Pondering
"Educators in the schools using MI express beliefs that all children can learn, all children can succeed, and, that all children have strengths. Children bring these strengths or gifts to school, and it is the educators' job to enable these gifts to be fully realized. For example, Chris Mann, the head of the Jessie Wowk School, commented that with MI, 'the underlying attitude and underlying frame of reference that we all have is actually quite remarkably different' than those found in other settings. We are 'not thinking of any child as a loser, but rather thinking of them all as successful and [our task is] finding ways for each of them to represent their learning in different ways.' As Patrick Cawley, principal of the Freeman School, said, 'I consider all of them gifted. We just have to find out what the gift is.' He went on to explain that, prior to implementing MI in his school, 'there weren't experiences in the content of the classrooms that would allow anyone but the language- and the math-oriented child to shine.... By providing an array of experiences, a number of other kids have now come forward.' Marilyn Davenport, principal of the Governor Bent School, reported, 'We want every child who comes to our school to be successful. That's why we go about meeting their needs, and the framework of MI allows you to do that.'"
The Summit Project
"Over the past ten years, attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has emerged from the relative obscurity of cognitive psychologists’ research laboratories to become the "disease du jour" of America’s schoolchildren. Accompanying this popularity has been a virtually complete acceptance of the validity of this "disorder" by scientists, physicians, psychologists, educators, parents, and others. Upon closer critical scrutiny, however, there is much to be troubled about concerning ADD/ADHD as a real medical diagnosis."
Thomas Armstrong
Please notice that while it's pounded in that Thomas Armstrong is a PhD, the info page neglects telling just what his degree is that he feels himself qualified to make such huge-and-sweeping generalizations. Not that I wouldn't have issues with his views no matter what his education was. Whether or not ADD and ADHD are overdiagnosed notwithstanding, would it then necessarily follow that it is a fake condition?! So much black-and-white-seeing goes on that it completely amazes me.
I'm finding it fascinating to find out more and more about this MI theory; how it has been applied (and quite often, I'm sure, mis applied). Also to find out what kind of testing is being administered in schools now, and what utilization of the results consists of.
Project Zero is the ground-point of the Summit Project, which was done several years ago. I like the attitude expressed in the top quote from their website.
Was talking to the parent of several young children, who was telling me a bit about all the diverse types of placement testings already being administered in our schools. And actually, it's actually more broad than I would have imagined.
Which brings me to the question - if this testing is being done to that extent, where is the breakdown occurring in our educational system? Is the testing itself insufficient to determine what it should be determining? Is it teachers who are unwilling/unable to then apply the results in the way the school quoted above claims to? Who don't have the time/energy/support to then treat every student like an individual? Is it the use of these tests to spot weaknesses to pummel-away-at rather strengths to build on? Is it attitudes like that of Thomas Armstrong, who I believe - no matter what his credentials - is grossly overstepping what any human being could properly determine and quite probably doing far more harm with his blinders-on-so-as-not-to-look-at-anything-that-may-conflict-with-his-self-declared-omniscience?
It's an interesting, multi-level question.
Recently I was shown a test taken by a child who did very well. It was not math - it was logic. And I believe this was supposed to be part of the "placement" testing now being done.
However I don't see how it could ever be used for such. It showed that the child had acheived a good level of knowledge - I believe they got all the questions right. Adequate to show a child ready to move on - but in no way to indicate where they should move on to. What if the child could then have moved into a new tier of questioning and still performed at 100% - or even 90? If so, "being ready to move to the next level" is very different from identifying what the potential is, and useless in showing how to best teach this child in view of her particular strengths and keep her challenging herself without overwhelming her by setting challenges for her - which often means if you see a strength, continue to raise-the-bar until the break-point is found. That's dooming someone to eventual failure.
Right now I'm learning tools. I know what I want to do with them - but that's still a long way off. If I keep gathering information and adding it all in - fine-tuning the vision - by the time I'm ready to put the tools to use I may have a clear idea of how to approach this.
The Summit Project
"Over the past ten years, attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has emerged from the relative obscurity of cognitive psychologists’ research laboratories to become the "disease du jour" of America’s schoolchildren. Accompanying this popularity has been a virtually complete acceptance of the validity of this "disorder" by scientists, physicians, psychologists, educators, parents, and others. Upon closer critical scrutiny, however, there is much to be troubled about concerning ADD/ADHD as a real medical diagnosis."
Thomas Armstrong
Please notice that while it's pounded in that Thomas Armstrong is a PhD, the info page neglects telling just what his degree is that he feels himself qualified to make such huge-and-sweeping generalizations. Not that I wouldn't have issues with his views no matter what his education was. Whether or not ADD and ADHD are overdiagnosed notwithstanding, would it then necessarily follow that it is a fake condition?! So much black-and-white-seeing goes on that it completely amazes me.
I'm finding it fascinating to find out more and more about this MI theory; how it has been applied (and quite often, I'm sure, mis applied). Also to find out what kind of testing is being administered in schools now, and what utilization of the results consists of.
Project Zero is the ground-point of the Summit Project, which was done several years ago. I like the attitude expressed in the top quote from their website.
Was talking to the parent of several young children, who was telling me a bit about all the diverse types of placement testings already being administered in our schools. And actually, it's actually more broad than I would have imagined.
Which brings me to the question - if this testing is being done to that extent, where is the breakdown occurring in our educational system? Is the testing itself insufficient to determine what it should be determining? Is it teachers who are unwilling/unable to then apply the results in the way the school quoted above claims to? Who don't have the time/energy/support to then treat every student like an individual? Is it the use of these tests to spot weaknesses to pummel-away-at rather strengths to build on? Is it attitudes like that of Thomas Armstrong, who I believe - no matter what his credentials - is grossly overstepping what any human being could properly determine and quite probably doing far more harm with his blinders-on-so-as-not-to-look-at-anything-that-may-conflict-with-his-self-declared-omniscience?
It's an interesting, multi-level question.
Recently I was shown a test taken by a child who did very well. It was not math - it was logic. And I believe this was supposed to be part of the "placement" testing now being done.
However I don't see how it could ever be used for such. It showed that the child had acheived a good level of knowledge - I believe they got all the questions right. Adequate to show a child ready to move on - but in no way to indicate where they should move on to. What if the child could then have moved into a new tier of questioning and still performed at 100% - or even 90? If so, "being ready to move to the next level" is very different from identifying what the potential is, and useless in showing how to best teach this child in view of her particular strengths and keep her challenging herself without overwhelming her by setting challenges for her - which often means if you see a strength, continue to raise-the-bar until the break-point is found. That's dooming someone to eventual failure.
Right now I'm learning tools. I know what I want to do with them - but that's still a long way off. If I keep gathering information and adding it all in - fine-tuning the vision - by the time I'm ready to put the tools to use I may have a clear idea of how to approach this.