Here are some things I think the writer is correct about: * Not every student can pass proficiency exams in every subject, particularly if proficiency is defined as a level currently reached by only 30% of students. * Verbal and mathematical-logical intelligence are more important to academic success than other forms of intelligence.
I don't think, however, that that means we should give up on making kids smarter, because I know it can be done. I do it all the time.
I do think we should have absolute standards (grade levels, definitions of proficiency) as targets to be aimed for, met, or surpassed. However, I think we should judge teachers and schools by relative improvement, not by how many students are meeting the absolute standard. A school where all the kids arrive in kindergarten already working at a first-grade level, and at the end of the year they're working at a first-grade level, is a terrible school, no matter how intelligent its student population, and how wealthy and attentive its parents. On the other hand, a school where all the kids arrive at kindergarten not knowing how to follow directions, play nicely, identify colors, count, or say the alphabet, and at the end of the year they're all behaving decently and most of them are at a first-grade level? That's a good school.
* Not every student can pass proficiency exams in every subject, particularly if proficiency is defined as a level currently reached by only 30% of students.
* Verbal and mathematical-logical intelligence are more important to academic success than other forms of intelligence.
I don't think, however, that that means we should give up on making kids smarter, because I know it can be done. I do it all the time.
I do think we should have absolute standards (grade levels, definitions of proficiency) as targets to be aimed for, met, or surpassed. However, I think we should judge teachers and schools by relative improvement, not by how many students are meeting the absolute standard. A school where all the kids arrive in kindergarten already working at a first-grade level, and at the end of the year they're working at a first-grade level, is a terrible school, no matter how intelligent its student population, and how wealthy and attentive its parents. On the other hand, a school where all the kids arrive at kindergarten not knowing how to follow directions, play nicely, identify colors, count, or say the alphabet, and at the end of the year they're all behaving decently and most of them are at a first-grade level? That's a good school.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment