|
|
|
|
|
|
by zozbot234
1215 days ago
|
|
|
The "institutional factor" described in the NYT article is teachers "informally removing" students that they view as disruptive from the classroom. If anything, this looks like a case where human teachers are being ineffective (if perhaps sometimes through no fault of their own) wrt. the goal of educating these students, whereas better ed tech might be especially helpful. |
|
|
In kindergarten he became eligible for special education for what school officials described at the time as a “communication disorder,” but they opted instead to place him in a regular classroom and have him pulled out for instruction in a smaller group.
And later in the story, on the same case:
A few weeks later, the school team emailed Ms. LaVigne to set up another meeting, offering to add one class to Dakotah’s schedule in December.
Note the language "school officials" rather than, say, "a teacher".
Similarly in the second case described:
Records show that the Sacramento City Unified School District has a history of disciplining students with disabilities, particularly those who are Black, at a higher rate than most other public schools in the state.
Rather than get hung up on the specifics of one specific story that happened to come to mind, you might want to consider the general dynamic and other modes of student segmentation as well: segregated schools, charter schools (with selective admissions criteria), voucher programmes, and the like.
Again: all change the overall nature of the school far above and beyond the specific teaching abilities of any given instructor. A school or district whose policies and practices permit exclusion of challenging students isn't improving teacher's pedagogical skills, but rather selecting whom specifically they're permitting to be educated there.
Different educational modalities and/or intensive education might be another approach. That isn't what the story is describing or what you seem to be proposing.