Kid

Kids learning school: Kids N Us Early Learning School

Опубликовано: August 16, 2023 в 7:55 am

Автор:

Категории: Kid

Summer learning loss: What is it, and what can we do about it?

As students return to school this fall, many of them – perhaps especially those from historically disadvantaged student groups – will be starting the academic year with achievement levels lower than where they were at the beginning of summer break. This phenomenon – sometimes referred to as summer learning loss, summer setback, or summer slide – has been of interest to education researchers going back as far as 1906.1 We review what is known about summer loss and offer suggestions for districts and states looking to combat the problem.

An early comprehensive review of the literature summarized several findings regarding summer loss.2 The authors concluded that: (1) on average, students’ achievement scores declined over summer vacation by one month’s worth of school-year learning, (2) declines were sharper for math than for reading, and (3) the extent of loss was larger at higher grade levels. Importantly, they also concluded that income-based reading gaps grew over the summer, given that middle class students tended to show improvement in reading skills while lower-income students tended to experience loss. However, they did not find differential summer learning in math, or by gender or race in either subject.

The recent literature on summer loss has been mixed.  One study using data from over half a million students in grades 2-9 from a southern state (from 2008-2012) found that students, on average, lost between 25 – 30 percent of their school-year learning over the summer; additionally, black and Latino students tended to gain less over the school year and lose more over the summer compared to white students.3 However, an analysis of the nationally-representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010 – 11 (ECLS-K:2011) found little evidence of overall loss over the summers after grades K and 1, and the summer socioeconomic status gaps widened in some subjects and grades but not others. 4 Von Hippel and Hamrock re-analyzed two earlier data sets and concluded that gaps “do not necessarily…grow fastest over the summer” (p.41).5 Thus, it seems summer loss and summer gap-growth occur, though not universally across geography, grade level, or subject.  

Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson’s “faucet theory” offers an explanation as to why lower-income students might learn less over the summer compared to higher-income students.6 According to the theory, the “resource faucet” is on for all students during the school year, enabling all students to make learning gains. Over the summer, however, the flow of resources slows for students from disadvantaged backgrounds but not for students from advantaged backgrounds. Higher-income students tend to continue to have access to financial and human capital resources (such as parental education) over the summer, thereby facilitating learning.7

Students’ achievement scores declined over summer vacation by one month’s worth of school-year learning.

Traditionally, educators and policymakers have relied on conventional summer school programs to combat summer loss and summer gap-growth. In 2000, Cooper and colleagues published a comprehensive meta-analysis of classroom-based summer programs finding positive effects on average.8 However, they also concluded that middle-income students benefited more from summer programming than did lower-income students.  They speculated that this could be because programs serving more advantaged students were of higher quality, or because of an interactive effect between programming and the home resources available to students.  The result raised the concern that attempts to stem summer learning loss may actually exacerbate summer gap-growth if they are not well targeted.

Kim and Quinn conducted a meta-analysis of 41 summer reading programs from 35 studies published after the Cooper et al. review.9 Like Cooper and colleagues, Kim and Quinn found summer reading programs to be effective at raising test scores, on average. Unlike Cooper, however, Kim and Quinn found that it was low-income students who benefited most from summer reading programs (even when restricting the comparison to higher- and lower-income students attending the same program).  Furthermore, they concluded that the reason lower-income students benefited more was that lower-income students in these studies were more likely than higher-income students to experience summer loss when not participating in the summer programs.  The authors noted several differences between their review and Cooper et al.’s that could explain the contrasting results:  1) Kim and Quinn analyzed only reading programs, while Cooper and colleagues combined math and reading programs, 2) Kim and Quinn included only two-group experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while Cooper and colleagues included single-group pre/post-test designs, and 3) Kim and Quinn included home-based programs in their review.

Naturally, school-based summer school programs vary in their effectiveness.   Many of the recommendations for creating high-quality programs come in the form of expert opinion.  Common suggestions include blending academic learning with hands-on or recreational activities, professionalizing summer school staff, and forming partnerships with community organizations to leverage resources.10 We can also draw some lessons from research.  For instance, the recent meta-analysis found that programs were more effective when they used research-based literacy instruction; specifically, programs using instructional strategies identified by the National Reading Panel as best practices had the largest impact on students’ reading comprehension scores (equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 65th percentile of a normal distribution). Program effectiveness also differed by literacy domain—programs were effective at raising students’ reading comprehension and fluency/decoding scores but not their vocabulary scores.  Not surprisingly, research also suggests that programs are more effective when students attend consistently and spend more time on task academically. 11

While school-based summer learning programs hold promise when they fit the above criteria, they often fail to live up to these expectations. Two important reasons why school-based summer programs can be ineffective are that organizers often struggle to attract high quality teachers and struggle to appeal to students and families for whom the opportunity costs of attending summer school can be high.12 13School-based programs can also be quite costly. Researchers have therefore experimented, with some success, with lower-cost home-based summer programming.

One example of a home-based summer reading program that has been shown to be effective for low-income upper elementary school students is READS for Summer Learning.14 In READS, which has been iteratively modified over several randomized trials, students receive eight books in the mail over the summer that are matched to their reading level and interests. Along with each book, students receive a tri-fold paper that leads them through a pre-reading activity and a post-reading comprehension check. Students are asked to mail the postage-prepaid tri-fold back; families receive reminders when tri-folds are not returned. Additionally, teachers deliver scripted lessons at the end of the school year to prepare students to productively read independently over the summer with the trifold scaffold.  A recent study found that READS had an effect on low-income students’ reading comprehension the spring following their participation in the intervention (ES=.05 SD on the state reading test),15 and other work suggests that the tri-fold acts as a mediator of the program effect.16

Another recent randomized trial showed that something as simple as sending text messages over the summer to families of elementary school students at risk of summer loss was effective at improving the reading scores of third- and fourth-graders (but not first or second graders), with effect sizes of .21 to .29.17 The text messages included tips on resources available to students over the summer, ideas for activities to do with children, and information about the value of particular summer learning activities.

Home-based programs such as these can be more cost-effective than school-based interventions. For example, the cost of READS per student is estimated to be between $250-$480, compared to other programs providing supplementary education services that can cost as much as $1,700 per student and have similar or less favorable cost effectiveness ratios.

Kim and Quinn included home-based programs in their meta-analysis, and encouragingly, they found that the effects of home-based programs were not significantly different from their more expensive classroom-based alternatives.  At the same time, the effects from these programs might not be as large as the effects of the highest-quality school-based programs that use research-based instructional strategies.

Schools and districts should want to address the issue of summer learning loss not only because it may exacerbate achievement gaps, but also because it “wastes” so much of the knowledge students have gained during the school year. Summer loss also undoubtedly increases the amount of time teachers have to spend “re-teaching” last year’s content, likely contributing to the repetitiveness of the typical U.S. curriculum.18 While investing in extensive school-based summer options may be infeasible, it may be cost-effective and strategic for districts to begin to offer targeted out-of-school interventions to the students most at risk of backsliding.  In designing such programs, policymakers should keep in mind the recommendations from the research described above:

  • Center the program around evidence-based curriculum.
  • In addition to academic content, include hands-on or recreational activities to attract students.
  • Ensure that program structure enables sufficient time on task, and have policies or incentives that encourage consistent attendance.
  • Invest in hiring the most effective teachers.

Regardless of the design, these policies should offer engaging options for students over the summer so that summer learning programs do not feel like punishment for students who would rather be enjoying summer vacation.   Doing so would set more students up for success as the school year gets underway.

The authors did not receive any financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. They are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article. 

Related Books

Authors

  • Footnotes

    1. Cooper H., Nye B., Charlton K., Lindsay J., Greathouse S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–268. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543066003227
    2. ibid
    3. Atteberry, A. , & McEachin, A. (2016). School’s out: Summer learning loss across grade levels and school contexts in the United States today.  In Alexander, K., Pitcock, S., & Boulay, M. (Eds). Summer learning and summer learning loss, pp35-54. New York: Teachers College Press.
    4. Quinn, D.M., Cooc, N., McIntyre, J., & Gomez, C.J. (2016). Seasonal dynamics of academic achievement inequality by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity: Updating and extending past research with new national data. Educational Researcher, 45(8), 443-453. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X16677965?journalCode=edra
    5. Von Hippel, P.T., & Hamrock, C. (2016).  Do test score gaps grow before, during, or between the school years? Measurement artifacts and what we can know in spite of them. (Social Science Research Network working paper). Retrieved from http://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745527
    6. Entwisle D. R., Alexander K. L., Olson L. S. (2000). Summer learning and home environment. In Kahlenberg R. D. (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp. 9–30). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press
    7. Borman G. D., Benson J., Overman L. T. (2005). Families, schools, and summer learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 131–150. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499195
    8. Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 65, i-127. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3181549
    9. Kim J. S., Quinn D. M. (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children’s literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8 a meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 386–431. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0034654313483906
    10. McLaughlin B., Pitcock S. (2009). Building quality in summer learning programs: Approaches and recommendations (White Paper Commissioned by the Wallace Foundation). Retrieved from: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/documents/building-quality-in-summer-learning-programs.pdf
    11. Augustine, CH, Sloan McCombs, J., Pane, JF, Schwartz, HL, Schweig, J., McEachin, A. and Siler-Evans, K. (2016). Learning from Summer: Effects of Voluntary Summer Learning Programs on Low-Income Urban Youth. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1557. html
    12. Denton D. R. (2002). Summer school: Unfulfilled promise. Atlanta, GA: Summer Regional Education Board. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467662.pdf
    13. McLaughlin & Pitcock (2009)
    14. e.g., Kim, J.S., Guryan, J., White, T.G., Quinn, D.M., Capotosto, L., & Kingston, H.C. (2016). Delayed effects of a low-cost and large-scale summer reading intervention on elementary school children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9 sup1, 1-22. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19345747.2016.1164780?journalCode=uree20
    15. ibid
    16. Guryan, J., Kim, J.S., & Quinn, D.M. (2014). Does reading during the summer build reading skills? Evidence from a randomized experiment in 463 classrooms. NBER Working Paper No. 20689. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20689
    17. Kraft, M.A., & Monti-Nussbaum, M. (in press). Can schools empower parents to prevent summer learning loss? A text messaging field experiment to promote literacy skills. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_monti-nussbaum_2017_can_schools_empower_parents_to_prevent_summer_learning_loss_annals.pdf
    18. Polikoff,  M.S.  (2012).  The  redundancy  of  mathematics  instruction  in  US  elementary  and middle  schools.  The  Elementary  School  Journal ,  113(2),  230­-251. http://web-app.usc.edu/web/rossier/publications/66/The%20Redundancy%20of%20Math%20Instruction.pdf

Cooper H., Nye B., Charlton K., Lindsay J., Greathouse S.  (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–268. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543066003227

ibid

Atteberry, A., & McEachin, A. (2016). School’s out: Summer learning loss across grade levels and school contexts in the United States today.  In Alexander, K., Pitcock, S., & Boulay, M. (Eds). Summer learning and summer learning loss, pp35-54. New York: Teachers College Press.

Quinn, D.M., Cooc, N., McIntyre, J., & Gomez, C.J. (2016). Seasonal dynamics of academic achievement inequality by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity: Updating and extending past research with new national data. Educational Researcher, 45(8), 443-453. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X16677965?journalCode=edra

Von Hippel, P.T., & Hamrock, C. (2016).  Do test score gaps grow before, during, or between the school years? Measurement artifacts and what we can know in spite of them. (Social Science Research Network working paper). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745527

Entwisle D. R., Alexander K. L., Olson L. S. (2000). Summer learning and home environment. In Kahlenberg R. D. (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp. 9–30). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press

Borman G. D., Benson J., Overman L. T. (2005). Families, schools, and summer learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 131–150. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499195

Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 65, i-127. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3181549

Kim J. S., Quinn D. M. (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children’s literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8 a meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 386–431. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0034654313483906

McLaughlin B., Pitcock S. (2009). Building quality in summer learning programs: Approaches and recommendations (White Paper Commissioned by the Wallace Foundation). Retrieved from: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/documents/building-quality-in-summer-learning-programs.pdf

Augustine, CH, Sloan McCombs, J., Pane, JF, Schwartz, HL, Schweig, J., McEachin, A. and Siler-Evans, K. (2016). Learning from Summer: Effects of Voluntary Summer Learning Programs on Low-Income Urban Youth. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1557.html

Denton D. R. (2002). Summer school: Unfulfilled promise. Atlanta, GA: Summer Regional Education Board. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467662.pdf

McLaughlin & Pitcock (2009)

e.g., Kim, J.S., Guryan, J., White, T.G., Quinn, D.M., Capotosto, L. , & Kingston, H.C. (2016). Delayed effects of a low-cost and large-scale summer reading intervention on elementary school children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9 sup1, 1-22. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19345747.2016.1164780?journalCode=uree20

ibid

Guryan, J., Kim, J.S., & Quinn, D.M. (2014). Does reading during the summer build reading skills? Evidence from a randomized experiment in 463 classrooms. NBER Working Paper No. 20689. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20689

Kraft, M.A., & Monti-Nussbaum, M. (in press). Can schools empower parents to prevent summer learning loss? A text messaging field experiment to promote literacy skills. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_monti-nussbaum_2017_can_schools_empower_parents_to_prevent_summer_learning_loss_annals.pdf

Polikoff,  M.S.  (2012).  The  redundancy  of  mathematics  instruction  in  US  elementary  and middle  schools.   The  Elementary  School  Journal ,  113(2),  230­-251. http://web-app.usc.edu/web/rossier/publications/66/The%20Redundancy%20of%20Math%20Instruction.pdf

Four Ways Schools Can Support the Whole Child


Currently, our education system often focuses on a narrow sliver of children’s cognitive development with an emphasis on transmitting content knowledge, often to be memorized and repeated in the same form it was received. Lessons in math, science, and reading—and tests in those skills—dominate the curriculum.

While those subjects are fundamental, learning involves far more than merely acquiring inert knowledge in algebra or chemistry. Such a narrow focus gives short shrift to the ways that children need to grow and learn in their relationships, identity, emotional understanding, and overall well-being. After all, children are multi-dimensional “whole” beings whose development is complex and rich.

Recent research in neuroscience, developmental and learning sciences, education, sociology, and many other fields confirms that a “whole child” approach is not only desirable but necessary to ensure that children learn well. According to two comprehensive reviews of the science on children’s development and learning:

  • Brain development is shaped by consistent, supportive relationships; responsive communications; and modeling of productive behaviors. The brain’s capacity develops most fully when children and youth feel emotionally and physically safe; and when they feel connected, engaged, and challenged.
  • Learning is social, emotional, and academic. Positive relationships, including trust in the teacher, and positive emotions, such as interest and excitement, open up the mind to learning. Negative emotions, such as fear of failure, anxiety, and self-doubt, reduce the capacity of the brain to process information and learn. Children can build skills and awareness to work with emotions in themselves and their relationships.
  • Adversity—poverty, housing and food insecurity, abuse, or neglect—produces toxic stress that affects learning and behavior, but how schools respond matters. Positive, stable relationships—when adults have the awareness, empathy, and cultural competence to understand and listen to children—can buffer the effects of even serious adversity.

Advertisement
X

Meet the Greater Good Toolkit

From the GGSC to your bookshelf: 30 science-backed tools for well-being.

At the Learning Policy Institute, as part of a new initiative on the Science of Learning and Development, we synthesized these scientific findings to identify how schools can best promote child development. We identified four main ingredients of school success that allow us to care for and nurture the potential in all children: a positive school climate, productive instructional strategies, social-emotional development, and individualized supports. Here’s what we’ve learned so far about why these ingredients are meaningful and how to put them into action.

1. Foster a supportive environment that promotes strong relationships among staff, students, and families

Four main ingredients allow schools to best promote whole child development.

In a recent national survey, only 30 percent of high school students rated their school culture positively. Many schools today are based on antiquated designs from the early 1900s that emulate the factory model, wherein students cycle through classrooms and teachers see hundreds of students a day. These structures depersonalize learning at a time when students need and would benefit from long-term relationships with teachers and peers. 

Creating a positive school climate based on strong relationships provides a bedrock for learning. Students need to feel a sense of safety and belonging in order to thrive in school. Some elements that promote a sense of community and allow teachers to know their students well include:

  • Smaller school and class sizes.
  • Looping, where teachers stay with the same students for more than one year.
  • Advisory classes that provide students with a community and allow teachers to check in with students and parents on a consistent basis.
  • Staff who practice cultural competence, inviting students’ experiences into the classroom and communicating that all students are valued.
  • Home visits and regular parent-teacher-student conferences to strengthen connections between school and home.
  • Opportunities for staff collaboration and leadership that strengthen trust among educators.

For example, one way to help students feel that they belong is to engage students in developing their own shared classroom norms that are posted and regularly referred to, and to assign classroom tasks so that each student is involved in supporting the community. Teachers can also aim to convey high expectations and provide adequate supports for all students, sending the message that they’re capable. This is especially important for students who have received mixed or discouraging messages about their ability from adults in the past, whether due to explicit or implicit biases.

A variety of other practices can help build a sense of community. Community walks, in which students lead tours of the neighborhoods surrounding their school, can help build cultural competence among educators as they learn more about students’ lives outside of school. Planning meetings that include educators across subjects and departments, and professional development to support educators’ own social-emotional competencies and well-being, can help educators collaborate and develop trust.

Overall, a positive school climate aims to foster deeper relationships among adults and students to promote a sense of safety and belonging, which are conducive to learning.

2. Implement meaningful, engaging instructional practices that develop students’ ability to manage their own learning

In focus groups and interviews with students who had dropped out of high school in 25 urban, suburban, and rural communities, nearly half (47 percent) said a major reason for dropping out was that classrooms were not interesting. These young people reported being bored and disengaged from high school. Even among those who stayed in school, 81 percent said that there should be more opportunities for real-world learning.

Students crave opportunities to learn things that matter and are relevant to their lives. Instruction helps students grow in their understanding when it builds on students’ prior experience and scaffolds learning by meeting them where they’re at. For example, teachers can connect lessons in mathematics to common tasks students are engaged in that use those skills, such as in cooking, artwork, sports, and other settings. Or they can connect a history unit on the Civil Rights movement to modern-day issues like the racially motivated attacks in Charlottesville and police brutality against people of color.

When skillfully combined with direct instruction, inquiry-based learning that is driven by students’ interests boosts their motivation and develops real-world skills. In one middle school class in Oakland, for example, students decided to study how environmental pollution affects the ocean and then designed a campaign to reduce waste and litter and increase recycling at their school. These projects teach valuable skills of collaboration, problem solving, and organization, and have a tangible impact.

Assessments that include feedback and opportunities to revise work help students learn how to learn and encourage an intrinsic desire to understand the material and challenge themselves, beyond just making the grade. This type of “mastery-oriented approach” is associated with more meaningful learning. For example, some schools cultivate student inquiry and revision skills through capstone projects—yearlong research projects—that give students an opportunity to learn deeply about an issue that matters to them and, often, work to create change in their own community. These projects are usually revised to meet a high standard of inquiry and presented to panels of educators and other adults from outside the school, like a dissertation defense. 

Students’ control over their own education is also supported by practices like student-led conferences, which allow students to regularly share their work with parents and teachers and reflect on their learning and goals.

Far from being boring, effective instructional strategies connect learning to students’ lives, and empower them to use their knowledge for their own and others’ benefit.

3. Develop habits, skills, and mindsets that build students’ social, emotional, and academic competence

Students in the U.S. report feeling stressed at school 80 percent of the time. When students are overwhelmed, they are more likely to act out and have difficulty adjusting at school. Indeed, children in U.S. public schools lost more than 11 million instructional days due to suspensions in a single school year.

  • More Education Resources

    Apart from our education articles and monthly newsletter, we offer a Summer Institute for Educators, workshops, curricula, other educational resources, and our Greater Good in Education website, which features science-based practices for kinder, happier schools.

Developing students’ social-emotional skills teaches them how to manage stress, while also boosting social skills like collaboration and empathy. In this way, social-emotional skills involve developing greater awareness of oneself and others. Many schools teach these skills explicitly through programs of social-emotional learning, which have been found to improve students’ achievement, as well as their feelings of safety and belonging at school.

In addition, to reduce suspensions and other punitive discipline in schools, schools are using restorative practices—like “circles” and peer mediation—which teach students to take responsibility and repair harm done in their relationships. A restorative approach is grounded in students recognizing and valuing their role and responsibilities within the community. Ultimately, restorative practices serve to build individual skills and cultivate a stronger community while also boosting student achievement and graduation rates.

4. Create an integrated system of school supports that includes extended learning opportunities and community partnerships

Not all children have the material and social capital that affords access to high-quality learning environments and experiences. For example, high-income parents increased their spending on “enrichment activities” for their children, like tutoring and extracurricular activities, by 151 percent over the past several decades, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents. These differentials augment the achievement gap between affluent and low-income students.

Additional supports are also needed for the growing number of children who experience adversity in the form of poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, learning obstacles, or lack of health care. Schools need a flexible system of supports to address these needs.

The community schools model is one in which public schools partner with families and community organizations to provide well-rounded educational opportunities and supports for students’ school success. It typically includes before- and after-school enrichment, such as mentoring and academic support, as well as summer learning opportunities, like workshops on film and art, sports camps, and long-distance trips to visit college campuses. Some schools partner with local organizations and university staff to offer immersion experiences where students learn from professionals through internships or workshops on topics of interest, like technology, film, and art.

In addition, through partnerships with community organizations, schools offer health, mental health, and social services to help students overcome barriers to learning. A social worker or community liaison typically coordinates these services. Some schools partner with university programs, as well as health and mental health providers, to bring trainees (like psychology students) into the school as support staff.

These kinds of support reflect a whole school approach to whole child development that maximizes opportunities for all children to succeed.

Combined, these four ingredients are essential parts of a comprehensive framework that, in practice, build on and reinforce each other. A wealth of research demonstrates that successful education cannot happen in a piecemeal fashion. Taking an integrated approach can help children, with all their complexity and humanity, to develop to their full potential.

Why school “stupefies” children, and girls study better than boys – Oftop on vc.ru

Every third child who comes to first grade has very high intellectual abilities. And then miracles begin: by the end of elementary school, the number of capable children is halved. There is also another phenomenon: 70% of students with poor academic performance are boys. Why is this happening?

2673
views

The period of primary school is the most effective time for the development of children’s abilities. It coincides with the peak of the growth of the frontal lobes, which act as the “commander in chief” of the brain.

The development of thinking, memory, speech, mastery of writing and reading skills, and motivation largely depend on the work of the frontal lobes. In addition, they control such executive functions as goal setting, decision making, and concentration.

During the growth of the frontal lobes, children must absorb new knowledge like a sponge. But in reality, it turns out differently: by the end of the first grade, many parents notice that their children are becoming stupid. And one of the reasons is the desire of teachers to suppress the physical activity of schoolchildren by any means: to force them to sit quietly in the classroom, not to rush headlong at breaks.

“Sit still, don’t fidget!” Teachers have been chanting this mantra more than usual lately, out of concern that today’s kids don’t have the ability to concentrate. The passive child is the ideal of the school. But as soon as the child stops moving, he stops thinking!

Given the fact that today’s students are constantly stuck on smartphones and tablets, the fears of educators can be understood: today’s children really seem to be less attentive than 20 years ago. But limiting activity is not an option! Such prohibitions harm both health and mental faculties.

Back in the 19th century, biologist and educator P.F. Lesgaft, in the course of psychological research, proved that the movements and work of the brain are interconnected and physical activity directly affects cognitive abilities. Modern research also demonstrates the primary role of physical activity in the mental development of children.

Candidate of Psychological Sciences VA Shishkina believes that the more movements a child makes, the higher his intellect: impulses from working muscles enter the brain, which contributes to its development.

Active children concentrate better, analyze and remember information faster during the lesson than students who spend the whole day sitting. Some teachers know this and try to make active play part of the learning process. But, unfortunately, such teachers are a rarity.

“Your daughter is a capable girl!”, “Your son is a complete idiot!”

In Russian schools, the trend towards polarization of abilities continues to persist and intensify: teachers divide children into capable and incapable. The first they pay increased attention, the second they simply do not notice.

According to the famous American teacher John Holt, the division of children into strong and weak, smart and stupid is the most fatal mistake of teachers. Holt believes that an incapable child differs from a capable one not in the level of intelligence, but in the strategy of behavior.

The child actively develops and demonstrates his abilities if he does not have fear of the outside world. If a child is afraid to make a mistake, then he will keep all-round defense – in front of the school, teachers, parents. In other words, ability is the absence of fear of action.

If there is a difficult psychological situation in the classroom and the children are afraid of the teacher, then few will demonstrate their abilities. As a result, a few will fall into the category of gifted, and the rest – into the category of average and lagging behind.

What happens to children who are recognized by the teacher as incapable? They lose motivation to learn, develop their abilities, self-esteem and the desire for self-realization decrease. All this leads to persistent failure.

Parents often add fuel to the fire. Having sent the child to school, they quickly become emotionally dependent on grades and begin to scold, shame, punish him for poor progress.

But a school mark is not an assessment of personality, not an assessment of abilities, not an assessment of intelligence. This is just the subjective opinion of the teacher about the knowledge of the child, which may well be erroneous.

Why is it hard for boys to be excellent students?

There is a widespread belief among school teachers that girls learn better than boys. This can be explained by a gender stereotype: it is believed that perseverance and diligence are characteristic of the female sex.

Boys do often study worse than their classmates, but the reason for their low progress is not the lack of perseverance and diligence, but the peculiarities of the school curriculum.

The basic principle of the Russian education system is repetition: “read – repeated”, “memorized the rule – consolidated it with the help of exercises. ” However, repetition, “replication” of incoming information is a feature of female thinking. The basis of male thinking is the search for non-standard solutions, invention. That is why boys have a harder time with a curriculum based on repetition and work with samples.

The school environment is the realm of women. As a rule, it is they who create curricula and teach them. Most often, women, mothers and grandmothers, also help with the preparation of homework for boys. Thus, a closed system is created in which there is no place for male thinking.

But as soon as boys are placed in a learning environment with different learning principles, they immediately reveal their potential and often outperform girls.

In the meantime, we touched on the topic of teaching children – I will share information about the summer it-camps that I am launching this year at the AidaKodit School of Programming.

I am sure that parents of children aged 7-17 who need to go somewhere for the summer are reading me (the father himself, the feeling is very familiar). All details will be here:

It’s good that I can advertise my projects without the mark “advertising” and indicating the TIN.

I write about IT, people, processes, uncertainty and about myself in Telegram. In general, the smartest thoughts are there https://t. me/vroderabotaetno

What is taught in school, or Modern educational goals for children with developmental disabilities

The traditional school, which existed for several centuries, provided students with the basics of various sciences, formed basic learning skills (thinking operations – analysis, synthesis, highlighting the main points, working with systematized material) and skills in certain areas of knowledge (solving mathematical problems, mastering written and oral speech, methods of action in the humanitarian and natural sciences, etc.). At the present stage, the education system is being reformed and, in particular, its area that concerns the content of curricula – its content and key aspects.

For many countries, and recently for Russia, a broad competency-based approach to education is characteristic . That is, a model of education is spreading, in which children are provided not only with academic knowledge, but also with the mastery of non-academic skills, taking into account the cultural and social conditions of our time and the demands of the present.

Skills:

the ability to interact with other people and build partnerships (without competition and one’s own priority position) relationships;

ability to analyze and evaluate current events;

knowledge of the cultural and historical heritage of mankind;

competent actions in the modern information space.

Special education system of the 21st century. is also focused on a broad training of students, which is not limited to the basics of science, the formation of their learning skills and an increase in the intellectual level.

In view of the fact that today many countries have adopted a strategy for integrating children with disabilities into society and developing their abilities to adapt to the world around them, the educational plan and curriculum include components that (along with academic criteria) ensure the solution of problems personal and social content.

When developing the concept of the Special Federal State Standard for children with disabilities , distinguish two components in the content of education: related to general educational skills and individual skills from various fields of knowledge.

“Formation of life competence” allows students to navigate the world around them, to be successful in interacting with the material and social environment, to achieve a sufficient level of personal autonomy.

As an example of special education approaches in European pedagogy, one can name theoretical and practical developments in

Poland:

grades I-III. The initial stage of training.

  • for pupils with disabilities, special teaching methods and correctional and rehabilitation classes are introduced to reduce the severity of impairments.
  • a set of academic knowledge and learning skills, the assimilation of moral norms and rules of behavior in society.
  • aesthetic development, self-care skills, hygiene and safety.

Middle link:

  • the process of formation of elementary ways of knowing the world by students continues.
  • organization of special special classes necessary in relation to the individual needs of students.
  • development of communication skills, abilities for interpersonal relationships and the creation of an internal system of values.

North America

  • curriculum content is considered in the context of competencies that allow you to adapt to the world around you and act actively in it.
  • the content of education reflects knowledge and competencies, which later, when living in the next age stages, will ensure success in various areas of life.

Conclusion: At the moment, children with disabilities, like healthy children, receive an education designed taking into account life realities, helping to navigate in various areas and create social relationships.

Kids r kids sugar land: Kids R Kids Of North Sugar Land – Daycare in Sugar Land, TX

Опубликовано: August 16, 2023 в 7:55 am

Автор:

Категории: Kid

Business Directory Search – – Fort Bend Chamber of Commerce


Hot Deals


Narrow search by:



Keyword:


Type a keyword search or choose a Quicklink below.



0-9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z


  • Advertising & Media

    • Advertising Services

    • Marketing Services

    • Advertising, Promotional Specialties

    • Marketing, Advertising

    • More. ..


  • Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry

    • Lawn Care


  • Arts, Culture & Entertainment

    • Events

    • Museums

    • Entertainment

    • Sports/Recreation Centers

    • More…


  • Automotive & Marine

    • Auto Sales

    • Auto Repair/Maintenance

    • Auto Parts

    • Auto Rental & Leasing

    • More. ..


  • Business & Professional Services

    • Engineering, Consulting

    • Business Consultants

    • Engineering

    • Professional Services

    • More…


  • Computers & Telecommunications

    • Information Technology Services

    • Telecommunications

    • Computer Network Systems Consultant

    • Computer Business Solutions

    • More. ..


  • Construction Equipment & Contractors

    • Construction Management

    • Engineering, Construction Services

    • Construction Services

    • Project Management

    • More…


  • Family, Community & Civic Organizations

    • Associations

    • Chairman’s Circle

    • Churches

    • Senior Services/Resources

    • More. ..


  • Finance & Insurance

    • Banks

    • Accountants

    • Financial Services

    • Insurance Agencies

    • More…


  • Government, Education & Individuals

    • Individuals

    • Educational Services

    • Schools, Private

    • Elected Officials

    • More…


  • Health Care

    • Health Care

    • Hospitals

    • Dentists

    • Medical Clinics

    • More. ..


  • Home & Garden

    • Home Improvement

    • Gifts & Home Decor

    • Alarm Systems

    • Cable Television

    • More…


  • Industrial Supplies & Services

    • Industrial Services – Consulting & Supply

    • Painting, Commercial & Industrial

    • Painting, Residential

    • Waste Collection & Disposal

    • More. ..


  • Legal

    • Attorney(s) at Law

    • Right-of-Way/Acquisition Service Company


  • Lodging & Travel

    • Hotels & Motels

    • Senior Living

    • Retirement Community


  • Manufacturing, Production & Wholesale

    • Manufacturers

    • Distributor

    • Manufacturers, Industrial Equipment

    • Wholesale Membership Club

    • More. ..


  • Personal Services & Care

    • Assisted Living

    • Counseling

    • Massage Therapy

    • Adult Day Center

    • More…


  • Pets & Veterinary

    • Pets, Services

    • Animal Hospitals

    • Pets, Boarding


  • Public Utilities & Environment

    • Engineering, Civil

    • Engineering, Geotechnical

    • Land Planning & Surveying

    • Air Conditioning & Heating/Sales & Service

    • More. ..


  • Real Estate, Moving & Storage

    • Real Estate

    • Real Estate, Development

    • Real Estate, Commercial

    • Real Estate, Residential

    • More…


  • Religious Organizations

    • Ministry


  • Restaurants, Food & Beverages

    • Restaurants

    • Grocers, Retail

    • Caterers

    • Food Products

    • More. ..


  • Shopping & Specialty Retail

    • Retail

    • Florists, Retail

    • Retail, Clothing

    • Retail, Home Furnishings

    • More…


  • Sports & Recreation

    • Health & Wellness

    • Country Clubs

    • Fitness Center

    • Recreation, Tennis Services

    • More…


  • Transportation

    • Transportation

    • Engineering, Traffic & Transportation

    • Aviation

Accredited

Assoc of Chamber Exec

Spirit Enterprise

Fort Bend EDC

TX Assoc of Business

texas chamber of commerce

Global Talent Chamber Network