn mainly the extensions.

Differentiation happens in OC classes too. As kids in year 5 will learn together with kids in year 6 in the same class, they can learn together in groups.

Thank you for the info regarding OCs and selective schools, dmaivn.

A friend of mine in Sydney sent her son to an OC there. He disliked his experience in the school with a passion, so my perception may have been influenced by that. He got a full scholarship to a private high school after the two years. It's hard to say, though, whether he got the scholarship because of the OC or in spite of the OC. [Shrug.]