Thanks for referencing my personal blog—a space where I’m attempting to muse “out loud” about some of the current things that cross my path as an educator.

I think that grouping according to skill level (and I’m hesitant to use the term “ability”) carries with it a set of complexities that make discussion sometimes confounding. Well, at least confounding for me!

I guess my main questions have to do with the value of passing students on, even though certain fundamental skills haven’t been learned.

In the case of the skating program, there are five “indicators”, and two of them (two consecutive jumps and getting up with the assistance of a pylon) are mandatory. Luke has achieved four out of the five; he isn’t a confident jumper yet! Not bad, but not good enough to move on in their eyes.

I guess in my own thinking about primary education, are there some skills that are so necessary that we should be saying, “We could move you on, but there’s really no use because you’re just going to hit a wall at the next level.”

I’m not sure, but I think that this is different than traditional models of ability grouping and streaming. I think that some of the ability group situations in which I found myself as a student were really there to streamline life for my teachers. It is possible that some forms of ability grouping will only perpetuate the sense that “this is what I’m capable of”, as opposed to what I think is at the heart of the skating example. I think that the CanSkate folks are saying to parents, “Your child will learn to skate, but we know from our experience that there are some vital benchmarks along the way. Give us the space to do our work with your son.”

And I’m OK with that.

I would love to hear what others think.

Mr.Hurley, kudos for your powers of observation and for your willingness to try at look at learning and teaching with fresh eyes. I for one will be looking forward to reading about what you are going to think and feel about your chidren’s experiences in school.

Regarding the article on the swiss schools I consider it to be one approach that works and is fair.
As I said before elementary school when I went to school was similar and it worked very well.
Almost no parents where teaching their kids to read at home even if the children were begging so that they will not be bored and cause trouble in grade1. Also they were not taught to write at home either because they had to learn proper way from a teacher how to hold the pencil and correct letter formation.
Parents had a choice whether to send their children to school at 6 or 7; no questions asked, no implications derived that the child was slow.
The choice depended on parents’ beliefs that children need to stay children a bit longer since school was serious business and on the parents’ own assesment of the level of maturity of their child.
The almost universal belief was that it was better to start a year later when a child became capable of following instructions and staying still and listening rather then send the child to school at 6 and have the child get himself in trouble, or not being able to meet requirements or get turned off.
Right off the bat these two things eliminated a big source of variability among grade 1 students.

The other major thing is that a very detailed, sequential and enforced curriculum was in place, teacher’s training was very specific and related to the curriculum and the expectations of performance were exactly the same for every student.
Sure, life is not fair, some students had to work longer and harder than others but this was acceptable to parents because that’s just how life is.

To summarize, yes the swiss system works.
However it works because:
- The parent’s expectations and beliefs fit the system
- There is a strong curriculum and strong teacher’s training in place
- As far as I know, and if somebody knows for sure perhaps he can confirm,  in the german system they don’t have children with major medical problems learning in regular classes.

Also, in the german system and in the austrian system all the kids are together only for grades 1 to 4. From grade 5 onwards they split - not sure exactly who decides how - into 3 separate streams.
One stream is aiming at university, another - and the most popular it seems because that’s where most the jobs are - at college and the third is aiming at preparing skilled workers.

And the germans, austrians and swiss take preparing skilled workers very seriously. The students get a lot of practical experience and they have to pass proficiency exams where they have to prove the quality of their work before they get licensed in that profession.
In Austria for example, your house is not painted by a student on summer holiday, it is painted by a painter that belongs to that trade, that has passed tests to become a painter and is proud of his workmanship. Unreal, eh?

So yeah, there are systems that work.
Whether or not they are a good fit or would ever be accepted let aside followed by a majority in North America, that’s a totally different problem.
We here, we prefer to believe in magic and political correctness and we don’t like look under the hood to see if it all actually works or not.

I believe Malkin`s reference is worth discussing as it was my belief till a few months ago.It is still but with a few modifications,more like the skating group.It makes so much sense doesn`t it?I get my stories from a school board trying to do it right day one in 5 schools now.

Europe`s views are not mine and I realize they are not hers necessarily but her observations of other countries.These views are based on the Piaget developmental theories are they not and as much as you describe intererstingly that parents should not instruct so the teachers do the teaching,I am fascinated Perhaps this is the correct way but here-we could never trust curriculum for a second and these views are not the ones that have influenced my thinking,they are not the modern views of the current cutting edge research.

Apparently,if you give them all the same curriculum day one,based on research and multisensory and simultaneous modality instruction,some kids in the early grades need more time to become as fluent as the others.However,given a couple of years of small group instruction and review of the above they catch up and we have a group that we can teach that is likely to all attain the curriculum because they can all process language,read,spell and write.
Let the music begin as we have learned all our scales!

Joanne,

I would be very interested to know which schools/school boards are making these efforts. Are there specific approaches you can share?

I appreciate your question but cannot answer,it is not correct to name strategies and products on the blog,or school boards or names.
I will try to contact you on your OUT LOUD postings after Christmas.

The same could be said for swimming lessons as compared to reading.  There could be tragic consequences if all children progressed at swimming lessons before they had mastered a level of skill.  Would any parent allow their child to attempt to swim in the deep end of a pool before they were able?  Of course not.  Why then do schools do this for fundamental skills in the primary grades?  Children “drown” (in a manner of speaking) at school when they are pushed along year after year without mastery of those essential skills.