The high-school I attended used that method. I was often forced to spend significant chunks of class time teaching other students how to do their work. It was frustrating, and generally a waste of time. It made me hate going to class, because I couldn't spend my time learning, I had to dedicate my efforts to trying to get some kid who would rather be "making beats" on his desk to learn basic math.I think a better idea would be to have high-performers help teach the kids at the middle of the pack, and leave the low-performers to teachers who have the specific skills needed to deal with their all too common behavioral problems and lack of interest.
yourapostasy|10 years ago
Behavioral problems inside the classroom were extremely rare in that setting (what little existed was negligible and ignorable by public school standards, like simply doodling "to" another student), and the academic atmosphere was far more supported by the students than I've seen in the American public school system. Supporting your anecdotal experience, many of the attending students were either honor roll or in the highest academic tracks in their previous public school lives; at that private school, they were ranked as average.
In the public school system I've never seen this approach work beyond one-off, heroic single-teacher-led efforts. Once that teacher leaves, the approach leaves with them; I've never seen a public school officially run classes this way. Ironically, the "more primitive" one-room schools of American yore were supposedly run this way, but I've never been able to locate academic studies of their effectiveness.
danielweber|10 years ago
It wasn't too bad, because I was teaching other honors students.