Discussion Starter: Does Anyone Like Cooperative Learning?

I’ve begun to wonder if anyone likes cooperative learning. I certainly don’t. In high school, few activities bothered me more than having to work in groups. I felt the same way in college and eventually graduate school, cringing whenever a professor assigned any kind of group work. Annoyance turned to resentment if this group work represented even a small portion of my grade. Have I been alone in this?

Recently, my curiosity prompted me to ask the undergraduates I was teaching. My polling methods weren’t exactly scientific. I simply asked, by show of hands, how many students enjoyed cooperative learning, either in high school or college. Out of the six sections I asked across two semesters—over 200 students—almost none raised their hands. During the first semester, not a single hand went up.

When I pressed, they offered a long list of grievances. Many disliked having to work with less capable or motivated students. A few added to this, saying they felt absences and aptitudes made group work feel imbalanced. Several complained about having their grades tied to the performance of others. As many as half of them indicated a preference for working independently, which might be surprising considering these students were preparing to be teachers. Some rather candid students mentioned specifically disliking having to interact at all.

This sampling isn’t enough to damn cooperative learning. Remember, I only spoke with around 200 students. Peer pressure might have dissuaded some from raising their hands. Furthermore, students dislike all sorts of otherwise effective methodology and programming. Working in teams has some merit and shouldn’t be tossed out because a few dozen undergraduates take exception with it. Justifications for its use include fostering inclusion (one of the original motivations for it), modeling 21st Century work environments (although this alignment might be shifting), and promoting engagement through active learning (which works so long as all members truly are active; it might backfire for students who struggle with interaction).

What do you think of it? I’m mostly interested in your perspective as a student. If you have thoughts on using cooperative learning as a teacher, share those instead. As a teacher, I used cooperative learning models because such strategies were expected to be present in lesson plans. I’m guessing other teachers use it at least in some part to secure positive ratings from administrators. No, I don’t think this is the only reason teachers use it. Plenty of teachers are skilled at doing so, choosing arrangements that atone for potential inequities while fostering effective learning. Students can benefit when it’s wisely implemented. Some students might even enjoy it. These students must be out there somewhere. Share your thoughts in the comments, whether or not you’re one of them, or ever were one of them.

Discussion Starter: Does Anyone Like Cooperative Learning?

Discussion Starter: Did You Learn More In School Or On Your Own?

You might suspect this is a loaded question, setting up an attempt to challenge the value of your K through 12 education. That isn’t exactly my intention. I realize you learned much through your formal schooling. So did I. For this Discussion Starter, I’m asking you to consider what you learned in school versus what you learned independently. I’m discounting skills or knowledge acquired in post-secondary education specific to your profession or trade. Instead, think about the general education obtained in your youth. How did you acquire most of this?

Determining this isn’t easy. I’ve had difficulty parsing it out. I did learn the foundations of literacy in school. Maybe my parents could have taught me how to read and write, but my elementary school certainly managed this more efficiently. I learned basic mathematics, although my school was up against a barrier here. I don’t think anyone could have taught me how to do math beyond simple algebra. People have limits. I know mine well. Outside skill instruction, I got exposure to the basics of history and the basics of science. Other than that, I only remember a handful of disconnected facts.

My school district wasn’t bad. It was and continues to be about average in all measures for schools in my state. I recall having some okay, even enthusiastic teachers. I remember more about the lackluster ones, like those who fell asleep in class. Some of those who stayed awake were worse. Despite them, this district gave me the foundational skills needed for everything else I’d learn through reading. That is really important. Most schools manage this. Those that don’t tend to be under-resourced schools serving exceptionally needy populations.

However, I wanted to be somewhere else each day of high school. I’ll admit having a bad attitude. Perhaps no school would have motivated me. Mine definitely didn’t. I’ve heard similar tales from friends my age regardless of where they went to school. Is it just the types of friends I’ve chosen? No, because I’ve also heard it from recent undergraduates who really want to become teachers and are much more optimistic than I’ve ever been.

I’ve thought about the specifics of what I didn’t like. Just being in the building all day grated me. Reviewing for the first few months of each year was another problem. In the mid-1990s, I endured the emerging trend of cooperative learning. Little turned me off as much as working in groups. One thing school taught me: I really dislike having to work with other people. Recently, I got some feedback that hinted at such sentiment being more common than I’d thought. I’ll write about this in the coming weeks.

In my last post, I asked for thoughts about potentially changing roles for teachers. Personalized learning came up. I’m not convinced personalized learning will work, partly because I’ve watched how schools muddle implementation of other programs. Additional factors weigh against it, enough for another article. It might work for skill instruction for some students, maybe even for content. The push behind it does seem to be part of an agenda, but regardless, what if it improbably ends up working? Research might never tell us convincingly one way or another. Even if research points to effectiveness, teachers aren’t likely to accept it.

I’ll tell you this: I wish something loosely akin to personalized learning or some other system of highly individualized modules would have have been available for me from elementary school onward. I can’t emphasize enough how much I would have preferred being able to move on when I was ready, being able to take more time as needed, not falling behind after absences, not having to talk with other students, and not having to sit and listen to a teacher. I’ve always preferred reading about how to do something to having someone tell me or show me. This might not work for some students (and the commercial versions of it on the horizon might not work at all), but I’ll say with confidence it would have worked for me.

As I’ve thought about it, I feel the bulk of what I’ve retained and been able to use has come from studying on my own. I can thank my school for some of the skills needed for this (and for having a functional library), but I really think the preponderance of my general education happened outside a classroom. And I didn’t even have internet access back then. Maybe my sense of this is wildly distorted and I’m wrong about the balance. I think otherwise.

But what about you? Do you feel content with what you learned in K through 12? What about your thoughts on how you learned, such as the methodology used? Would you have preferred working at your own pace (if you didn’t)? Do you feel you learned better in classrooms than through your own efforts? Did you learn more through your parents, or even through incidental learning across settings? Share in the comments.

 

Discussion Starter: Did You Learn More In School Or On Your Own?

Discussion Starter: Teachers or Technicians?

In a series of recent posts, I discussed possible future scenarios for special education teachers (Part 1 here). One of the scenarios I described involved teachers morphing from instructors to facilitators as innovations such as personalized learning software encroach. Similar changes are happening now. Special education teachers in many districts have relinquished roles closely associated with teaching: lesson planning, assessment design, and content instruction. Instead, they’re implementing scripted lessons as part of commercial direct instruction programs. General education teachers could experience a shift of their own. Some would claim they have already in an age of test preparation.

My question for readers is this: should classrooms be in the hands of teachers or technicians? I’m not asking who readers want in charge of classrooms. I’m asking who should be in charge. Do we want teachers to maintain their roles as designers and implementers of instruction, or do we want them to facilitate highly individualized learning modules that students navigate on their own? Do we want teachers creating original lessons in response to performance data, or do we want them remediating through research-based programs?

I anticipate responses being solidly on the side of teachers continuing to be teachers. What I press readers to consider is whether they would continue to want this if research would begin to indicate methodology that alters the role of the teacher is more effective than what we’ve done in the past. My position in education always will be that we should do whatever yields the best results. Research already shows the effectiveness of direct instruction remediation for students with learning disabilities, which is why schools use it. More evidence is needed regarding personalized learning, but if it works, should we not be using this, even if it reduces the role of teachers? Would opposing it be akin to preventing progress?

Implications will range from changes in teacher preparation to consideration for how much educational technicians should get paid. I invite readers to think about all this and respond with what roles teachers should have in the coming decade. This need not be an either-or. Many versions of each role and combinations of the two are probable, especially with technology still emerging and school structures varying so much. Roles for licensed professionals might change, but that doesn’t mean they’ll disappear. Share your thoughts about however you think roles should be reconciled.

Discussion Starter: Teachers or Technicians?

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit, Pt. 2

Back in January, I wrote about Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The US Supreme Court recently reached a unanimous decision in the case, siding with the family. Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools caught national attention earlier this year, partly because of a cute dog. This latest decision became attached to Neil Gorsuch’s Senate testimony per his ruling in a similar case. Both cases briefly stirred headlines for reasons other than their importance in special education.

Endrew F. eclipses Fry in potential magnitude. The core of the case is educational benefit. Must schools ensure students with IEPs simply make some measurable progress, or must they prove this progress is meaningful? The Supreme Court has found something closer to the latter, with the ruling mandating schools must prove students are making appropriate progress per each student’s circumstance. Although the difference might seem subtle, the scope is enormous. Future special education teachers will study this case as undergraduates.

“Appropriate progress” will be the focus of case-by-case deliberation, but it’s a leap from the previous requirement of schools to demonstrate discernible growth within a student’s program. The new implication suggests there is an acceptable range of progress for each student. Defining this range could be difficult. Some families will reject any deterministic range based on evaluation findings that the schools offer. Some might interpret “appropriate progress” as needing to be aligned with age and grade level progress. Such a conception of progress would be ideal, but in many cases would belie the range of abilities that led to a special education evaluation. Regardless, the built-in controversy seems to forecast a bumper crop of due process hearings.

As with Fry, advocates have heralded the decision in Endrew F. as a victory for students with disabilities. I wonder if it will be. My prediction is the same schools that currently struggle to meet the requirements of IDEA and of existing IEPs will continue to struggle. Now families will have more leverage to come after these schools for compensatory education when students fail to make “appropriate (and possibly unrealistic) progress.” I suspect this ruling will do at least as much to create additional settlements as it will to help students with disabilities get better at reading, writing, or doing math. It certainly will increase pressure on schools and might set some up to lose.

Any thoughts from readers? How will IEP teams define “appropriate?” To what degree will this decision shift special education in practice and even in concept? Does anyone else see this as a path to increased litigation? Share your insights in the comments.

 

 

 

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit, Pt. 2

Discussion Starter: Possible Repercussions of Fry v. Napoleon?

Often when special education practice or protocol change because of a precedent-setting legal case, the public scarcely pays attention. In mid-February, a case made its way to the Supreme Court and then through the news cycle, getting a handful of people talking along the way. For the most part, the ensuing conversation was about incidental factors rather than about the actual issue before the Court. I’m wondering just what the longterm effects of the Court’s decision will be.

To any readers unfamiliar with the case, Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools examined whether or not families must exhaust recourses available through IDEA before seeking damages for discrimination via other laws. The case also involved a young girl with cerebral palsy and her service dog, a photogenic Goldendoodle. Most people will remember the case being about the school denying a service (and an adorable, fluffy service) to this girl. It really wasn’t about that.

True, its genesis was the school’s denial of the girl’s use of the service dog on campus. With paraprofessionals in place to meet the girl’s needs, administrators saw the dog as unnecessary. The family eventually pulled their daughter and placed her in a school that would allow the dog. This wasn’t before the moment that generated a discrimination suit.

In an effort to determine whether or not the dog could assist the girl as the family claimed, staff had the girl demonstrate how the dog could help her in a bathroom. She didn’t have to use the bathroom in front of staff, but instead she had to show the dog’s capacity to assist her physically. Per the family and their attorney, the scenario was invasive and humiliating enough to warrant a discrimination suit seeking emotional damages.

District Court dismissed this. The reason? The family hadn’t followed due process through IDEA before seeking damages. Such emotional damage suits aren’t within IDEA’s scope, as it deals with issues of access. Regardless, the decision stood. The parents appealed.

The Supreme Court heard the case in the fall and issued their decision this winter. They sided with the family, stating the need to go through IDEA due process shouldn’t apply in situations that involve emotional damage claims and other similar forms of discrimination.

What will this mean for various stakeholders? Perspective matters here. My experience in special education suggests this could become a new area of disability law for attorneys to exploit. Parents of children with disabilities might have greater leverage from which to seek emotional damages in various instances of perceived discrimination. Potentially any situations in which schools allegedly single out children with disabilities could be claimed as spurring an emotional hardship. Limits would exist of course, as some students end up being singled out at times per the delivery of their IEPs. Still, parents might be more encouraged to pursue damages knowing fewer hurdles exist per this precedent. I could see this becoming expensive for schools.

The other perspective to take would be to see this as a victory for parents and for children with disabilities. Another protection against discrimination could emerge from Fry, thus holding schools accountable in instances of genuine wrongdoing. It may clear some of the confusion over how to redress such wrongdoings. Instead of looking at this as a new way for schools to lose, one could look at it as a way to keep schools in check, and thus improve services.

What do my readers think? Will this case be a precedent-setter? Will it lead to the increase in discrimination suits I predict? Do you see it as more of a loss for schools or as a victory for families? Share your thoughts in the comments.

 

 

 

 

Discussion Starter: Possible Repercussions of Fry v. Napoleon?

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit?

Last week, the US Supreme Court began hearing a case regarding one of special education’s trickiest corners: educational benefit. Parents and schools have clashed over the concept for decades. The essential question involves how much benefit students with disabilities are expected to, even entitled to receive from their education. Take a moment to consider how nuanced this question is. Should the expectation simply be that students make at least some progress? How will the acceptable level of progress be quantified? Is there any definitive way to prove a lack of progress is the fault of the school?

The case in question concerns a student with ASD and ADHD not making progress in a public school. The parents sent him to a private school, at which he allegedly made progress. The family wants the district to pay for the placement. Such requests are fairly common. The key to the case will be proving the student wasn’t making progress at the public school due to some lacking on the part of that school, thus making the placement at the private necessary for educational benefit. Also before the court is the issue of what should be considered an acceptable level of progress. Was the student reaching this? Was providing access to an appropriate curriculum enough, or did the school have to ensure a certain echelon of performance? If so, what should that be? 

Many advocates push for schools to ensure meaningful progress. This will be difficult to define. A student with a severe intellectual disability and a sensory impairment will have a different capacity for growth than that of a student with a learning disability who is also gifted. If meaningful progress is quantified and applied to schools via precedent or even an eventual adjustment to IDEA, what is that going to mean for schools that are barely able to keep enough paraprofessionals in their building to help students go to the bathroom? Will schools be expected to move beyond the notion of simply providing access to FAPE and towards an expectation of the best possible educational opportunity? What happens when students, despite a school’s best effort, still make insufficient progress? Will pending adjustments result in better educational outcomes, or simply an increase in due process cases schools in which schools have little means of defense?

I turn the matter to my readers. Should schools be lashed to a requirement for meaningful educational benefit? What should be the definition of “meaningful?” How will it differ from the current expectation of progress being noted during an IEP term? I don’t think any issue in special education is as wrought with controversy. I look forward to your comments.

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit?

Discussion Starter: How Are Charters Doing Where You Live?

I recently asked about issues that will impact education in 2017. As a follow up, I’m dedicating a post to the status of charter schools. Specifically, I’d like readers to share the relative success of charters in their area. If any readers have insights regarding how their local charters are responding to the needs of students with disabilities, these would be especially relevant on this blog.

I’m expecting what others report to be similar to what I’ve found where I live. Philadelphia’s charters get results that are as mixed as what the city’s publics get. Some charters seem to be exceeding the outcomes publics with similar populations are managing, although a few crucial variables might be skewing results in favor of the charters. Other charters are disasters and should be chained shut, but the same could be said for many of the city’s publics (which is part of how Philadelphia has ended up with so many charters). My city might not be the best litmus, as too many of the issues impacting school performance are beyond what any school could address.

What is happening with the charters in your community? Are they improving upon what the local publics offer? Are they worsening anything? If you respond, sharing the composition of your community (rural, suburban, urban) might be helpful.

 

 

Discussion Starter: How Are Charters Doing Where You Live?