Does the Normal Distribution Apply to Student Ability/Intelligence? (IEP, kindergarten, middle school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For a long time I've bought into the idea that the reason that many students fail is because they come from impoverished or otherwise broken family backgrounds and that this plays the primary role in impeding their learning. While I do still believe that this is an issue that can't be glossed over, lately I've been reading a lot more (see link below) about another theory, one that seems to make a lot of sense but is rarely discussed by policy-makers because of potential implications. This theory is that student ability and intelligence varies widely and that there are more than a few students who are simply incapable of meeting the expectations that we've set for them.
The expectations in question can be the short-term such as age-based state standards, or long-term such as passing the required coursework to graduate high school. At a bare minimum, I think that most people that have worked in education or studied human development can agree that not everyone grows and matures at the same rate which is why, as an example, many kids legitimately won't be ready for the algebraic thinking required by some states' middle school math standards but may come to understand the same material at some point during their high school years. It also stands to reason that some people, no matter what their age, may never have the capacity to grasp the abstract thinking required by higher levels of mathematics. This is the crux of the argument, that perhaps natural variations in human ability are a better explanation for the variety of outcomes in achievement, including many of the kids that fail despite the best efforts of teachers and schools.
You are correct, but most people progress at pretty much the same rate, barring disability (dyslexia, dysgraphia) In many countries the lower performing students perform at the average level here. I think the problem unfortunately is study deficit, not intellectual deficit or developmental delay.
In the true case of developmental delay the student is able to retake the class and attempt to pass it, legally they can stay in High School until 21.
You are correct, but most people progress at pretty much the same rate, barring disability (dyslexia, dysgraphia) In many countries the lower performing students perform at the average level here. I think the problem unfortunately is study deficit, not intellectual deficit or developmental delay.
In the true case of developmental delay the student is able to retake the class and attempt to pass it, legally they can stay in High School until 21.
If I'm correct than I don't see how it can be said that all people progress at pretty much the same rate.
For a long time I've bought into the idea that the reason that many students fail is because they come from impoverished or otherwise broken family backgrounds and that this plays the primary role in impeding their learning. While I do still believe that this is an issue that can't be glossed over, lately I've been reading a lot more (see link below) about another theory, one that seems to make a lot of sense but is rarely discussed by policy-makers because of potential implications. This theory is that student ability and intelligence varies widely and that there are more than a few students who are simply incapable of meeting the expectations that we've set for them.
I don't think the two theories are exclusive, because you will find the same variations in cognitive ability across socio-economic classes. In my experience, rich or poor, kids of lower cognitive ability for school subjects (who may have cognitive strengths that lie elsewhere) will do better if they have and take opportunities for reinforcement beyond what happens during the school day. Unfortunately, the factors that may contribute to poverty may also contribute to those opportunities not existing or not being taken.
While I agree that often the kids have been taught and don't retain the knowledge, there is also the I won't learn from you factor that Herbert Kohl wrote about.
I think the normal distribution applies in large groups. There's no telling the distribution in a classroom of 25-30 kids, though. Also (IMO), the range is really not as wide as it may sound. In other words, I don't think there's a HUGE difference between someone in the 25th percentile and someone in the 75th. Take note of word in bold, caps.
If I'm correct than I don't see how it can be said that all people progress at pretty much the same rate.
You are correct in that people develop at different rates, but that does not have much bearing on the ability to do some kind of abstract math, like high school algevbra or basic trig (usually all that is required to graduate), IMHO.
Most people can develop at a rate so as to adequately do what is required to pass HS math and receive a diploma.
What is required of the students is well within the intellectual means of the vast majority of them. That is what I meant. The "bell curve" is not really a factor here. We aren't talking string theory or advanced linear algebra.
Children with disabilities should be getting a 504 or IEP to help them.
This is what is inherently wrong with programs like NCLB, there are kids, no matter what you do for them, that will NEVER be able to pass these tests. Once the powers understand that, they can go back to programs that address this. Tracking kids is really the best way for kids to move through their education, with the understanding that a lot of maturing happens over the summer and kids need to move tracks at times--and sometimes need to be in a higher track for some subjects, etc. It's not politically correct nor do the parents of Snowflakes want their child in anything but the "best" track. At least at the high school level, most high schools have tracking programs, AP classes, etc. but they aren't called that , but starting in Kindergarten, kids need to work at their ability level so the kids that can read already need to be in reading groups that push their skills, kids that still don't know the alphabet need to be in reading groups to teach that. Evaluations need to be done periodically to see if kids need to move around but this one size fits all hurts everyone.
I think the normal distribution applies in large groups. There's no telling the distribution in a classroom of 25-30 kids, though. Also (IMO), the range is really not as wide as it may sound. In other words, I don't think there's a HUGE difference between someone in the 25th percentile and someone in the 75th. Take note of word in bold, caps.
A classroom of 25-30 kids is a relatively small and almost certainly unrepresentative sample size. Because of how segregated (culturally, socioeconomically, etc.) our schools have become, you're absolutely right that oftentimes that aren't huge gaps between the top and bottom. However on a society-wide basis, the expectations we have may not (and in my opinion, do not) reflect the reality of what a huge chunk of our kids can actually learn and retain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grilba
You are correct in that people develop at different rates, but that does not have much bearing on the ability to do some kind of abstract math, like high school algevbra or basic trig (usually all that is required to graduate), IMHO.
Most people can develop at a rate so as to adequately do what is required to pass HS math and receive a diploma.
What is required of the students is well within the intellectual means of the vast majority of them. That is what I meant. The "bell curve" is not really a factor here. We aren't talking string theory or advanced linear algebra.
Children with disabilities should be getting a 504 or IEP to help them.
I hate to play the "teacher card" here, but I have to disagree with you. I think that for ~25% of students, Algebra II is legitimately out of their grasp by the end of high school. Some of them do not have the mental capacity to ever learn such material, but for others, because of differences in how they develop, they will not be able to meet the required "checkpoints" in middle school and high school to keep them on track to enroll in and successfully complete Algebra II by high school. That's not to say that they will never have the ability to understand it, it's just that that particular goal is not realistic and they way we push them along even if they don't understand prerequisite material is setting them up for failure.
I want to leave the issue of motivation aside for this discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.