Home Learning Study materials video Std 7 DD Girnar/Diksha portal video

Home Learning Study materials video Std 7 DD Girnar/Diksha portal video

Home Learning Study materials video Std 7 DD Girnar/Diksha portal video 


Over the course of the 20th century, compulsory education laws and the necessity of a highschool diploma drew more and more students to school-even those previously considered uneducable. States and local school systems developed an array of special programs for students who, in earlier times, simply would not have been in school. By the 1960s, the federal government had turned to special categorical programs as its principal way to guarantee education for all American students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provided categorical funding for "educationally deprived" students. Lau et. al. v. Nichols et. al. was brought on behalf of Chinese students in San Francisco and led to legislation requiring that all schools provide special assistance to their students whose native language is not English. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provided funds to classify students with physical and neurological problems and provide these students with special education programs when it was believed that they could not be accommodated in regular programs. Advocates for "gifted" students increasingly used the "bell curve" logic to argue that the gifted and the cognitively disabled are like a pair of bookends, and that those at the high end of the curve also required special support because they are as different from "normal" students as the disabled. Educators responded in culturally predictable ways. They identified students who were "different," diagnosed their differences as scientifically as possible, and assigned them to a category. They then grouped students for instruction with others in the same category and tailored curriculum and teaching to what each group "needs" and what the culture expects. So, today, educators routinely assign "normal" students to "regular" classes at different levels (e.g., high, average, slow). They place the others in "special" programs for learning disabled, behavioral problems, gifted, limited English, poverty-related academic deficiencies, and more. Within homogenous groups, teachers assume students can move lock step through lessons and that all class members will profit from the same instruction on the same content at the same pace. Lurking just beneath the surface of these highly rationalized practices, however, are the illusion of homogeneity, the social construction of classifications, the prevailing biases of race and social class, and self-fulfilling prophesies of opportunities and outcomes.

The considerable student differences within supposedly homogenous classes are obvious and well documented. And yet, for most people, the characteristics and categories by which students are sorted remain more salient than the "exceptions" that impugn those categories. Many educational constructs, including those used to classify students, began as narrowly defined, highly specialized, technical terms or measures. However, as they make their way from research to professional journals and teacher preparation programs to popular media to the everyday talk of policymakers and the public, they loose their narrow definitions and specialized uses. What may have begun as specific technical concepts or as informal notions such as "at risk," "gifted," "high ability," "college prep," "attention deficit," "hyperactive," "handicapped," etc. are quickly reified and become a deeply embedded feature of students' identities in their own and others' minds. African American, Latino, and low-income students are consistently overrepresented in low-ability, remedial, and special education classes and programs. This is not surprising, given that grouping practices grew from the once accepted practice of preparing students of different racial, ethnic and social-class backgrounds for their separate (and unequal) places in society. In part, placement patterns reflect differences in minority and white students' learning opportunities that affect their preparation and achievements. But they also reflect the fact that US schools use white, largely middle-class standards of culture and language styles to screen for academic ability and talent. Teachers and school psychologists sometimes mistake the language and dialect differences of Hispanic and Black students for poor language skills, conceptual misunderstandings, or even poor attitudes. An additional hazard for students of color is that schools often confuse cultural differences with cognitive disabilities, particularly retardation. Researchers have noted for the past 25 years that students with identical IQs but different race and social class have been classified and treated very differently in special education placements. The misidentification problem triggered both federal and state court decisions requiring that potentially disabled students receive due process. In a far reaching decision, the California courts ruled in Larry P. v. Wilson Riles (1979) that schools could no longer use intelligence tests to identify minority students as mentally retarded. However, substantial problems remain and new ones emerge, including recent evidence that African American boys are disproportionately identified as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Placement in a low class becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of low expectations, fewer opportunities, and poor academic performance. Poor performance begins the cycle anew, giving additional justification to schools to reduce expectations and opportunities. Extensive research makes clear that, in every aspect of what makes for a quality education, kids in lower tracks typically get less than those in higher tracks and gifted programs. Finally, grouping practices help shape students' identities, status, and expectations for themselves. Both students and adults mistake labels such as "gifted," "honor student," "average," "remedial," "learning disabled," and "mild mental retardation" for certification of overall ability or worth. Everyone without the "gifted" label has the de facto label of "not gifted." The resource classroom is a low-status place and students who go there are low status students. The result of all this is that most students have needlessly low self-concepts and schools have low expectations. These recommendations reflect growing support for heterogeneous grouping as necessary to ensure that all students have access to high-quality curriculum, teachers, and learning experiences. For example, early analyses of the disappointing performance of U.S. students on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) support mounting concerns that the low scores stem, in part, from the tracking of most American students in less academically demanding math and science classes. Increasingly, educators and policymakers are developing an awareness that schools cannot teach or achieve social justice unless they eliminate grouping practices. A number of school desegregation cases have cited the practice as a source of continuing racial discrimination. However, this goal will not be accomplished quickly, and policy reports will simply gather dust unless enlightened educators understand and act to change the norms and political relations these grouping practices embody. There is a long, hard road ahead.

IMPORTANT LINK  For Video:: 

NEW 

















YOUTUBE વિડિયો તારીખ : 09\09\2021















 






October 2021
DATE 01-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Hindi-Science
DATE 04-10-2021 LIVE CLASS English-S.S
DATE 05-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Guj-Maths
DATE 06-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Hindi-S.S
DATE 07-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Maths-Eng
DATE 08-10-2021 LIVE CLASS S.S-Hindi
DATE 09-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Sangit
DATE 11-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Science-Eng
DATE 12-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Gujarati-S.S
DATE 13-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Maths-Sanskrit
DATE 14-10-2021 LIVE CLASS Science-English
Date 16-10-2021 Live class Science


OLD IMPORTANT LINK  For Video:: 























































































































































































Date-08-09-2020 SCIENCE / SOCIAL VIDEO  


DATE 25-8-2020 SCIENCE VIDEO  

DATE 24-8-2020 GUJ / SS VIDEO  

HOME LEARNING VIDEO STD 7 date 22-7-2020 
DATE 21-8-2020 MATHS & SANSKRIT VIDEO          

DATE 20-8-2020 GUJARATI SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO         

DATE 19-8-2020 SCIENCE & ENGLISH VIDEO        

DATE 18-8-2020 SOCIAL SCIENCE & HINDI VIDEO       

DATE 17-8-2020 MATHS & ENGLISH VIDEO     
DATE:-16/08/2020 :- HOLIDAY
DATE:-15/08/2020 :- HOLIDAY

DATE 14-8-2020 HINDI SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO    

DATE 13-8-2020 HINDI SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO      
DATE:-12/08/2020 :- HOLIDAY

DATE 11-8-2020 ENGLISH & SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO      

DATE 10-8-2020 Hindi & Science VIDEO      
DATE:-09/08/2020 :- HOLIDAY

DATE 8-8-2020 SANSKRIT & SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO       

DATE  7-8-2020 MATHS & ENGLISH VIDEO      

DATE 6-8-2020 GUJARATI & SCIENCE VIDEO      

DATE 5-8-2020 ENGLISH & SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO      

DATE 4 -8-2020 MATHS & HINDI VIDEO      

DATE 1-8-2020 MATHS & ENGLISH VIDEO      

DATE 31-7- 2020 ENGLISH MATHS VIDEO      

DATE 30-7-2020 ENGLISH & MATHS VIDEO      

DATE 29-7-2020 ENGLISH & SANSKRUT VIDEO      

DATE 28-7-2020 MATHS VIDEO      

DATE 27-7-2020 GUJARATI  & SANSKRUT VIDEO      

DATE 26-7-2020 MATHS &  HINDI VIDEO  

DATE 25-7-2020 ENGLISH & SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO     

DATE 24-7-2020 SCIENCE & HINDI VIDEO       

DATE 23-7-2020 ENGLISH & SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO      

DATE 22-7-2020 MATHS & GUJARATI VIDEO      

DATE 21-7-2020 SCIENCE & HINDI HINDI VIDEO      

DATE 20-7-2020 MATHS & SANSKRUT VIDEO  

DATE 19-7-2020 ENGLISH & SCIENCE VIDEO   
DATE:-18/08/2020 :- HOLIDAY

DATE 4-7-2020 SOCIAL SCIENCE & GUJARATI VIDEO   

DATE 29-6-2020 ENGLISH & SOCIAL SCIENCE VIDEO    

DATE 28-6-2020 VAIDIK MATHS VIDEO  

DATE 27-6-2020 SOCIAL SCIENCE & ENGLISH VIDEO  

Date 16-6-2020  Science & Gujarati Vldeo
Date 15-6-2020 Maths & english video

Previous Post Next Post