Greetings Economists, On Oct 27, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
I think the burden of proof is on anyone who claims it is of pedagogical utility to know the past record of students, including records of their intelligence(s). Such information is more apt to mislead than to guide.
Doyle; It is necessary to know if a child has a learning disability. This carving of islands of intelligence does matter in terms of how someone will be taught. If one of course as your Mother did ignores past reports of difficult learners to give them an unbiased treatment then surely someone who was unrecognized with a learning disability would have a fairer chance of being taught with equal treatment than someone whose record says they were an unqualified dumb ass. Unteachably stupid because the 'moron' (a word coined to mean one can't learn to read) can't read. See the example of the famous painter, Chuck Close, as a good example of Carrol's Mothers methods. He was given the freedom to express himself by pictures when in his time dyslexia was not recognized as a learning disability. But I contend he could have much better training if they recognized his dyslexia overtly, as does Chuck Close say himself. thanks, Doyle Saylor
