Dorie Rae Gallagher writes: > Some children will never be literate..they can not learn. But > many of those children /adults can product artwork that is > extordinary. > > (Sister Kenny Art Show for Artists with Disabilities) Give > people the tools to be happy. Be it math problems, science, > art classes, music and let them be the best they can > be in whatever form of life.
I'm not sure what this is formally called, but I'd just label it the statistical outlier fallacy. Sure some fraction of a percentage of children will never be literate. We formerly referred to them as retarded, now we apply any one of a number of more specialized and accurate labels. Regardless, these children are a tiny minority and it is fallacious to apply their situations to the vast majority of school aged children > A person can be happy in dire poverty, (who sets that standard?), > a person can be miserable with a bank full of money. I believe that research shows that poverty is not all it's cracked (no pun intended) up to be. Poor people, on the average, suffer more mental illness, have more health problems, and live shorter lives. If you haven't been there it might be hard to have a realistic perspective. > Children are being mainstreamed these days and schools need > to be prepared to handle children with all levels of IQ. Maybe mainstreaming is a policy that we might want to reconsider. > All children want to do their very best but unfortunately, > parenting and other factors take their toll. Is this a nativist assumption that the human species is genetically endowed to "do their very best?" I think that this is a false assumption that illustrates the difference between the basic axioms of liberal and conservative politics. I don't understand how anyone who has or has had children can believe that children are intrinsically good, children are intrinsically selfish; they will do their best if they want to and you encourage to do so. If children intrinsically wanted to do their best, then we could reasonable expect societies would be more benevolent, but obviously they are not. > If they can't learn science perhaps they can learn color theory. And then what? I don't know anyone who makes a living on color theory alone. I don't understand how you can assume that there are enough jobs so that a large portion of the population can make a living in the Arts. When I worked in advertising, most everyone did fine arts on the side and no one made much of anything. Even the commercial artist jobs were hard to come by and there was immense competition for them. The only way that a large portion of our population could survive doing art is if we exploited the Third World even more than we do now. And while we're discussing the Third World, you might want to think about all those dirt poor peasants who work 12 to 16 hours for a dollar to produce the art that you put on your floor. Maybe you should ask them how they feel about the value of the Arts. > Expect the best from children and you will receive it...and give > all children a chance without judgement, you don't know where that > child has been in life. I would rephrase this, "Demand the best from children and most often you will get more than if allow them to be self-directed." The only Minneapolis link here is that probably many people, especially teachers and MPS administrators, probably agree with Ms. Gallagher, which may explain why achievement is so low in our schools. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
