Dan,
DT>I don't know that we do accept less.  But no matter what we "accept" 
DT>there will be some children who fall below expectations, some who rise 
DT>above, and many who fall in the middle.  
Aha!  But isn't that the very facet of public education that we are 
getting beat up for in the press?  Isn't that what parochial schools 
supposedly do better than public schools?  We need to set a standard 
and then get *every* child to that level if we are going to graduate 
students who can all read, write and do math. We must tutor, help, 
assist and even fail children who fall behind at the very beginning.
DT>Yes!  And tutoring often helps.  In our school we have a home liaison 
DT>who goes into the home and helps parents help their kids.
Sounds like a good program.  Do these liaisons meet with the 
teachers on a regular basis?
DT>One thing though:  No matter how far behind a child gets, no amount of 
DT>"pushing" concepts at a child will help if the "just don't get it."  Do 
DT>we give up?  No!  We continue to work with that child.  But children 
DT>develop on a continuum and we can't get them to point d until they pass 
DT>through a, b, and c first.  It has always been this way.  
To some extent you are correct, but the new-think on this issue is 
that all children can learn and it is the job of the schools to get 
them up to speed and to keep them there.  You and I know, on an 
absolute level, we won't do it with all of them, but we need to 
reach more than we are.
As for your continuum, that also is not an absolute.  We can travel 
around a rectangle from point A to point C by passing through B or 
by passing through D.  For some kids the answer may lie in the route 
as yet unexplored, a diagonal directly to D.  This is the sort of 
thing that can only be achieved if we are providing one-on-one 
tutorials for kids that are falling behind.
DT>.DT>Not true....in any given elementary grade level we can have up to
DT>.DT>two  years of developmental difference.  I think that what's 
DT>.DT>important is  seeing
DT>.DT>growth and continued progress in each child.   
DT>
DT>CB>We disagree.  
DT>
DT>You don't think growth and continue progress is important??  
Of course.  Where we disagree is over the fact that we can tolerate 
a two-year differential in student achievement.  It is the absolute 
crux of the crisis (if it is a real crisis ) in American education.
DT>This boy happens to be MR....but that is beside the point.
No, not at all.  He is entitled to work to a different standard than 
the others - that's what an IEP is all about - setting his level of 
excellence.
DT>Many children are borderline and do not qualify because they score a few 
DT>points too high on certain tests.  In other cases the parents do not 
DT>want the child labeled and so it goes...
Your point is well taken, but according to the new-think, he 
*doesn't* qualify and therefore must be brought up to speed.  The 
answer here is pragmatic - try again to get him labeled, or provide 
the tutoring to bring him up to the standards.
I don't know how much of my own argument I buy into, Dan, but it 
_is_ the new wave of thinking running through educational circles, 
at least here in New York.  For a while our state ed department's 
motto was, "It takes a whole village to raise a child," (this was 
before Hillary made it the title of her book) and it is now, "Every 
child can learn."  It's very trite, but it is the philosophy which 
now guides our educational system.
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* Anything not nailed down is a cat toy.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------