In response to a message to Charles on ...
DT>.DT>I am speaking developmentally.  If a child is not developmentally
DT>.DT>ready  for a concept, no effort will bring about understanding.
DT>.DT>But this is  not to say that this child should be exempt from
DT>.DT>meeting the minimum  standards.
DT>CB> 
DT>CB>We do not yet have the capability to adequately diagnose such 
DT>CB>problems, so we'll never know for sure whether or not a child is 
DT>CB>incapable or just failing.  We can only treat the problem - 
DT>CB>remediation, summer school, retention, or alternative programs.
DT>
DT>I'm not sure what you mean about "diagnosing such problems"......what 
DT>problems do you mean?
Learning disabilities.  I was responding with a bias - I believe 
that most children in school who do not work up to grade level are 
falling behind due to lack of effort and lack of consequence rather 
than because of any lack of ability.  The human brain is a VERY 
powerful instrument and is capable of overcoming minor 
malfunctioning.  Why should children work hard in school when 
promotion and graduation are considered a right and not something to 
be earned.
Do you know how learning disabilities are diagnosed?  There are no 
tests that actually determine a learning disability - instead we 
compare an "IQ" against academic performance - both very arbitrary 
evaluations.
DT>I think we do have a pretty good idea of what 
DT>children at a particular age can understand (generally) but when it 
DT>comes to diagnosing individual kids and answering the question "Is it a 
DT>learning problem or a lazy problem?"....that might be more difficult to 
DT>accurately diagnose.  Is this what you had in mind?  
Sort of.
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------