What to do about lagging skills?
I’m a Resource Specialist Programme teacher. I teach two class periods of “Learning Centre.” These are small classes that are considered “pull-outs” from the general education setting. That they’re “pull-outs” is not a bad thing. Rather, it means that I can legally meet students where they are academically, then work to lift them up to where their IEP goals want them to be. This is important because their teachers in their gen-ed classes can’t reach below grade level to support lagging skills.
Because my students have lots of skills gaps, I don’t run the class as a “maths” class or an “English” class. Rather, the tables are numbered, with each table assigned to a specific subject or task. For example, students needing help that day with maths would choose to sit at table 3. Those that need extra time to complete an assignment or test from another class would sit at table four. This agency is important in teaching students to begin their self-advocacy journey.
I bring this up in light of the frequent media barrage about how “crazy” California educators are. It’s funny, really, to see these reports about how “crazy” things are here. Yet, here on the “left-coast,” not only do I have the freedom to organise my class the way that I have, I have support and encouragement from my administration.
Elsewhere in the world …
I bring this up in light of an article that showed up recently. At Thunder Bay Junior High School in Alpena, Michigan, the principal and teachers aim to restructure maths courses to better serve students with IEPs in Resources Centres. By grouping students by ability / need rather than grade level, instructors want to individualise instruction, target specific deficits, and reduce frustration. Their goal seems rather familiar - enable more students to meet their academic goals and transition into mainstream classes.
Yet this privilege that I enjoy, the autonomy to organise classes around students’ needs, is surprisingly not a given across all US school districts. In some states, teachers lack the flexibility to make such structural changes without administrative and school board approval. They cannot freely group students as they see fit to optimise learning outcomes. Even constructive proposals supported by evidence of prior success face possible rejection.
It is an irony that teachers in some districts require permission to do what is pedagogically sound for students. Whilst proper oversight of public schools is reasonable, classroom instructors are often in the best position to determine how to most effectively teach course material and support learners. Restricting teachers’ ability to tailor learning plans to students risks harming the very children the system aims to educate. Students may become frustrated struggling in one-size-fits-all courses, or age-level groups, rather than progressing at their individual paces.
Just as the Thunder Bay educators show initiative to help students, teachers across the country strive to do what is best for the students in front of them. It is disheartening when bureaucracy and regulations get in the way of student-centered instruction. One would hope one day supporting students transcends politics and policies in all school systems.
So why does this happen?
On the surface, it is odd that school boards would reject constructive proposals from teachers aimed at helping students learn. Yet one must consider that board seats in some regions are occupied not by education experts, but by corporate interests. Large companies fund candidates to advocate for policies favoring privatisation and business principles rather than pedagogy.
When corporation-backed board members outvote educators on student-centered initiatives, it serves private bottom lines more than learner outcomes (as you’ll know if you’ve been reading my work for a while). Restricting teachers from tailoring instruction to optimise growth guarantees classrooms stay regimented “one-size-fits-all” models. This forces continued reliance on expansive standardised tests, textbook purchases, mandatory supplies, and “interventions” that simply don’t work—all sold by corporations to schools.
Essentially it is a self-serving cycle - limit teacher flexibility, keep classrooms homogeneous, then sell schools the products claimed to be necessary in such environments. This corporate capture prioritises quick profits over nuanced, individualized education. It represents the dark side of Western-style neo-liberal reforms focused more on markets than students.
The roots trace back to beliefs that schools should be run business-like rather than promote development. When corporate sponsors fund board candidates sharing this view, they infiltrate the system with people obligated to direct contracts their way. It leads to decisions serving backers rather than families sending children to public schools with dreams for their future.
Until the underlying incentives change, students may continue struggling in rigid structures whilst companies prosper. It will require community awareness and engagement with the electoral process driving school board positions. For true student-centered schooling, educators must prevail over corporate interests in oversight roles. The future of the next generation depends on this cultural shift.