| Chapter 1: | Story of the Research |
|
|
There were also fewer high-quality student-teacher interactions with lower ability students (Murphy et al., 1986). I cited all of these examples from Murphy et al. to demonstrate the potentially disastrous negative effects associated with teacher autonomy.
We know that there are brilliant teachers who devote all of their passion and energy to providing children with all the opportunities they deserve; however, the negative phenomena that stem from teacher autonomy do exist. I have heard teachers describe nonacademic business-track students as “smart dumb kids.” I have heard teachers express happiness and relief when low-ability science tracks were scheduled either at the beginning or the end of the day because they (the teachers) were not at their best during those times. Nothing would be lost since the nature of the group dictated that they would not get the best instruction anyway. Teachers control these behaviors and can be aware or unaware of them. The fact remains that these behaviors exist and are dangerous. The work of Murphy et al. (1986) supports this claim.
We have briefly examined classroom inequity generated by ability grouping, but was there evidence of further classroom inequity based on other groupings? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is yes. Sadker, Sadker, and Klein (2001) have examined gender inequity in education and have produced some interesting and unfortunate findings. Sadker and Sadker (1984) used the observation instrument called interactions for sex equity in classroom teaching (INTERSECT) to look at the “nature and frequency” of teacher interactions by race and gender (as cited in Sadker et al., 2001, p. 221).
In a classroom interaction study funded by the National Institute of Education and using the instrument previously described, Sadker and Sadker (2001) found that teachers generally talked more to boys than girls and gave boys more praise and more criticism than they did girls (as cited in Sadker et al., 2001).