I see you got it. :-)
P has been reading an interesting book which, at least so far, is making the argument that it is educationally unsound, not to mention perhaps violent, to require students to be good at all their subjects. We don't expect adults in the world to be good at everything -- math, reading, writing, science, history, art, music . . . Why should we expect that of elementary school students??
Why do teachers and parents both get concerned when a child isn't getting their math, or their reading?
Now, from an adult perspective, since we've (hopefully) eventually all mastered elementary school math and writing and reading (though I never did master finger painting, myself) we think kids should be able to do that. Familiarity has made us insentive to the difficulties in that. But to a seven year old child, multiplication is as difficult to learn as quantum mechanics is to an adult. We don't expect every adult to be able to master quantum mechanics at all, let alone in a month, and pass high stress tests in it. Why do we expect every seven year old to master multiplication and pass what for them are quite challenging tests in it?
And in some cases, their brains aren't physically ready to do some of the things we demand of them. We don't expect the average six year old to be able to throw a 50 yard pass. We accept that their arm muscles aren't developed enough to do that, though a few may. But we have no inkling that maybe their brains aren't physicallyh ready to tackle some of the demands we put on them. Instead of saying they aren't physically ready for those tasks, we label them stupid and put them in remedial classes or hold them back.
When you think about it, there's some appeal to this argument. |
