Dude, its about IQ.
No child shall be left behind. Hmmmm.... What the hell does that mean, anyway? Left behind what standard? Does it mean that we need to move the standards back so that every child fits under the predetermined goal posts?
Let us consider for a moment the notion of IQ: 100 means that you are average. That does not mean that you are like everyone else (that is the fundamental mistake about "no child left behind"), it means that about 50% of the people that you will meet are smarter than you and about 50% are not as smart. Or should I say that people approaching the lower ends of the intelligence scale are ... stupid / dumb / gormless / thick, etc.
Put another way, about half of the children attending the typical public school in the United States are of below average intelligence. There, I have said it. No matter how hard you try, you cannot beat, coach, or force above average scores in the relevant tests from children who simply can't comprehend or process the required information. You cannot raise intelligence permanently in an individual: extensive testing has shown that short term boosts can be achieved through intensive coaching, only to see a slide back normality within a couple of years.
So what are we trying to achieve in our schools anyway? We do not look good in standardized tests as compared to various European and Asian countries, but is this a reflection of greater intelligence there, or perhaps better teaching? Or is it that teaching is oriented to achieve good test results, without any notion as to understanding? Probably the latter. Being a product of the UK system, I can say that rote memorization was the standard and ability to regurgitate vast tracts of worthless knowledge highly prized. That is, the system values how to think "inside" the box and it looks good in testing scores. But, even within that sort of system, the students with higher IQ advance ahead of those without. Its about raw processing power -- think about a PC with a old pentium processor and one with a Core2 Duo. 'Nuff said.
What also seems conveniently forgotten when comparing the US with Europe is another aspect between the systems: in Europe, if you are considered to be "thick" by your teachers, you are shunted from an early age into "technical high schools" and possibly apprenticeship situations for the "trades." You don't really attend "high school" as we know it at all. So to get the comparison correct, we'd have to test the untested in Europe and throw them into the mix to get a balanced view. Since this is impossible, we are stuck with comparison -- and we don't look good.
A correspondent of mine points out that the movement in Europe is now for teaching "understanding" and not to scores and tests ... except in France and Germany. Too bad for them (who do I mean, you may wonder?).
But back to the main point: who are we teaching to in the US of A? IF we teach to the all-inclusive standard, we risk under-teaching the smarter kids so that the dumber kids don't feel bad. This is destructive: experience has shown that when a child is not challenged in class, performance suffers -- you create a "C" student from an "A" student because that intelligent child is simply bored out of his or her mind. In Dedham, MA, the education department have ceased to publish the honor list of the high school in the local paper because of the pressure on the kids that don't make it. Have we taken leave of our senses? Where is the the goal? Where is the drive to excel? Where is the carrot?
We know that in many (I do mean virtually all) American schools, smart kids are picked on, bullied and made to feel bad simply because they are smart and get good grades, fostering a culture where it is cool to be dumb. In the inner city schools, it is far worse; it is dangerous to be seen to conform in any way to the goals of higher education. Better to be a "gangsta" than a boy or girl headed to medical school. Which poses the question: how on earth can the inhabitants of those inner cities EVER pull themselves up? You can only extend the guilt for the sins of our great, great, great grandfathers for so long as an excuse for a handout. You "gotta wanna" succeed. Dr. King exhorted people to make something of themselves ... he would turn in his grave if he could see the mess today. Bill Cosby was labeled an "Oreo" for voicing that opinion. So, if we make sure that no child is left behind in that sort of environment ... how far do we have to move the goal posts to ensure that happens?
What about the smart black, hispanic and other minority kids? How do we reach out and cultivate their intelligence to enable them to succeed? To break the cycle of under performance? Certainly not with "affirmative action" ... that is like saying "we will let you in anyway, even though you are not really qualified." That is bullshit. IQ is IQ is ability (though not to say that all high IQ people have common sense: they don't) and it is there for the taking and nurturing in EVER population and racial/ethnic group. But it is not politically correct to single out those with potential and move them ahead. Talk about irony: the PC notion prevents the creation of a culture and class needed to blow affirmative action out of the water.
But it is not very different from the predominantly white Medford, Malden, or Melrose, either. To get rich by being a jock is cool. To get rich by being the nerd that invents the latest and greatest scientific breakthrough is not. Until the nerd buys a Bentley. And why does this country sit in awe of morons in Hollywood that are definitely in the lower 50% of intelligence? Or lower 35%? Who are the heros for high school students? Paris Hilton, George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Brad Pitt (and Manny Ramirez)? What?
Let's test the children and move to take the brightest and force feed them education. Because it is NECESSARY for the long-term vitality of the United States. Economically and socially necessary. Don't forget, as a rocket scientist in some government lab, you are not and will not be rich, but you may be fulfilled -- happy. Similarly, on the other end of the IQ scale (but not necessarily, just as a generality), the plumber who has built a small fleet of plumbing trucks, has a boat, season tickets to the Pats may just be exceedingly happy. A lot happier than some poor schmuck (of the lower half of the IQ scale) trying to outwit his intellectual superior in some corporate headquarters somewhere, only to be kicked out on his ass at 50 with no prospects of a meaningful well-paying job in the future. Why did he even bother with college? Probably, spent 30 years in a job he hated when he'd have rather done something else all along, something that he might have been intellectually and emotionally suited for?
Because in the United States the general ideas is (in the Asian and White communities ) we all have to go to college, similar to no child left behind notion. No matter that many of the students are inherently too low in the raw IQ department (dumb) to benefit significantly from it in a way that will positively affect their future lives. As a college grad I can't be an electrician, plumber, baker, carpenter or something requiring manual labor ... could I? I am too good for that. Right. Some of the "smartest" guys I have met in the last few years are small business owners who started as apprentices in the trades 20 years ago. They are "set" financially, and most of my law school or business school classmates ... still wondering how to pay off the mortgage, buy a bigger BMW, and how to bill those hours.
Expectations are unreasonable and so is the notion that no child shall be left behind. Better to assess the individual and see what we can do as a society to maximize the potential for that individual for a HAPPY life.
Let us consider for a moment the notion of IQ: 100 means that you are average. That does not mean that you are like everyone else (that is the fundamental mistake about "no child left behind"), it means that about 50% of the people that you will meet are smarter than you and about 50% are not as smart. Or should I say that people approaching the lower ends of the intelligence scale are ... stupid / dumb / gormless / thick, etc.
Put another way, about half of the children attending the typical public school in the United States are of below average intelligence. There, I have said it. No matter how hard you try, you cannot beat, coach, or force above average scores in the relevant tests from children who simply can't comprehend or process the required information. You cannot raise intelligence permanently in an individual: extensive testing has shown that short term boosts can be achieved through intensive coaching, only to see a slide back normality within a couple of years.
So what are we trying to achieve in our schools anyway? We do not look good in standardized tests as compared to various European and Asian countries, but is this a reflection of greater intelligence there, or perhaps better teaching? Or is it that teaching is oriented to achieve good test results, without any notion as to understanding? Probably the latter. Being a product of the UK system, I can say that rote memorization was the standard and ability to regurgitate vast tracts of worthless knowledge highly prized. That is, the system values how to think "inside" the box and it looks good in testing scores. But, even within that sort of system, the students with higher IQ advance ahead of those without. Its about raw processing power -- think about a PC with a old pentium processor and one with a Core2 Duo. 'Nuff said.
What also seems conveniently forgotten when comparing the US with Europe is another aspect between the systems: in Europe, if you are considered to be "thick" by your teachers, you are shunted from an early age into "technical high schools" and possibly apprenticeship situations for the "trades." You don't really attend "high school" as we know it at all. So to get the comparison correct, we'd have to test the untested in Europe and throw them into the mix to get a balanced view. Since this is impossible, we are stuck with comparison -- and we don't look good.
A correspondent of mine points out that the movement in Europe is now for teaching "understanding" and not to scores and tests ... except in France and Germany. Too bad for them (who do I mean, you may wonder?).
But back to the main point: who are we teaching to in the US of A? IF we teach to the all-inclusive standard, we risk under-teaching the smarter kids so that the dumber kids don't feel bad. This is destructive: experience has shown that when a child is not challenged in class, performance suffers -- you create a "C" student from an "A" student because that intelligent child is simply bored out of his or her mind. In Dedham, MA, the education department have ceased to publish the honor list of the high school in the local paper because of the pressure on the kids that don't make it. Have we taken leave of our senses? Where is the the goal? Where is the drive to excel? Where is the carrot?
We know that in many (I do mean virtually all) American schools, smart kids are picked on, bullied and made to feel bad simply because they are smart and get good grades, fostering a culture where it is cool to be dumb. In the inner city schools, it is far worse; it is dangerous to be seen to conform in any way to the goals of higher education. Better to be a "gangsta" than a boy or girl headed to medical school. Which poses the question: how on earth can the inhabitants of those inner cities EVER pull themselves up? You can only extend the guilt for the sins of our great, great, great grandfathers for so long as an excuse for a handout. You "gotta wanna" succeed. Dr. King exhorted people to make something of themselves ... he would turn in his grave if he could see the mess today. Bill Cosby was labeled an "Oreo" for voicing that opinion. So, if we make sure that no child is left behind in that sort of environment ... how far do we have to move the goal posts to ensure that happens?
What about the smart black, hispanic and other minority kids? How do we reach out and cultivate their intelligence to enable them to succeed? To break the cycle of under performance? Certainly not with "affirmative action" ... that is like saying "we will let you in anyway, even though you are not really qualified." That is bullshit. IQ is IQ is ability (though not to say that all high IQ people have common sense: they don't) and it is there for the taking and nurturing in EVER population and racial/ethnic group. But it is not politically correct to single out those with potential and move them ahead. Talk about irony: the PC notion prevents the creation of a culture and class needed to blow affirmative action out of the water.
But it is not very different from the predominantly white Medford, Malden, or Melrose, either. To get rich by being a jock is cool. To get rich by being the nerd that invents the latest and greatest scientific breakthrough is not. Until the nerd buys a Bentley. And why does this country sit in awe of morons in Hollywood that are definitely in the lower 50% of intelligence? Or lower 35%? Who are the heros for high school students? Paris Hilton, George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Brad Pitt (and Manny Ramirez)? What?
Let's test the children and move to take the brightest and force feed them education. Because it is NECESSARY for the long-term vitality of the United States. Economically and socially necessary. Don't forget, as a rocket scientist in some government lab, you are not and will not be rich, but you may be fulfilled -- happy. Similarly, on the other end of the IQ scale (but not necessarily, just as a generality), the plumber who has built a small fleet of plumbing trucks, has a boat, season tickets to the Pats may just be exceedingly happy. A lot happier than some poor schmuck (of the lower half of the IQ scale) trying to outwit his intellectual superior in some corporate headquarters somewhere, only to be kicked out on his ass at 50 with no prospects of a meaningful well-paying job in the future. Why did he even bother with college? Probably, spent 30 years in a job he hated when he'd have rather done something else all along, something that he might have been intellectually and emotionally suited for?
Because in the United States the general ideas is (in the Asian and White communities ) we all have to go to college, similar to no child left behind notion. No matter that many of the students are inherently too low in the raw IQ department (dumb) to benefit significantly from it in a way that will positively affect their future lives. As a college grad I can't be an electrician, plumber, baker, carpenter or something requiring manual labor ... could I? I am too good for that. Right. Some of the "smartest" guys I have met in the last few years are small business owners who started as apprentices in the trades 20 years ago. They are "set" financially, and most of my law school or business school classmates ... still wondering how to pay off the mortgage, buy a bigger BMW, and how to bill those hours.
Expectations are unreasonable and so is the notion that no child shall be left behind. Better to assess the individual and see what we can do as a society to maximize the potential for that individual for a HAPPY life.
posted by Zaphod at Thursday, January 18, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home