"Goal is to get rid of all the levels"

jamie said:
Springgreen - where do you live? You practically submitted 90 comments in the last day in threads pertaining to our school system. What grade and schools are your children currently in? It's very trolly IMO

We must be up to 180 comments now by a manic out-of-town poster. Very trolly indeed.

DaveSchmidt said:

imonlysleeping said:

springgreen2 said:
Levels kill the spirit of inquiry, the very spirit of democracy, that you can go as far as your interests and mounting capacities can take you. They are hyper-control, feed a straw man of "what d'ja get on the test?l" and social conformity from the 1950s when most of these teachers got their training.

Yeesh, I am trying to keep an open mind and understand what springgreen is saying, but this is a bunch of hot nonsense.

I sometimes imagine myself a student in the School of MOL, where I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to fill a kind of Honors class of posters. If I ever found myself in that class, through choice or elevation, so that their input was all I saw here, I doubt I would learn as much as I do from the current breadth of comments, including from those who are told they just don't get it.
This analogy, of course, is simplistic and imperfect and has nothing to do with the implementation of differentiated instruction. But maybe it sheds at least a little light on one reason that separate, leveled classes would contradict the spirit and goals I think springgreen2 and annielou are trying to get across.

If you jump ahead to spirit and goals, I suspect we can reach agreement quickly. Just as we might agree on the ideal of world peace and end to starvation. The Devil of course is in the details of how you achieve those goals.

I am not out-of-state.

@Tjohn: as Annielou pointed out, there are plenty of models available. It requires flexibility, though, obviously.

Thank you for your post afa. I've been trying to draft in my mind similar comments, but just haven't the correct language and even handedness to describe why I think that there might be more than ONE approach to education that can be successful and appropriate for students of all ages from kindergarten through graduate school.

springgreen2 said:

imonlysleeping said:
Well, because some of us might not be eager to use our kids as guinea pigs for your theories.

Your seething hostility is misplaced. These are not my theories. This is common practice in contemporary American education.

I'm actually not hostile to examining these issues at all. I think opening levels up and letting students choose makes a lot of sense. By all means let's have these conversations and try to solve real problems. I just think you sound like a lunatic.

Well I think levels are restrictive and absurd, and I have been too well raised to call you a name I'm thinking of.

mod said:
People , might I suggest you all get off this particular merry-go-round and put your efforts into reading up on the candidates for BOE. Better yet, attend tonight's Debate at Marshall School at 7pm. It would probably be a good idea to pose the question as to whether any other candidates want to delevel the HS.

In the auditorium / lunchroom? Hopefully it won't be too packed.

sprout said:
Yes.

Well, there goes THAT theory then.

springgreen2 said:
And once I find you the research, you'll challenge that, as well. I know this game.
This is about teachers wanting to contain their curriculum, control their students, not have to prepare and/or know their students, use old notes every year, and be able to "justify" to all and sundry. It's a result of hyper-litigious parents' threatening to sue for grades, and the collapse of independence, the spirit of inquiry and egalitarian norms. It is akin to biological determinism, and is a highly dangerous path for a free society to take.

Or not.

Ctrzaska: I think you might have to.take a look at Ulysses. I know we read Portrait in ninth grade! Maybe move on to Synge?

springgreen2 said:
I am not out-of-state.
@Tjohn: as Annielou pointed out, there are plenty of models available. It requires flexibility, though, obviously.

You may excuse people around here if they are skeptical these days following the expensive failure of IB and the "data-based decision" to reduce levels in the middle schools. At least the leveling changes in middle school do not appear to have caused any harm. Whether or not the changes helped, I do not know.

Beyond that, I just cannot envision a completely de-leveled environment and I am thankful that such a thing won't happen while my children are still in the school system. If nothing else, I don't see how you can overcome class size and training costs given our school district budget.

Since this thread is more about levels - thread title has been changed.

jamie said:
Since this thread is more about levels - thread title has been changed.

@jamie - Hey...who do you think you are?

Since this thread is associated with my name, I would prefer a different title. I CERTAINLY do not advocate for getting rid of levels.

How about "Malespina, SOMA 2015 and one persistent poster from out of town advocate for eliminating levels?"

tjohn said:

springgreen2 said:
I am not out-of-state.
@Tjohn: as Annielou pointed out, there are plenty of models available. It requires flexibility, though, obviously.

You may excuse people around here if they are skeptical these days following the expensive failure of IB and the "data-based decision" to reduce levels in the middle schools. At least the leveling changes in middle school do not appear to have caused any harm. Whether or not the changes helped, I do not know.
Beyond that, I just cannot envision a completely de-leveled environment and I am thankful that such a thing won't happen while my children are still in the school system. If nothing else, I don't see how you can overcome class size and training costs given our school district budget.

Class size and training costs are just some of the concerns that the differentiation strategy addresses. If you have a class of 35, instead of creating the college survey lecture environment, you break into groups of ten or so, (with one group of fifteen) each group with different types (not necessarily levels) of inquiry such as literature search, power-point vocab. presentations, etc depending upon the subject matter. That gives the teacher access to students doing independent inquiry, each at their own level, if you must think of that. (There is a heterogeneity of skills and interests here that seems to hit a raw nerve.)

As for cost, there merely needs to be some google-type inquiry by teachers, no big deal. Teachers (and administrators) have to want to do it and be open to it, supportive of it. That would be priceless. You might try incentivizing that by offering recognition for the teachers who are making it work.

I do recognize the skepticism to which you refer @tjohn. I think some skepticism is healthy. Fear of change, however, perhaps not.

Healthy skepticism, like healthy competition, is understandable. I just don't see how levels are actually really not barriers to individual progress based on some perceived "natural ability." It boggles my mind. But then I was raised on the teachings of John Dewey, American Progressivism and Democratic trends in education. I guess it is a different philosophy, indeed, certainly different values.

tjohn said:

If you jump ahead to spirit and goals, I suspect we can reach agreement quickly. Just as we might agree on the ideal of world peace and end to starvation. The Devil of course is in the details of how you achieve those goals.

I'm not so sure the spirit and goals of leveling and non-leveling intersect so agreeably; it seems to me that's a stubborn part of the debate. One could argue, for instance, that an Honors MOL class would have mastered this topic well shy of 15 pages, meeting what many would deem a primary goal. But I'd wager you could find others with different goals, like "How did the other classes do?" or "What could the Honors students have learned from questions or challenges that other students might have raised?"

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

If you jump ahead to spirit and goals, I suspect we can reach agreement quickly. Just as we might agree on the ideal of world peace and end to starvation. The Devil of course is in the details of how you achieve those goals.

I'm not so sure the spirit and goals of leveling and non-leveling intersect so agreeably; it seems to me that's a stubborn part of the debate. One could argue, for instance, that an Honors MOL class would have mastered this topic well shy of 15 pages, meeting what many would deem a primary goal. But I'd wager you could find others with different goals, like "How did the other classes do?" or "What could the Honors students have learned from questions or challenges that other students might have raised?"

Honors MOL students, having mastered the art of dead horse resurrection, know how to keep a topic going forever.

tjohn said:

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

If you jump ahead to spirit and goals, I suspect we can reach agreement quickly. Just as we might agree on the ideal of world peace and end to starvation. The Devil of course is in the details of how you achieve those goals.

I'm not so sure the spirit and goals of leveling and non-leveling intersect so agreeably; it seems to me that's a stubborn part of the debate. One could argue, for instance, that an Honors MOL class would have mastered this topic well shy of 15 pages, meeting what many would deem a primary goal. But I'd wager you could find others with different goals, like "How did the other classes do?" or "What could the Honors students have learned from questions or challenges that other students might have raised?"

Honors MOL students, having mastered the art of dead horse resurrection, know how to keep a topic going forever.

This "hijacker" recommends you keep the topic going if SOMA wants to catch up methodologically with the rest of the US