The New Dare to Discipline (17 page)

BOOK: The New Dare to Discipline
11.07Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

The lightly shaded area in the center of the distribution represents the “normal range” of IQ scores, which fall between 90 and 110. The precise IQ points for each category will vary according to the standard deviation of the intelligence test utilized. Fifty percent of all individuals score within this middle area on most tests of intelligence. It is interesting to note that virtually everyone thinks his IQ is above 100. If we asked ten thousand people to estimate their expected level of ability, very few would guess an IQ score below average. The fact is, half the total population would actually score below 100.

Likewise, parents will often ascribe fantastic intelligence quotients to their children. A familiar but comical remark is “Herbert has an IQ of 214, according to a test he took in the Sunday Supplement.”
Very
few individuals score above 150, and Herbert is not likely to be one of them.

The “gifted” individuals are represented at the far right of the distribution. Approximately 2 percent of all children and adults have this exceptionally bright level of ability. By contrast, nearly 3 percent of the population appears at the other end of the intellectual continuum, and are referred to as “retarded.” Most states provide special education for the children with intellectual deficits, and some offer an enriched program to the gifted.

As indicated, the purpose of presenting these facts is to highlight the problems of the slow learners—those children having IQs between 70 and 90. These students comprise nearly one-fourth of the children in a typical school. In many ways, they are the saddest youngsters with whom child development specialists deal. Of particular concern are the individuals with IQs in the lower range of the slow learner classification (70 to 80) who are virtually destined to have difficulties in school. No special education is available for them,
although they are not appreciably different from the borderline
retarded students
.

A retarded child with an IQ of 70 would probably qualify for highly specialized and expensive educational programs, including a smaller class, specially trained teacher, audio visual aids and a “no fail” policy. By contrast, a slow learning child with an IQ of 80 would usually receive no such advantages. He must compete in regular classes against the full range of more capable students. Such competition implies winners and losers, and it is the slow learner who invariably “loses.”

Let’s consider the plight of the unintelligent young student in the classroom. Here is the child who “would if he could—but can’t.” He rarely, if ever, gets the thrill of earning a “hundred” on his spelling test. He is the last child chosen in any academic game or contest. He often has the
least
sympathy from his teachers. He is no more successful in social activities than academic pursuits, and the other children reject him openly.

Like the late bloomer, the slow learner gradually develops a crushing image of failure that distorts his self-concept and damages his ego. This was exemplified by a conversation overheard by a colleague of mine between two intellectually handicapped students. Discussing their prospects with girls, one of them said, “I do okay until they find out I’m a retard.” Obviously, this child was keenly aware of his inadequacy.

There is no better way to assassinate self-confidence in our children than to place 25 percent of them in a situation where excellence is impossible to achieve, where inadequacy is the daily routine, and where inferiority is a living reality. It is not surprising that such a child is often a mischievous tormentor in the third grade, a bully in the sixth grade, a loudmouth in junior high, and a drop-out/delinquent in high school.

The slow learner is unlike the late bloomer in one major respect: time will not resolve his deficiency. He will not do better next year. In fact, he tends to get further behind as he grows older. Traditionally, the schools have retained the incapable child in the same grade level for an extra year or two, which proves to be most unworkable, unscientific, and unfortunate.

Retention accomplishes absolutely nothing but to ice the cake of failure. The accumulated scientific evidence on this issue is indisputable. Many follow-up studies have shown that children who were retained continued to fail the following year, and their academic problems were then compounded by emotional difficulties. The retained child is held back with the “little kids” while his contemporaries move on to a new grade level and a new teacher. He feels overgrown, foolish, and dumb. His relatives all know that he failed. Throughout his school life, people will ask revealing questions, such as “How come you’re thirteen and only in the fifth grade?” He will reply, “Aw, I flunked third grade.” It is a painful confession.

A further problem can be anticipated; the child who is retained once or twice will probably undergo sexual development (puberty) before his classmates, which can produce many unfortunate circumstances. When the slow learner finally reaches high school a year or more late, he usually finds even less tolerance for his difficulty.

One mature tenth grader was once referred to me because he announced he was dropping out of school. I asked why he was quitting, and he said, “I’ve been miserable since first grade. I’ve felt embarrassed and stupid every year. I’ve had to stand up and read, but I can’t even understand a second grade book. You people have had your last laugh at me. I’m getting out.” I told him I didn’t blame him for the way he felt; his suffering was our responsibility.

Surprisingly, some unsuccessful students are still willing to struggle even after years of failure. As a psychologist, I was always encouraged when the toughest, roughest boys in high school got excited about a remedial reading program. They wanted desperately to learn this skill, but were convinced they were too dumb. This all changed when the remedial reading teacher showed them they
could
learn.

One brawny lad named Jeff was awed by his own progress. He looked up at his teacher with tears in his eyes, and said, “When I was in second grade I brought home a report card with an “F” in reading. I was sitting on the couch while my old man read it. He came over with a strap and beat the ——— out of me. Since then, this is the first time I’ve done anything right in school.”

I was once asked to evaluate a high school boy named Willie who failed history three times. He was unable to graduate because he couldn’t earn a “D” or better in this required course. I tested Willie and learned that he was a slow learner. His teacher, who had previously required Willie to compete equally with other students, was surprised by the results. His lack of awareness of the child’s limited ability seemed unfair to me, so I devised the following form letter to notify teachers of others like Willie:

Strictly Confidential

Name of Student ________________________________

The above-named student apparently has some limitations which may be important to understanding his academic performance and classroom behavior. Although he does not qualify for
Special Education
, according to a strict interpretation of the Education Code, his intellectual ability seemingly falls into a “borderline” category. There is no legal basis for his removal from the regular classroom, but he should not be expected to compete with more capable students.

If he is required to meet an arbitrary percentage of correct examination answers, as are students with average capabilities, he must be expected to fail consistently. On the other hand, he should not be allowed to coast along without using his potential.

It seems appropriate that his grade be based on his efforts and progress, based on his individual learning capacity. To fail him in spite of his efforts is to deny him the opportunity to graduate.

I would be glad to discuss the matter with you if further information is desired.

NOTE:
P
lease destroy this note to minimize potential
embarrassment to the student.

Some teachers had never considered giving a slow learner an easier academic target until receiving this note. A few did not consider it
after
reading this note, either.

When I think of slow learners, the case of fourteen-year-old Robert sticks in my mind. He was five inches taller and twenty pounds heavier than the next largest student in his sixth grade class. Though retained in the second and fourth grades, Robert still had not learned to read or write. His teacher tried to motivate him every way she knew how, but Robert withstood all challenges and gimmicks. He simply quit trying.

When his teacher threatened to fail him a third time, Robert responded with horror. He could visualize himself as a seventy-three-year-old student, still sitting in a sixth grade class. That nightmarish thought motivated him to do his best in class, but his deficient academic skills prevented much progress. Robert remained in a state of anxiety until the final report cards were issued. On that morning, he was literally white around the mouth and shaking with tension until he read the pronouncement, “Promoted to the Seventh Grade.”

Robert’s teacher had not meant to be unkind earlier; he only wanted to obtain the best effort from this lad. Nevertheless, it was a mistake to threaten him with social disaster. A slow learner or retarded individual has the
same
emotional needs for adequacy and acceptance as a gifted or bright child, and emotional stability should not be sacrificed on the altar of education.

Despite the effects of failing a slow learner, I believe some children
do
profit from a second year in the same grade level. The best guideline for retention is this: hold back the child for whom something will be
different
next year. For example, a child who was sick for seven months in one academic year might profit from another run-through when he is well. And again, the late bloomer should be held back in kindergarten (or the first grade at the latest) to place him with youngsters of comparable development.

For the slow learner, however, nothing will be changed. If he was failing fourth grade in June, he will continue failing fourth grade in September. That’s because the curricular con tent of each grade level is similar to the year before and the year after. The same concepts are taught year after year; the students in each grade are taken a little farther, but much of the time is spent in review.

For example, addition and subtraction are taught in the primary years, but considerable work is done on these tasks in sixth grade, too. Nouns and verbs are taught repeatedly for several years. The overlap in curricular material from grade to grade is represented more accurately in Figure A, below, than by Figure B.

Thus, the most unjustifiable reason for retention is to expose the slow learner to another year with easier concepts. He will not do better the second time around! Nor is there much magic in summer school. Some parents hope that a six-week program in July and August will accomplish what was impossible in the ten months between September and June. They are often disappointed.

Since retention and summer school do not solve the problem of the slow learner, we are faced with the obvious question: What can be done for these children? Listed below are the steps that could tip the scales in favor of this vast number of youngsters:

BOOK: The New Dare to Discipline
11.07Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Raven Moon by Eva Gordon
The Mystery of the Hasty Arrow by Green, Anna Katharine
A Broken Promise by Megan McKenney
Sophie and the Locust Curse by Davies, Stephen
Apple Pie Angel by Lynn Cooper
Into the Rift by Cynthia Garner
Earth Enchanted by Brynna Curry