Hello List,

JM-I don't know if the education debate has been
beaten to death, but I took a walk today, and a
number of points suggested themselves to me, so I
want to make them here.

First thing that came to me is that we have to
settle just what it is we call "education".  If
it were nothing but basic literacy skills, that
would really simplify matters. And you hear
employers grousing about graduates who present
themselves in the workforce without those basic
skills.  But we know that we're not settling for
that most of the time.  We want study skills. We
want analystical skills.  We want social skills.
And the worst part of it is we want the educated
student to fit into a standard box.  When we test
achievement, we don't route people to different
achievement tests, we run them all through one
standard test.


PT - Jim's post makes the point of why Multiple Intelligence makes perfect
sense as educational reform, and why standardized testing has to be given an
upgrade.  People want to ballyhoo MI and say its experimental, but it has
worked in other parts of the country, as well as various institutions within
Minneapolis.  It is used in other countries successfully, and has helped
them stay educationally ahead of the United States.  Speaking of
experiments, what do they call all the bussing, and other nonsense the
school board has tried to get results?  A lot of those efforts had kids
going to school in mazes like little mice looking for the big cheese.  And
they failed. So why are folks so adverse to trying something new? Are folks
afraid that it may actually work?


JM - Now what I'm asking is whether this really makes
sense.  One analogy that suggest itself was what
if we insisted that the Special Olympics and
regular Olympics merged with both sets of
athletes performing in the same events?  It seems
ridiculous, but with our education system, we
seem to set a common goal for all students while
we know (or should know) that there's no way they
can all make it to the same goal in a fixed span
of years.

And we're defining those who fall beneath some
standard as "failure" which we publish in the
test scores.

But what happened to "achieving personal
potential"?  If the fastest marathon I can
physically run takes 5 hours, haven't I really
achieved as much as a guy who runs one in 2 hours
9 minutes because that's the fastest HE can run?
Should I be classed a failure when I've done what
I really CAN do?


PT - Did anyone ever read Leo Buscaligia's (sp?) book about Love?  It talked
about being the best YOU that you could be.  It told the story about trying
to make the rabbit climb trees, and other animals doing things that they
were not good at and how soon the school trying to teach these things was
failing the animal students because of their inability to excel in everyone
else's fields.  There is nothing wrong with knowing lots of different
things, nor having a learned appreciation for them, but everyone cannot do
everything well.  Everyone deserves a chance at the opportunity to learn
outside of their arenas, but should not be deemed a failure because their
expertise in this life lies elsewhere.

JM - As for the needs of the society, the fact is that
society needs a wide array of talents.  If it
weren't for the poor English-speakers,  you'd
probably have to arrange a year ahead to have
your roof replaced since Latinos seem to be doing
nearly all the grunt labor.  And though jobs for
the intellectually challenged may be low-paying,
they are still very important to society. And
they can be torture for someone with a restless,
inquiring mind.  What we need to do is educate
people who are most suitable to those jobs so
they can handle those jobs.  And we need to
educate the numerically gifted so they can do our
engineering and actuary work. Educate the
verbally gifted to do our verbal work, and so on.
 And not set one particular category as the
hallmark of "success".  Success is when people
are suitably prepared for whatever they can
handle that society needs to have handled.

I guess every parent wants little Bobby or Suzy
to be the next genius, but that's unrealistic,
not necessarily in the interests of little Bobby
or Suzy, and an impossible task for public or
private schools.  Of course, if the kid is
average or even a moron, that reflects back on
the parents genes, so you can understand the
suffering such a discovery causes for the parent,
but society cannot start faulting the schools
because levels of possible achievement sort
themselves out along the normal curve.


PT - This means not directing certain students to trade schools, but viewing
ALL children as Gifted, and helping uncover their giftedness, and help them
to excel in it so they may be a future benefit to themselves and society.
This means not being afraid that Little Akeem will grow up to nab a job that
society (as it stands now) thinks Little Ritchie Rich should have.  They
should be educated, not simply raised, with equal opportunity options.  That
is what I personally believe some people don't want to do.


JM - So, if you apply THIS set of standards, are
schools really failing?  One thing people do is
take certain schools that seem to be doing the
best and judge all schools against them. But
that's illogical.  Am I a failure for coming in
behind the winner of a race?  For example,
there's a St Paul school called Capitol Hill
Magnet. If you look at the charts, their results
are very high, even though 30 percent of the
students qualify for free meals. I asked friends
whose kids go there, and they told me there are
entrance requirements to get in. Your child has
to be gifted by some definition.  Well, there are
many schools that have informal entrance
requirements.  Such as upper-income parents who
can afford the housing in the district.  So
before you do any comparison at all, , you must
make sure you are comparing apples to apples. The
fact is that the obstacles to teaching
Minneapolis students as so many would like to see
them taught are many.  They fall across the board
from family values to social values to nutrition
to genetic endowment.  The school district
basically puts weights on its ankles and then is
faulted for not running fast.


Pamela Taylor
(Tampa)







_______________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to