![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is a note I posted on Latinteach. Someone else wrote:
>>American schools serve lower levels well and try with the upper levels. It seems that we get too caught up in serving everyone equally in middle schools. the elimination of tracking in Middle School does tremendous damage to both the higher and lower achieving students.
I replied:
Since I teach middle school and have read complaints about middle school teachers (in Classical Journal Forum) and am all too keenly aware of what is going on with some of the local middle school programs, I can tell you there is a problem. It's two-fold.
The first is a lack of adequate training for teaching this age group. They are not miniature high school students, though by 8th grade they might seem that way. They are still developing on a cognitive level, not able to do some of the higher level thinking without assistance or specific direction and training (which is something I focus on and is, I think, one of my strengths). I have observed, sadly, and I may be very wrong about this in other parts of the country, that teaching middle school Latin is often left for those that can't find a job elsewhere, those intimidated by reading real Latin, or those who don't have what it takes to finish their PhD's (or don't want to finish it any longer) and who are pressured into filling a vacancy that is more often than not at the middle school level. And this is in part where we go wrong with middle school.
I believe in tracking to a certain degree. I think we do a disservice to students who could become brilliant mechanics or plumbers by selling them the lie that college is for everyone. I think getting rid of vocational and agricultural programs in some areas is/was a mistake. But I also think it is a mistake that once a kid was on such a track that it seemed impossible for him to get back into an academic track if he wanted. It was a sort of segregation, with counselors telling students what they would be not what they could be. Now we say it's open to all and no one wants it.
The second factor that I think is a real problem with education in general and middle school specifically is explained here by a former student who wrote this recently: "you can be 100% sure that we utterly appreciated you and still do for all you did for us in middle school...personally some of the best learning experiences I've had in a long time...so many teachers are out there who don't have in mind that their students have to actually LEARN something and have FUN doing it at the same time. and THAT lately has made the impression on students that they can slack off and not expect to learn anything, creating this cycle of laziness and lack of eagerness for knowledge...surely very depressing..."
She understands the problem: a lack of eagerness for knowledge and a lack of enthusiasm in presenting knowledge. Wow. (Jeanne, I'd love to see this girl in your classes, but I doubt her parents would let her go that far from home...)
So combine the lack of eagerness for knowledge and in imparting knowledge with an unfortunate lack of understanding where the disconnects happen in learning Latin and you have thus cut off Latin from a large number of your middle school students. End result is what I see around me: Latin programs at middle schools having shrunk to two classes--only capturing, perhaps, the natural brainy A students and no one else/the kids that could teach themselves in many cases.
You can ENJOY READING English literature even if you don't write well, even if you don't have a tight command of the grammar or any command of grammar. Yes, the students that can master grammar should get every single aspect, every little piece of grammar. Why not an additional Latin comp class for the high IQs? Why not a fun Latin theatre class, where you put on skits and plays in Latin for everyone else? How about an alternative class for those with lower IQ where you'd have to play cards in Latin and constantly talk in Latin? Don't people with low IQs play cards? Would that be out of the question?
Ok, it wouldn't be practical... no practical benefit (except, perhaps, stimulating the brain) whereas with a modern language it would be building the needed conversational skills.
But how many of us are thinking up new electives to propose to our counselors? Mine might go for it... ok, and I'm rambling on now.
My point, which I definitely lost, is that it's not a matter of whether we track in middle school because we could easily lose some of our best students because of an inability to understand where the cognitive development is for that particular age group. Some of these kids will be late bloomers. I certainly was. Even in college I was a nice, conforming A student--but no one encouraged me to go to grad school. No one. Someone didn't think I was the type and I was being tracked in a different direction, wasn't I? Yes, I'd make a good secondary teacher. (Pat pat on the head.)
Simply put, we can't track until we know what we're looking for and have tried all avenues to reach the students.
>>American schools serve lower levels well and try with the upper levels. It seems that we get too caught up in serving everyone equally in middle schools. the elimination of tracking in Middle School does tremendous damage to both the higher and lower achieving students.
I replied:
Since I teach middle school and have read complaints about middle school teachers (in Classical Journal Forum) and am all too keenly aware of what is going on with some of the local middle school programs, I can tell you there is a problem. It's two-fold.
The first is a lack of adequate training for teaching this age group. They are not miniature high school students, though by 8th grade they might seem that way. They are still developing on a cognitive level, not able to do some of the higher level thinking without assistance or specific direction and training (which is something I focus on and is, I think, one of my strengths). I have observed, sadly, and I may be very wrong about this in other parts of the country, that teaching middle school Latin is often left for those that can't find a job elsewhere, those intimidated by reading real Latin, or those who don't have what it takes to finish their PhD's (or don't want to finish it any longer) and who are pressured into filling a vacancy that is more often than not at the middle school level. And this is in part where we go wrong with middle school.
I believe in tracking to a certain degree. I think we do a disservice to students who could become brilliant mechanics or plumbers by selling them the lie that college is for everyone. I think getting rid of vocational and agricultural programs in some areas is/was a mistake. But I also think it is a mistake that once a kid was on such a track that it seemed impossible for him to get back into an academic track if he wanted. It was a sort of segregation, with counselors telling students what they would be not what they could be. Now we say it's open to all and no one wants it.
The second factor that I think is a real problem with education in general and middle school specifically is explained here by a former student who wrote this recently: "you can be 100% sure that we utterly appreciated you and still do for all you did for us in middle school...personally some of the best learning experiences I've had in a long time...so many teachers are out there who don't have in mind that their students have to actually LEARN something and have FUN doing it at the same time. and THAT lately has made the impression on students that they can slack off and not expect to learn anything, creating this cycle of laziness and lack of eagerness for knowledge...surely very depressing..."
She understands the problem: a lack of eagerness for knowledge and a lack of enthusiasm in presenting knowledge. Wow. (Jeanne, I'd love to see this girl in your classes, but I doubt her parents would let her go that far from home...)
So combine the lack of eagerness for knowledge and in imparting knowledge with an unfortunate lack of understanding where the disconnects happen in learning Latin and you have thus cut off Latin from a large number of your middle school students. End result is what I see around me: Latin programs at middle schools having shrunk to two classes--only capturing, perhaps, the natural brainy A students and no one else/the kids that could teach themselves in many cases.
You can ENJOY READING English literature even if you don't write well, even if you don't have a tight command of the grammar or any command of grammar. Yes, the students that can master grammar should get every single aspect, every little piece of grammar. Why not an additional Latin comp class for the high IQs? Why not a fun Latin theatre class, where you put on skits and plays in Latin for everyone else? How about an alternative class for those with lower IQ where you'd have to play cards in Latin and constantly talk in Latin? Don't people with low IQs play cards? Would that be out of the question?
Ok, it wouldn't be practical... no practical benefit (except, perhaps, stimulating the brain) whereas with a modern language it would be building the needed conversational skills.
But how many of us are thinking up new electives to propose to our counselors? Mine might go for it... ok, and I'm rambling on now.
My point, which I definitely lost, is that it's not a matter of whether we track in middle school because we could easily lose some of our best students because of an inability to understand where the cognitive development is for that particular age group. Some of these kids will be late bloomers. I certainly was. Even in college I was a nice, conforming A student--but no one encouraged me to go to grad school. No one. Someone didn't think I was the type and I was being tracked in a different direction, wasn't I? Yes, I'd make a good secondary teacher. (Pat pat on the head.)
Simply put, we can't track until we know what we're looking for and have tried all avenues to reach the students.
Tags:
