Different people are different

NCLB directly contradicts virtually everything known about human learning and development. Students suffer because of this. 

In order to be an effective educator one must understand that all students are different.  They come from different home lives, have different abilities and disabilities, different personalities, learn at different rates and in different ways to different level of potential. 

Here are four major theories which nicely sum up the notion that "different people are different":

1. hierarchy of needs (Maslow) 
2. taxonomy of intellectual behavior (Bloom)
3. zone of proximal development (Vygotsky) 
4. multiple intelligences (Gardner) 

This blog is a general breakdown of these four psychological theories and the harmful effects NCLB has on students by forcing educators and administrators to do the opposite of each.

(1) hierarchy of needs [Wikipedia]

Students come from a variety of backgrounds.  Basically, humans worry about basic survival needs first (food, water, shelter) and once that is secured, they can work their way up to higher higher intellectual needs (composing poetry, learning physics, etc.).  

Consider these two children (they are the same age):

• Charles lives in an inner city filled with gang violence.  He hears gunshots and ambulances at night, has never met his father and his mother is a drug addict. Charles frequently worries about being physically assaulted or even killed on his way to school or the grocery store.  He has never been more than a few miles from his apartment, which is filthy and unkempt.  He does not have basic hygiene because his mother cannot afford to pay the utilities and so he rarely showers and has only a few outfits which are worn out, dirty, and have an unpleasant smell.  

• Sarah lives in the suburbs with a loving mother and father whose combined income is more than sufficient to make the family's life comfortable.   She plays with her friends after school on the quiet cul-de-sac just outside her house.  Every summer she takes a trip with her family to somewhere exciting and interesting.  She has been to Gettysburg, PA and learned about the civil war and hiked parts of the Appalachian trail and learning about geology, flora, and fauna.  She has been to Paris and learned about Napoleon, seen the Lourve museum and explored various forms of art from past and present.  She feels safe at night in her own home which is clean and tidy and has all the modern comforts. 

It should be abundantly clear that Sarah is probably in a better position to be learning about algebra or memorizing historical facts than Charles.

What's the problem? 

NCLB assumes that both children should perform to the same level. This level of achievement is too low and boring for Sarah, and completely unattainable to Charles.  This conclusion is reached by only taking each child's external circumstances into account, it is not even taking into account the intellectual ability/potential of each child.  For example, Charles could very well have the potential to be a piano virtuoso while Sarah is mediocre at piano even though she takes lessons every day.  Because of their backgrounds, Charles is struggling to become "proficient" in basic piano skills which Sarah has already mastered.  If they had started off on equal footing as far as environment is concerned, Charles would be playing and perhaps composing advanced pieces while Sarah would still be only mediocre at piano. 

(2) taxonomy of intellectual behavior [Wikipedia]

There are different levels of complexity and mastery when it comes to "knowing something."  Memorization and matching are at the bottom (i.e. identifying a hammer, and knowing a hammer goes with a nail). Creation, synthesis, and evaluation are at the top (i.e. successfully writing and evaluating plans and then building a  sturdy woodshed).  

The old saying "you have to learn to walk before you can run." is a prime example of how intellectual mastery is categorized.  Consider learning a new language. Assuming it's a phonetic language, the learner must first memorize the symbols and what sounds are associated with each symbol. Then the learner can begin stringing together words and memorizing and matching words from the known language to the new language. Next are the rules of grammar for the new language.  Eventually, after much effort, the learner is able to read or hear passages in the new language and absorb meaning from them, and with even more practice begin to speak and write their own meaningful sentences, paragraphs, and longer works.  It would be foolish to claim that a learner has mastered a new language if they are only able to match symbols with sounds or recite grammatical rules.

What's the problem?

NCLB tests focus only on the lowest level of the intellectual taxonomy, namely memorization and matching in the form of multiple-choice tests.  There is zero opportunity for students to synthesize ideas and display their ability to create any meaningful writing, mathematics, or art.  

zone of proximal development [Wikipedia]

A student must be challenged in a way that encourages meaningful struggling that leads to growth. Care must be taken not to make the challenges too far beyond or too far below the students present ability or they will become frustrated at an impossible task or lose motivation because they are not being challenged enough.  That "sweet spot" is the "zone of proximal development".

A good personal trainer understands that their clients come in all shapes, sizes, and fitness levels.   Some can be pushed until they drop from exhaustion, others must be treated with care or else they might get a heart attack or other injury from performing exercises which may seem easy.  Some may want to be pushed until they drop, but that would result in their injury, others may have endless athletic talent, yet not want anything to do with making the most of their abilities.  A good personal trainer knows how to communicate with their clients such that they are able to inform and motivate them appropriately so everyone is equipped with tools to reach their optimal fitness.

Similarly, good teachers understand that their students are very different and each must be handled as such.  Some students have tremendous ability but are unwilling to use it.  Others have very little ability or large gaps in their background knowledge of a subject.  It takes content knowledge and strong communication skills to work with students such that they are all able to improve according to their own needs and abilities.

What's the problem? 

NCLB functions under the assumption that all students have the same potential, abilities, and are capable of learning and mastering an idea to a particular level... all on the exact same timetable.  Students who are several grade levels behind are placed in classes with students who are several grade levels ahead.  Everyone is treated the same.  The result of this cycle is often as follows: slow students become frustrated and cause disruptions, bright students become bored and and cause disruptions, all while the "middle of the road" students become distracted by all the disruptions and don't end up learning anything at all. 

(4) multiple intelligences [Wikipedia]

Basically, this says "there is more than one way to be smart."  Consider these cases: 

• Michael Jordan is widely regarded as one of, if not the greatest basketball players of all time.  He had a unique instinct for the game which made him an invaluable team member and incredible force to contend with on the court.  

• Albert Einstein had a mind capable of running elaborate "thought experiments" and a brilliant way of understanding various fields of physics and mathematics.  His insights were profoundly genius and he unified many ideas which had been, up to that point, completely separate. He also introduced simple assumptions and elegantly integrated them into theories which later held up to physical experiment to astonishingly high degrees of accuracy.  

• Martin Luther King Jr. was a thoughtful and passionate man who was well-read and could speak with great power and eloquence.  He inspired, organized, and ultimately succeeded in changing prejudice and backward societal norms which had up to that point discriminated against people based only on their skin color.  He did so through carefully written letters, inspiring speeches, and the bravery of peaceful leadership by example, even in the face of violent rhetorical and physical opposition. 

All of these people are widely regarded as being the highest level of genius.  

Their work has left a deep and lasting impact on their respective areas of sport, science, and society.  Each was gifted in a particular "area" -- Jordan was an athlete, Einstein was a physicist, and MLK was a leader.  It is unlikely that Jordan could have discovered relativity on his own, no matter how hard he tried.  It is unlikely that Einstein could have been a dominant figure on the basketball court, no matter how hard he tried, etc.  

Also, not one of these three could have written a symphony that could ever compare to even the weakest of Mozart's works.  A great way to visualize this is to look at these Olympic athletes.  All of them are athletically gifted -- yet the variation in body type is remarkable!  Different people are different, and there are many ways to be "intelligent". 

What's the problem?

NCLB does not realistically take into account and/or encourage the different abilities and disabilities of the individual student.  It cares only that each student reach a minimum level to move on to the next grade.  As far as standardized tests go: Jordan would have probably scored equally well on math and verbal.  Einstein would have scored better on his math than his verbal, and MLK would have scored better on his verbal than his math.  Looking only at the test scores, all three would be approved to move forward to he next grade and not one would be recognized or encouraged for their individual and special talents.