Question:
Yesterday, one of my sixth grade teachers came to me with a concern. She
had just received a letter signed by all of her students who are involved
in the GT pull-out program requesting that she lighten up on the make-up
work required of them when they miss class because of the pull-out. Her
response to them was no way! The work is academic, you are well able to do
it, and there's no reason why I should require less of you than of any
other student in the classroom. She was asking for my validation for her
response. I couldn't give it!
We had a rather vague discussion of curriculum compacting, but that is not
a topic that, in my experience, has been addressed in all the years that we
have had a pull-out program in the school. I am trying to formulate a
response for this teacher, who, by the way, is an excellent classroom
teacher who really strives to meet the needs of GT kids in her classroom.
My question for all of you is this: Is curriculum compacting still
considered a viable option when dealing with students in pull-out programs?
If you were in my place what would you say to this teacher?
Answer:
I disagree, Mark. I have two sons who have been in our district's GT
program. Some of their teachers have required them to make up all work
missed while they were pulled out of class for GT. Both eventually got
tired of the program because it just meant too much work for them. Such
children are usually already in demanding classes with a good bit of
homework. They also tend to be involved in music lessons, athletic teams
or other after-school activities, and, like all other kids, like to have
time to just play once in a while.
This issue reminds me of one incident in my oldest child's fourth-grade
year. On his own time, my son was reading The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn. He not only was reading it, but he could converse in a rather
sophisticated manner about the social commentary in the book -- in some
ways more knowledgeably and articulately than some of the high school
juniors I was teaching at the time. One day he came home dejected because
he had a fistful of worksheets to complete on vowel and consonant
combinations. He had missed this material while he was in a GT session.
When I called his teacher to inquire if this work was really necessary, she
informed me that if he missed a single skill related to vowel and consonant
combinations, he might never learn to read. The fact that the boy was
already reading and comprehending material generally taught in high school
literature classes was no evidence to the contrary to her. This argument
struck me as patently absurd. It still does.
This experience led me to approach my teaching of high school English
differently. Prior to introducing a unit on usage or a similar topic, I
would frequently give a pretest to see what the students already knew.
Anyone who earned an "A" on the pretest was excused from doing the nightly
homework. The kids loved this approach. Sometimes they would study ahead
so they could earn an "A" on the pretests. That was great, too. They had
learned to become independent learners, to plan ahead, and to budget their
time. Life rewards people like that, and so did I.
I would suggest that the teacher compromise. Perhaps tell the students
that she is only concerned that they learn the important concepts the class
is studying. Tell them she will let them skip some of the seatwork until
the next test or other assessment. If they can earn an "A" (or "B", or some
other target grade) on the next test without having made up the work, she
will know that they are learning the material. It they earn a lower grade,
then for the next few weeks, she will ask them to make up all work missed
while in GT. If a child falls short, I'd give her/him another chance after
a few weeks have passed. This shows that the teacher is concerned with
what they know, not primarily with how long they labor over seatwork.
Submit Your
Own Answer!
