Re: Intelligence, Genetics and Equality (was "The Paradoxes...)

[Arthur Hu <ArthurH@TANGIS.COM>]

There SHOULD be a lot of controversy over whether everyone
should be expected to master 2 years of algebra and geometry
since that's the minimum for most 4 year universities, and
no large city or state has ever demonstrated more than 50% of
students being able to pass algebra compentency tests. Most
of the new state test essentially require this level of math
skill and courses. A GED only requires knowledge of arithmetic
and percentages.

Then, there is the issue that everyone should be exposed to
algebra whether or not they have any chance of ever being
proficient in it.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Leo Casey [mailto:LeoCasey@AOL.COM]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:24 PM
To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
Subject: Re: Intelligence, Genetics and Equality (was "The Paradoxes...)


On questions of whether there can be one standard for all children, whether
all children can learn, as raised by George C's post...

There are four discrete issues I see here:

1. Let us accept, for our purposes here, that we should not be setting the
same learning standards for developmentally disabled children and children
with normal developmental patterns. Developmentally disabled children can
learn, and we have a moral obligation to provide them with as many of the
skills that they can learn which will allow them the greatest measure of
independent and productive living. But that is an altogether different
matter
from setting a standard for them that is the same as for children with
normal
developmental abilities. This is, for me, common sense. The problems which
arise here involve the extent to which we assume that all children in
special
education are developmentally disabled, given what we know about the ways in
which special education generally works. Based on my own experiences of
having taught inner-city children for 15 years, I would not assume that a
designation of special education necessarily indicated real developmental
disabilities, or an inability to reach the same standards as other children:
I have just seen too many instances where that was not the case. On the
other
hand, I think that for most students in special education who do have real
developmental disabilities, it is nothing short of needless cruelty to set a
standard which they could not possibly meet, no matter how hard they worked.

2. How high is 'high' in the term 'high standard?' I find these discussions
very frustrating because (a) of the inherent relativity of the terms, such
as
'high', that we use (In introducing Michael Harrington as "America's leading
socialist" many years ago on one of his shows, William Buckley quickly went
on to note that this was like pointing out "the tallest building in Topeka,
Kansas.") and (b) of the argument by anecdote which supports it. It is all
too easy, and proves nothing about standards in general, to show some
standard which is clearly beyond the reach of most children, or conversely,
to show some standard which all but the most developmentally disabled could
fulfill. So I always want to look at the particular standard. To cite our
recent discussion, if a high standard means that all students must master
the
basic skills of Calculus to graduate high school, I think it is too high; if
it means that they master the basic skills of Algebra and Geometry, I don't
find that so unreasonable. I admit to having a general disposition of
wanting
students to stretch their capacities, to put in some real work to develop
their intellect and mind, so I do not cringe at a general notion of 'high'
standards; nonetheless, I am perfectly willing to admit that standards can
be
-- and are -- set too high.

3. There are differences in ability and then there are differences in
ability. Like George, I am pretty damn close to being completely tone deaf,
and I couldn't sing on key if my life depended on it. I have also never
found
it easy to learn foreign languages, since this involves same of the same
auditory "abilities." But I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a
single
minimum standard that insisted I have a basic knowledge of those fields.
Over
the course of my life, I have learned a little French, a little Spanish, a
little Swahili and a little German -- enough to fulfill requirements for
high
school graduation, college graduation and a doctorate. My physical dexterity
also falls a bit short {-; of professional athletic standards, but there was
no great harm in me having to undergo a physical and health education and
having to meet certain minimum standards in that field. I even managed to
become a good enough swimmer to be a lifeguard for a couple of years. No one
would ever mistake me for an Olympic gymnast, anymore than a linguist or an
opera singer, but so what? It is not unreasonable, from my point of view, to
conceive of an educational process, an introduction and acculturation of the
young to their society, in which students have to learn a spectrum of
knowledges and a range of skills, and demonstrate a basic competency in
them.
Why should we be able to avoid some field just because it may not be our
strength? It is also not unreasonable to put a greater emphasis on the
particular knowledges and skills, in areas such as literacy, numeracy,
civics, which are essential for the larger community and society. And it is
not unreasonable, in an era when a lack of competency in literacy and
numeracy skills means a life of social and economic marginality, to decide
that a better performance from that educational process is required.

4. All too much of what we accept as given differences in ability, whether
it
be at literacy or in some other field, are the products of vast social,
economic and educational inequalities. I refuse to accept those so-called
differences in ability as reasons why we can not meet higher standards
because I do not accept that we should continue the vast inequalities which
have given rise to them. There is a "black-white test score gap" primarily
because of these inequalities, not because of any innate differences in
ability.

George Cunningham writes:
<< Of course most people who have had children or worked with children know
that not all children can perform at the same high level.  Humans vary in
their abilities.  This is an inconvenient, unfair, and possibly undemocratic
condition.  It would be a much better world if everyone had the same
potential and everyone could reasonably aspire to the same goals.

If you want to hang onto the fiction that there is no such thing as ability
and as the signs in elementary schools say "If you can dream it, you can do
it" it is much harder to argue against SBER.  One step towards eliminating
such programs is recognizing that a single standard for all students makes
no
sense whatsoever.

If everyone can perform at the same high level, with hard work I should be
able to sing like Pavarotti, but alas I am tone deaf.  I can't tell one note
from another.  Of course I can sing and play the guitar with equal ability.

George K. Cunningham
University of Louisville >>

Leo Casey
United Federation of Teachers
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)

Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never has, and it never will.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
-- Frederick Douglass --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.