# Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success...



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve



> The Bell Curve is a controversial, best-selling 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray exploring the role of intelligence in American life. The authors became notorious for the book's discussion of race and intelligence in Chapters 13 and 14.
> 
> Named for the bell-shaped normal distribution of IQ scores, the book cites the rise of a "cognitive elite" having a significantly higher than average chance of succeeding in life.


 
What do you think about this idea?  The concept of the existence of a "cognitive elite" would certainly put a few people in a tizzy...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2005)

I think my own life is a pretty good peice of anecdotal evidence for this concept.  I was grew up about as poor as one can get in this country...even to the point of being homeless for a time as child...and yet, because of my higher cognitive abilities (MENSA), I was able to get educated and become successful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2005)

If cognitive abilities are a determining factor when it comes to success in our society, would racial differences in these abilities explain much of the inequality that we see today?





The data that generated this graph would indicate that there is a large spread in the means of the various curves of cognitive ability for various races.  If one looks at the percentage generated by dividing the number people in poverty by the total amount of people in the population and subtracts the percentage of difference between these means, one gets very close to the national percentage of people in poverty.

This may indicate that a huge reason behind the inequality of the races in this country is due to racial differences in cognitive abilities.

60% to 80% of cognitive ability is genetic in origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Within_societies


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

I think it should be rather obvious at this point that cognitive abilities are a pre-requisite for success.  More important, even, than many environmental factors.  Far more important than other factors, such as race and ethnicity.  

You'd be hard pressed to find a truly successful man in history who wasn't at least above average in cognitive ability.  

Of course, what does any of this tell us?  Should we restrict the success of the 'cognitive elite' to make it fair for those who are 'cognitively challenged'?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If cognitive abilities are a determining factor when it comes to success in our society, would racial differences in these abilities explain much of the inequality that we see today?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Those very statements are considered racist by a great many people.  Whether or not it is true is not even considered an issue, the mere suggestion is enough to have you labelled a racist in many conversations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Those very statements are considered racist by a great many people. Whether or not it is true is not even considered an issue, the mere suggestion is enough to have you labelled a racist in many conversations.


 
Which is exactly what happened to the people who wrote the Bell Curve.  However, what if there is something to this?  What does it mean for our society?


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

that IS racist!
unless u mean effort or mentality more than cognitive ability!
sgtmac_46 i always see u in posts defending racism hahaha
(just joking)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> that IS racist!
> unless u mean effort or mentality more than cognitive ability!
> sgtmac_46 i always see u in posts defending racism hahaha
> (just joking)


 Quote me as defending or advancing anything having to do with this post and race.  I was just predicting your response.  Glad to see you haven't disappointed me.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Which is exactly what happened to the people who wrote the Bell Curve. However, what if there is something to this? What does it mean for our society?


 The fact that it may be true, is all the more reason to label it racist.  If this were true, it might mean that it isn't 'whitie' keeping people down.  I do not propose that it is or is not true, i'm merely making a commentary on the nature of discourse.  The very suggestion is blasted as racist at the barrel.

As for what this means for our society if it is true, it may mean that all our investments in trying to bring black America as a whole up to a level playing field may be futile, if, it is indeed true.

Keep in mind, even if this is true, it doesn't mean all blacks are below average in intelligent, or that all whites are above average (I can guarantee that's not true).  It may mean, however, that more blacks are below average, and hence, end up below the curve in competing in society.

In that case, all the affirmative action programs in the world isn't going to level the playing field, as the problem is internal, not external.  What's more, if the problem in cognitive ability is inborn, then all the educational opportunities in the world isn't going to make up for it a great deal.

Much more research needs to be done before we can even remotely assume any of this research reflects anything in the real world.  I hope that there is an explaination for this phenomenon that is environmental.  If not, we'll have to fundamentally reevaluate a great many things.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2005)

These graphs the authers drew are coming from 156 different studies with literally millions of subjects.  I did some checking into this stuff and the weight behind it is astounding.  So it has been studied...quietly.  And that is one of the problems.  This topic is taboo in academia.  I would be very careful about approaching a professor to look at anything related to this.  So much for academic freedom...

Yet, I think research like this is important certain minority groups and important for society in general.  As you correctly illustrate, if this is true, then programs like affirmative action are not going to be successful because they don't really tackle the problem.  They only serve as a bandaid.  The differences in cognitive abilities in groups are still within the range that can be affected externally (60% of cognitive abilities are genetic and 40% is environmental).  This indicates to me that if one is serious about evening out cognitive differences in groups and thereby "leveling the playing field" one must invest in education.  

Would you ditch affirmative action in order to spend more on educating our youth?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2005)

This research also has an impact on education that goes far beyond race.  It shows that the "factory model" in which we have designed our schools is flawed.  In our country, a school is designed as a factory and kids are taught peices of knowledge like putting parts on an engine.  Everything builds on everything and everybody is expected to have a certain level of understanding.  This understanding is then measured with high stakes tests.  

For kids in the middle ranges of cognitive abilities, this works alright.  But for the 34% outside of that range, it leads to frustration and boredom.  This research tells us that certain kids, will not be able to learn certain subjects.  Which is something we've known for a long time, but most have been unwilling to accept because we want to think that our kids can rise to any level and learn anything they want to.  The truth is that kids in the middle cannot learn the things that kids at the top learn.  And kids at the bottom cannot learn what kids in the middle learn.  And kids at the top, they are bored off their asses with the stuff that the middle learns.  

The obvious solution is smaller schools that focus on cognitive differences between people.  Instead of high stakes tests, we need cognitive tests that help teachers understand how best to serve certain individuals.  A curriculum needs to be designed that takes into account a students cognitive abilities and _teaches them what they are able to learn_.  

With kids at the lower end of the spectrum, this is especially important.  These children don't need to learn the details regarding the Krebs Cycle or the subtlety of Shakespere.  They need to learn how to come to work on time and how to be consistent.  They need to learn how to hold down a job and how to properly speak to people.  They need to learn how to do some math, write a paragraph competently, and above all, they need to become good readers.  

NCLB attempts to set standards that will help kids with lower cognitive abilities (although it wasn't actually designed with that in mind).  Yet, this approach, when applied to every child, is not the right approach.  Certain kids can learn the details in Krebs, the subtleties of Shakespere, and Calculus.  Why hold them to a standard so far beneath their ability.  For them, the bar is so low, that its a joke.  NCLB would be a better peice of legislation if it had different standards tailored for different cognitive abilities groups and if the legislation carried the funds it would take to construct a new school model that would focus on teaching smaller more cognitively similar groups.

Just my thoughts...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about this idea? The concept of the existence of a "cognitive elite" would certainly put a few people in a tizzy...


 
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but things like "cognition" and "intelligence" are domain-specific in nature. Certain individuals may be the "elite" within their own particular domains, but can be absolute dimwits in domains they are poorly developed in.

As one general example (the same example that was provided in my developmental psyche textbook some years back), we can test undergraduate college students in, say, three different areas of intellectual competence: 1) a pendulum test involving some form of mathematical prediction, 2) an English test involving some level of language comprehension and composition, and 3) a test involving evaluation of a sociopolitical dilemma. We are testing for formal-operational cognitive capacity here, the ability to accurately formulate hypothetical third-person thinking.

And, what we will find, is that the physics major demonstrates formop capacities in the pendulum test more than 90% of the time. Likewise with the literature major in the English test and the political science major with the sociopolitical test. However, in the tests outside of their domain major, there is only about a 10% to 30% chance that they will demonstrate formop capacities --- which doesn't even mean that they're "right", but that they can demonstrate the ability think in a valid if/then third-person perspective.

So, you'll have to excuse my skepticism at the proposal of a monopolar "cognitive elite", but ideas like this are not supported at all by the developmental research out there. Intelligence is domain-specific, a fact that even Piaget began to acknowledge in his later works. Hell, _all_ development is domain-specific, whether we're talking about "cognition" or not.

The simple truth is that IQ tests are really, really, really outdated. I mean, we're talking friggin' archaic stuff here, going back to before the 1920's. This was before Piaget's research even, and well before the idea of domain-specificity and multiple-intelligences became well-etablished. That there have been both racial and cultural biases in such tests is also well-established.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 60% to 80% of cognitive ability is genetic in origin.


 
Sure, if you are in the psuedoscientific habit of collapsing causation with correlation.

I found nothing in the aforementioned data that clearly differentiated ethnicity from variables such as economic class, social upbringing, or cultural values. It shouldn't go without saying that there is a considerable overlap between certain ethnic groups and cultural standards.

I've been to Japan. Failure is a _huge_ no-no there. This carries into their educational standards, too. Can we clearly distinguish between ethnicity and cultural values here?? 

I don't believe we can.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2005)

Most of this work is based on the concept of "g" which is more then IQ.  What do you know about this?


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Most of this work is based on the concept of "g" which is more then IQ. What do you know about this?


 
Well, John, that's a tricky one....

"G" stands for "general intelligence" and is thought to be a general cognitive quality that crosses across virtually all intellectual domains. This notion dates back to Charles Spearman in the early 1900's. Concomitant with this position is the concept of "s", which stands for specific abilities that individuals exhibit within individual tasks.

My problems with this notion are three-fold.

Firstly, there seems to be a rather weak distinction between "g" and "s" in the first place, between general cognitive ability and domain-specific competencies. From where I'm standing, it seems that both "g" and "IQ" tend to favor a type of logico-mathematical competence, qualities that are highly valued in Western society (this is also what Piaget seemed mostly interested in testing). This is where the criticism of ethnic and cultural bias has its origin.

I find myself in agreement with Howard Gardner on this:

"I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. I do not locate talents completely within the human skull, preferring to construe all accomplishments as an interaction between cognitive potentials on the one hand, and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding culture on the other....All intellectual and creative work takes place within some kind of social discipline, craft, or organized activity, termed a domain. Accordingly, there is no sense in which one can speak about a person as being intelligent, or creative, in general."

Secondly, as Dr. Gardner mentioned in the above quoted excerpt, all intellectual competencies take place within the domain of a given sociocultural paradigm. Ergo, this attempt to attribute intelligence and cognitive ability solely from internal qualities is, in my opinion, extremely short-sighted. Rather, we must value the importance that culture and social upbringing has on what particular domain-specific tasks.

For example, in the spirit of this thread topic, one may question whether traditional African and Hispanic cultures value logico-mathematical ability to the same degree that Cacausian and Asian cultures do. Based on my understanding of these things, I do not see the same degree of intellectual value in the former cultures as I see in the latter. Likewise, there are certain competencies that are more highly valued in African and Hispanic cultures that may be overlooked in Asian and Caucaisn socities.

Thirdly, there seems to be a poor understanding of the hierarchical nature of cognitive development across domains. Intelligence is less like a thermometer, where one simply notes superiority on a simple numerical scale, with no significant qualitative differences from number to number. Rather, intelligence within any given domain seems to be more akin to biology's taxonomical scale, where there are qualitative differences from one "level" to another "level", not just numerical differences on the same scale. This is where the research of individuals like James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget, and Jane Loevinger is of use to us. From their studies, we realize that development occurs across the span of qualitative "stages" --- Piaget's sensorimotor, preop, conop, and formop being the most familiar.

So, in summation, my major contentions with "g" are as follows:
1) It does not strongly delineate between itself and domain-specific competencies.
2) It ignores the role that sociocultural upbringing and training has on development, with the accompanying biases that we should expect from an overemphasis on Western individualism.
3) It does not take into account the existence of different levels of cognitive ability within the same domain.

That being said, I would argue that "g" is not necessarily wrong as opposed to merely being a partial view of the subject. I also feel that "intelligence" is much more complex than many researchers would like to acknowledge. It is easier to fit everything under one easy variable, but easier does not mean more accurate.

However, you are correct in that there is only a partial correlation between IQ and g scores.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

man
sometimes i feel scientists BS us man
one day the come up with a conclusion 
next day they negate it!
im happy with the bell curve btw, im asian!
lol


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 24, 2005)

There are other noteworthy difficulties associated with attributing lack of "success" in general with any type of intelligence. To begin with, there is no standard or comprehensively accepted notion of "success" now, is there? For some, a loving family is success. For others, simply staying out of prison is success. Yet others feel a need to be exceptionally wealthy. The notion of success is quite subjective, and therefore, a significant barrier to even formulating any type of standard upon which to base any type of meaningful study of the issue.

Along the same lines, what about the idea of growth or evolution of one's individual value system? I may define success as "a" today, and "y" five years from now. So the notion of "success" is not only subjective, it is dynamic.

Furthermore, irrespective of what any expert in this field claims, I am adamant, and will remain so, that not all folks are afforded the same opportunities in life. In the way that I define success, opportunity can be a significant factor in catalysing one's efforts to generate "successful" results. So, until we are able to have a homogenous sample group for study that recognizes and accounts for such seemingly unquantifiables as opportunity, any postulation necessarily linking intelligence with success will, for me, remain quite arguably unreliable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2005)

Here is some more stuff on the General Intelligence Factor, or g.  If this was the measure of the cognitive abilities, then it would seem as if many more factors were looked at then just IQ.  

Also, I think its reasonable to assume that a portion of g is genotypical.  How much is the million dollar question is this debate.  Research in the book indicated that 60% was a conservative estimate for the genetic contribution and that it might be as high as 80%.  How much of g is environmentally dependent?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 24, 2005)

Still think we are quite aways from the "Seldon Plan"


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> man
> sometimes i feel scientists BS us man
> one day the come up with a conclusion
> next day they negate it!


 
Yes, it's called self-correction. Its a fundamental tenet of the scientific method.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2005)

In Dr. James Fetzer's book, The Evolution of Intelligence, he gives an argument that states that minds are not computational systems, but are semiotic systems instead.  Knowing this, he discusses "g" as the ability to manipulate signs in our daily life.  This explanation of the mind and intelligence is appealing because I think it smooths out a lot of the difficulties regarding varied cognitive abilities.  If all information we percieve is a semiotic, then a greater ability to manipulate these symbols neatly corresponds to intelligence.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is some more stuff on the General Intelligence Factor, or g. If this was the measure of the cognitive abilities, then it would seem as if many more factors were looked at then just IQ.


 
Well, as I said, there is only a partial correlation between g and IQ scores.

However, that doesn't change the validity of the three criticisms I proposed in my previous post. Much of the propositions underlying g have their bases in biases intrinsic to Western culture (individualism, materialistic "flatland", and logico-mathematics as being _the_ definition of "intelligence").



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, I think its reasonable to assume that a portion of g is genotypical. How much is the million dollar question is this debate. Research in the book indicated that 60% was a conservative estimate for the genetic contribution and that it might be as high as 80%. How much of g is environmentally dependent?


 
As I stated before, I read nothing in the aforementioned links that indicated a separation of ethnicity from values, culture, and upbringing. Unless that authors conducted studies that controlled for these variables (and I honestly have no clue how they could even begin to go about doing that, outside of testing identical twins versus normal twins), then I remains very skeptical.

That being said, the textbook in my introductory psychology class several years ago (I was still in high school at the time) left me with the impression that genetics had a closer to 50% impact on "intelligence". However, I find myself in sympathy with the epigenetic perspective and feel the entire _idea_ of separating "genetics" from "environment" is deeply misguided. It's a two-way system.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In Dr. James Fetzer's book, The Evolution of Intelligence, he gives an argument that states that minds are not computational systems, but are semiotic systems instead. Knowing this, he discusses "g" as the ability to manipulate signs in our daily life. This explanation of the mind and intelligence is appealing because I think it smooths out a lot of the difficulties regarding varied cognitive abilities. If all information we percieve is a semiotic, then a greater ability to manipulate these symbols neatly corresponds to intelligence.


 
Unfortunately, as I demonstrated with the example of the college majors in my first post on this thread, this "ability to manipulate signs" does not carry over to domains that an individual is unfamiliar (i.e., untrained) with.

The idea that our minds can operate upon symbols and signs is not new, of course. This is the basic idea behind Jean Piaget's representational thought structure, which is typical of the later pre-operational and early concrete-operational cognitive stages of development. 

However, as before, representational thought emerges at different rates in different domains. And, in some cases, representational thought may not emerge at all in certain domains.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

So, to surmise the argument being presented, either the inherent median IQ is lower in some ethnic groups, or the ethnic cultural mechanics are creating the problem?  

I had long assumed the problem was cultural myself.

As for the argument about success being impossible to define, I suppose it is if we impose an absolutist requirement on it.  However, we can certainly define relative success and failure.  In other words, we can define MORE successful in any given subject, compared, to say, something else.  

For example, those who maintain a loving and functional family life are MORE successful than those who get themselves thrown in prison, we can all agree on that.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So, to surmise the argument being presented, either the inherent median IQ is lower in some ethnic groups, or the ethnic cultural mechanics are creating the problem?


 
I would argue that any attempt to dichotomize "genetics" and "environment" is intrinsically mistaken, especially in regards to a phenomenon as complex and multifaceted as human cognition.

I think we should review the excerpt from Dr. Gardner that I quoted earlier:

"I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. I do not locate talents completely within the human skull, preferring to construe all accomplishments as *an interaction between cognitive potentials on the one hand, and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding culture on the other*....All intellectual and creative work *takes place within some kind of social discipline, craft, or organized activity, termed a domain.* Accordingly, there is no sense in which one can speak about a person as being intelligent, or creative, in general."

The bold emphases are mine.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would argue that any attempt to dichotomize "genetics" and "environment" is intrinsically mistaken, especially in regards to a phenomenon as complex and multifaceted as human cognition.
> 
> I think we should review the excerpt from Dr. Gardner that I quoted earlier:
> 
> ...


 So, the argument is intelligence doesn't exist?  Or that there is no way of defining it?  

I always get the impression that someone is pulling a fast one when they start telling me that there is no way of defining a thing that is being disputed.  It always feels like a subtle debate ploy designed to end the argument.  Of course, that could just be my subtle paranoia.  

As to your statement that accomplishment is an interaction between cognitive potential and environmental and cultural resources, I don't think anyone has disputed that at all.  That seems rather obvious.  The problem we run in to, however, is WHICH cognitive abilities allow one individual in a given environment to achieve greater accomplishment than another in the same environment.  Far from refuting the impact of intelligence, all that does is create a bit of a smoke screen by stating the obvious.

No where has anyone claimed what we are generally referring to as intelligence exists in a vaccuum.  Of course environmental factors and cultural factors apply.   Intelligence, as generally defined, is a rough estimate of the overall range of generally potential ability.  The extent to which that intelligence is deployed is subject to environmental and cultural factors.  The actual application of that potential will fall anyone along a LONG range of potential applications, based on environmental factors.

However, if you lack the potential from the onset, then no number of environmental and cultural factors will INCREASE your range.  I think that is the point Upnorthkyosa was trying to make.  The potential is a prerequisite, not a guarantee.  I don't think anyone has said anything that refutes that assertion.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So, the argument is intelligence doesn't exist?


 
Correct. A cross-domain, universal "intelligence" does not exist.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Correct. A cross-domain, universal "intelligence" does not exist.
> 
> Laterz.


 
How exactly is this defined?  Are Gardner's catagories part of this?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How exactly is this defined? Are Gardner's catagories part of this?


 It's a tap-dance, upnorth, a bit of a dodge.  The reality is that creativity and intelligence, whatever we define them as, have a direct effect on success in a given environment, even if we intentionally muddy the waters so as to make the very discussion meaningless (which IS a debate ploy).

Put simply, it is the interaction of intelligence, and it's many different definitions, with the environment (including cultural factors) that create relative success and achievement.

For example, Einstein's theories were a result of Einstein's intelligence (whatever you want to define it as) WITH the environmental and cultural factors.  Meaning, Einstein was a product of intellect PLUS his environment.  Had Einstein lived in 1st century Europe, he would not have developed the theory of relatively.

Likewise, however, had Einstein been a cat, or had the intellect of an average human, the cultural and environmental factors would not have allowed him to produce the theory of relativity.  

The initial criteria is the intellect, through which the other factors are then filtered to produce an outcome.  In an environment that prizes creative and abstract thought, and rewards those abilities, below average intelligence will lead to below average success, no matter what environmental factors that person is exposed to.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2005)

The theory on semiotic systems, with which I am not familiar, reminds me of the "all learning/reasoning is by analogy" (analogic reaasoning) theory.

As to _g_, we are used to categorizing ourselves and others on a stupid-->smart scale, one-dimensionally. Is it that simple? There seems to be lots of evidence for domains of competence. We forget how much we focus on academic/technical competence these days. I would love to believe in such a simple model as _g_--but I don't think it's adequately supported by evidence. Yet, I also don't know how well high competence in area A is correlated with competence in area B--which would "look like" _g_ (if such correlations were typical).


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The theory on semiotic systems, with which I am not familiar, reminds me of the "all learning/reasoning is by analogy" (analogic reaasoning) theory.
> 
> As to _g_, we are used to categorizing ourselves and others on a stupid-->smart scale, one-dimensionally. Is it that simple? There seems to be lots of evidence for domains of competence. We forget how much we focus on academic/technical competence these days. I would love to believe in such a simple model as _g_--but I don't think it's adequately supported by evidence. Yet, I also don't know how well high competence in area A is correlated with competence in area B--which would "look like" _g_ (if such correlations were typical).


 
I guess to put it simply, there are individuals who have high "scores" in all fields.  Some people are talented in ALL of Gardner's nine intelligences.  The cumulative "score" if a test existed for all fields, could be considered g.  I'm not sure if the work I cited goes that far in trying to test intelligence, though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's a tap-dance, upnorth, a bit of a dodge. The reality is that creativity and intelligence, whatever we define them as, have a direct effect on success in a given environment, even if we intentionally muddy the waters so as to make the very discussion meaningless (which IS a debate ploy).
> 
> Put simply, it is the interaction of intelligence, and it's many different definitions, with the environment (including cultural factors) that create relative success and achievement.
> 
> ...


 
There is a lot of ideologic pressure in the US to show that "all men are created equal."  This is a founding principle of our country.  My point in this debate is this...what if all men are not created equal?  Sure, that thought may be wholley unamerican, but what if its true?  Working with the people that I work with on a daily basis, I think about this alot.  I wonder how, after all of the good intentioned effort of others, people still manage to fail.  

This argument doesn't have to be about race and actual differences.  We could just as easily talk about humans as a whole.  What reasons do we have to believe that "intelligence" is not something that is normally distributed on the bell curve?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 25, 2005)

Reminds me of Harrison Bergeron


> "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so."


  A pretty good movie that I enjoyed, and worth checking out

The problem is that "All Men Are Created Equal" is really only suppose to apply to human rights,  liberty,  freedom, justice in terms of everbody desearving to be treated the same; equal before the law.  It does not mean that all people are created equally in terms of mental and physcial cabability or opportunity.

As Martial Artists we talk about this all the time.  There are many arts and what "art" works for you is partially dependent on physical things you can't control, like your height, weight, and muscle/bone structure.  Granted, with a lot of hard work and drive an time training and self-discipline, almost anyone can be good at almost any art, but every time someone asks "what's the best art for me to learn" the answer is given as "it depends on you" and there seems to be an implicit admission in that answer that not everyone is created equal, physically.   If the intelligence is really just a matter of the physical wiring of the brain, then physical differences equal mental differences as well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is a lot of ideologic pressure in the US to show that "all men are created equal." This is a founding principle of our country. My point in this debate is this...what if all men are not created equal? Sure, that thought may be wholley unamerican, but what if its true? Working with the people that I work with on a daily basis, I think about this alot. I wonder how, after all of the good intentioned effort of others, people still manage to fail.
> 
> This argument doesn't have to be about race and actual differences. We could just as easily talk about humans as a whole. What reasons do we have to believe that "intelligence" is not something that is normally distributed on the bell curve?


 Well, actually, when the Declaration said "All men are created equal" it is important to read the next couple lines "and are endowed by their creator with certainly inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'

It was never meant to say that all men are born with the same faculties and abilities, far from it.  In fact, because men are born with disparities in natural abilities, it is important to guarantee certain inalienable rights.

However, nowhere did it say that all men have the right to the same level of success, merely that all men should have their basic rights respected.  Also, there is no guarantee of success..the 'pursuit of happiness', not a guarantee of it's aquisition.

Again, it has been clear from the beginning of time that some men are MORE equal than others.  That some people are born with more talent, natural ability, whatever you want to call it, is clear.

That it may be that all races aren't exactly and proportionally equal, may be true as well, we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That it may be that all races aren't exactly and proportionally equal, may be true as well, we'll just have to wait and see.


 
Good points about the Declaration.  I often think it gets misread.

Regarding the question of race and intelligences, I suspect that if we were to test all of Gardners intelligences and form a cumulative score, the differences in race would disappear.  Since tests for all of these catagories don't exist (to my knowledge), actual evidence for this will have to come in the future.

Anecdotally, though, it often seems as if some races are generally better at certain things.  Yes, I know this is depending on stereotypes, but still, it seems that way.  For example, african american families often have great interpersonal skills and they form strong webs of relations.  And then their is the dancing, which would indicate a higher musical intelligence.  

FWIW

upnorthkyosa

PS - How many of Gardner's intelligences are actually testable?


----------



## Marginal (Dec 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is a lot of ideologic pressure in the US to show that "all men are created equal." This is a founding principle of our country. My point in this debate is this...what if all men are not created equal?


 
They're not. Regardless of race, some people are always going to be dense, some are going to be smarter. It's never been a question of who worked hardest for that brass ring. That's just pie-in-the-sky talk.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 16, 2006)

Regarding the differences between Whites and Blacks pertaining to intelligence testing:

"A particularly interesting line of adoption research concerns Black children who have been adopted by White parents. One of the most bitter controversies surrounding intelligence tests concerns the racial differences in IQ (Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1981). African Americans and Latinos generally score lower than Whites on the most widely used IQ tests (Anastasi, 1988), from childhood through adulthood. However, scholars disagree vehemently over the souce of this group difference. Some assert that the difference is due to ethnic/racial differences in intelligence (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1995). Others assert that the differences simply reflect the fact that IQ tests concern knowledge obtained in the majority culture, which Whites are more likely than minorities to have up in (e.g., Brody, 1992; Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1981). Interracial adoption represents an extraordinary natural experiment, in that it involves raising African American children in the White-dominated majority culture.

And what do these studies find? In general, they indicate that when Black children are raised in adoptive White families, their IQs are as high or higher than the average IQ for Whites (Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). Their IQ scores decline somewhat in adolescence but nevertheless remain relatively high. This indicates that the overall differences in IQ between Whites and African Americans are due to cultural and social class differences rather than to genetics."

- Jeffrey Jensen Arnett. _Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: A Cultural Approach, Second Edition_. pp. 90-92.

Concerning the proposed universalism of cognitive abilities across competency domains:

"But neither lack of intelligence nor lack of formal education is a problem for most college students. Instead, they have difficulty with tests of formal operations when they lack _expertise in a domain of knowledge._ Piaget (1972) himself suggested that adults are likely to use formal operations in a field of expertise but to use concrete operations in less familiar areas. This is precisely what seems to happen. For example, Richard De Lisi and Joanne Staudt (1980) gave three kinds of formal operational tasaks --- the pendulum problem, a political problem, and a literary criticism problem --- to college students majoring in physics, political science, and English. As Figure 7.5 illustrates, each group of students did very well on the problem relevant to that group's major field of expertise [90%, 80%, and 90% displayed formal thought in their domains, respectively]. On problems outside their fields, however, about half the students failed [only 60% and 40% of physics majors, 50% and 40% of political science majors, and 40% and 40% of English majors displayed formal thought in other domains]. Very possibly, then, many adolescents and adults fail to use formal reasoning on Piaget's scientitic problems simply because these problems are unfamiliar to them and they lack expertise.

As Kurt Fischer (1980; Fischer, Kenny, & Pipp, 1990) maintains each person may have an optimal level of cognitive performance that will show itself in familiar and well-trained content domains. However, performance is likely to be highly inconsistent across content areas unless the person has had a chance to build knowledge and skills in all these domains. More often, adults may use and strengthen formal modes of thinking _only in their areas of expertise._ By adopting a contextual perspective on cognitive development, we can appreciate that the individual's experience and the nature of the tasks he or she is asked to perform influence cognitive performance across the life span (Salthouse, 1990)."

- Carol K. Sigelman & Elizabeth A. Rider. _Life-Span Human Development, Fourth Edition_. p. 180.

Upnorthkyosa did seem to hit it right on the money, though: a general intelligence factor _does_ exist as a statistical construction (as a mean of one's intelligence scores). However, it's a far cry to claim it as an actual cognitive ability in human beings.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Others assert that the differences simply reflect the fact that IQ tests concern knowledge obtained in the majority culture, which Whites are more likely than minorities to have up in (e.g., Brody, 1992; Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1981).


 
The biggest problems with this theory are when certain minority groups score above the majority culture.  Asians and certain groups of jews score far above whites when it comes to intelligence testing.  Does their minority status prevent them from obtaining memes in the majority culture, or is there something inherent in these groups that cause them to score above the majority culture?



> And what do these studies find? In general, they indicate that when Black children are raised in adoptive White families, their IQs are as high or higher than the average IQ for Whites (Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992).


 
Adoption is in no way a random process.  Children that are chosen for adoption are chosen by the parents for various reasons.  The fact that black children raised in white families score high or higher then average on IQ is probably more of a result of the selection process.



> More often, adults may use and strengthen formal modes of thinking _only in their areas of expertise._


 
Ability testing need not only focus on adults where domains have solidified.  Children can also be tested...in fact, children are mostly tested in studies that compare groups because a young age can control for a variety of cultural influences.



> Upnorthkyosa did seem to hit it right on the money, though: a general intelligence factor _does_ exist as a statistical construction (as a mean of one's intelligence scores). However, it's a far cry to claim it as an actual cognitive ability in human beings.


 
Why can't one use these instruments kind of like a mental dipstick?  It may not be totally accurate, but aren't they are good enough?  Schools are already using these tests to make certain predictions regarding student success.  The majority of these predictions, IMO, are right on.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The biggest problems with this theory are when certain minority groups score above the majority culture. Asians and certain groups of jews score far above whites when it comes to intelligence testing.



This is a problem with the aforementioned theory only when you take what Arnett wrote out of its proper context, which was explicitly a comparison of the intelligence scores between Whites and Blacks.

The theory, if I may, maintains that different cultures (and subcultures) value certain qualities and abilities more highly than others. That other cultures (or subcultures) may value some of these same abilities even more highly than the majority culture in no way denigrates from the validity of this explanation. Rather, this criticism only looks at one-half of the data and then argues that the theory proposes something that it, in fact, does not.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Adoption is in no way a random process. Children that are chosen for adoption are chosen by the parents for various reasons. The fact that black children raised in white families score high or higher then average on IQ is probably more of a result of the selection process.



Perhaps, but you have absolutely no data to support this conjecture. It is simply an assumption on your part, one apparently motivated by an intellectual commitment to your aforementioned position on the subject.

As it currently stands, this data is a powerful repudiation against the claim that there are overtly "ethnic" or "racial" differences in intelligence testing. When sociocultural variables are controlled for, as I argued in an earlier post, we see very slim differences when it comes to racial differences in so-called "intelligence". This interracial adoption research helps to do that.

I must say I find your conjecture intriguing, though. For it to actually have any kind of meaningful validity, several hypotheses must first be validated. Do you also maintain that White children that are adopted by White families will also score significantly above the adopted Black children?? Do you further maintain that there is no significant difference in testing between Black children adopted by Black families and Black children adopted by White families?? What about White children adopted by Black families compared to White children adopted by White families??

Considering the number of premises needed to validate this criticism, Occam's Razor tells me this isn't a very powerful argument.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ability testing need not only focus on adults where domains have solidified.



Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the data on adolescents and young adults is still there. Although, I'm quite curious as to what age you believe these cognitive domains are supposed to have "solidified", as well as any data supporting this proposition.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Children can also be tested...



I would be interested in hearing your definition of "children" in this context.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> in fact, children are mostly tested in studies that compare groups because a young age can control for a variety of cultural influences.



Are you suggesting that all young children display roughly equivalent capability in, say, mathematical reasoning and artistic ability?? I find that hard to believe.

I am also curious as to the souce of you're claim that a variety of cultural influences can be controlled for at an early age. The research I've read, particularly concerning the development of particular linguistic abilities, seems to contradict such an assertion.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why can't one use these instruments kind of like a mental dipstick? It may not be totally accurate, but aren't they are good enough?



No. They're not. 

In fact, even a cursory understanding of statistics will demonstrate that a statistical mean is only valid if the variance in one's sample is within an appropriately small range. Extreme scores on either end of the variance will skew the data. In this context, this means that a child that scores average on items 1 through 4, but scores well above average on item 5 will have a resulting "general intelligence" that registers as slightly above average.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Schools are already using these tests to make certain predictions regarding student success. The majority of these predictions, IMO, are right on.



You're correct. They are "right on" in schools that emphasize a limited subset of cognitive abilities (namely, mathematical and linguistic logic). 

Ergo, these "predictions" have a certain hint of self-fulfilling prophecies to them: in schools that evaluate success on the basis of competency in math, science, and English, then _of course_ the students that score high in tests of math, science, and English will "succeed". Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

Laterz.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 16, 2006)

Having not noticed this thread until today, I skimmed over it when it showed up in the new threads list, and I'm going to add a few things to the discussion.

 First, I'm going to tell you about my background, because I think it is relevant to my opinion.  I am a special education teacher, with a BA in Psychology, an MA in Counseling, and I am working on an Ed. S. (Educational Specialist) in School Psychology.  I just finished a course on cognitive assessments which went over this very argument in great detail.  The information I will be sharing is an amalgam of information, largely from my recent course but also from my previous education and experience.

 Ability is a combination of genetics and environment; in general, a person is born with a genetic capability to reach a certain potential, and the environment in which a person is raised will influence how much of that potential is reached.  Various factors can influence how much of a person's potential is reached and how it is manifested, including, but not limited to, culture, early exposure to information and learning, parental education, economic status, personal motivation, language (both the language a child learns and background as a monolingual or bilingual speaker), illness, injury, siblings, birth order... any number of factors can affect how much of a person's potential is stimulated and reached - for example, the child of a musician will have different experiences than the child of a garbage collector; not necessarily better or worse, but different, and those experiences will influence interest, background knowledge, accessibility, and so on.

 IQ tests were originally devised for a variety of reasons, such as determining which students would most benefit from going on to secondary school (back when most students ended formal education between 6th and 8th grade, depending on the level the one-room schoolhouse went to), to determine who should be accepted into the armed forces, and to winnow out those who should not be allowed to immigrate into the US.  Because of these uses, many IQ tests lean heavily on verbal ability... an ability which, while mediated by inborn ability, can be strongly affected by environment.  Many intelligent people have strengths in areas other than verbal ability (Gardner's intelligences being a great example of this), and many people simply do not test well.  In addition, since vocabulary is heavily influenced by parental education (better educated parents generally have more varied vocabularies) and family income (also influenced by parental education) children of better educated, higher earning parents are more likely to score well on IQ tests.  Since motivation is a key factor in education, as are cultural expectations, children raised in cultures that favor education tend to be more motivated to succeed in school... and thereby gain the experiences that improve both their obtained scores on IQ tests and their school performance.  There is an article in the current issue of TIME that addresses why Asian immigrants to the US generally do so well - and it starts with the statistically-based concept that Asians who immigrated to the US were generally better-educated than members of other immigrant groups.   The IQ assessment generally used in schools is the WISC, although other tests are available; the WISC is an older assessment with a great deal of data behind it (although I'm not sure that that, by itself, is a good reason to use it).  There are acknowledged and documented cultural biases in the WISC, which are discussed in the examiner's manual in great detail, which give examiners information needed to interpret scores based on individual students' backgrounds.

 In addition, IQ scores are significantly correlated with one thing and one thing only:  success in school.  Success out of school is a very subjective concept, with as many definitions as there are people, and which may or may not include schooling beyond high school.  While many highly intelligent people are successful in a wide variety of fields, there are many other people who are of average intellectual ability (defined as an obtained IQ score of 85 - 115; qualification for MENSA begins at 130) do equally well; this is the motivation factor in the success equation.  As a special education teacher in a low-income school with a large at-rish population, I see this in many students:  those who want to do well, and/or whose parents want them to do well and are involved in their education, do better than those who are uninterested and/or whose parents are uninterested or uninvolved in their children's education.  Students who want to do well will ask for help in their classes, will come in for extra help, and will spend quality time on their homework - and this will invariably improve their vocabulary, which has the side effect of improving their obtained scores on that section of an IQ test.  The other side of that equation is children who are raised in low-stimulus environments; the classic example is children raised in Eastern European orphanages, who suffer from a variety of problems, both intellectual and emotional, which have been traced to lack of stimulus in their environments.

 Is cognitive ability a part of achievement?  Certainly.  Is cogntive ability influenced by genetics?  Also certainly.  Is cognitive ability influence by a variety of environmental influences?  Again, certainly.  Are IQ tests biased toward certain cultural (and often racial) groups?  Again, certainly.  

 Newer IQ tests have variations which provide the option to remove vocabulary from the full-scale evaluation of "g", but even those are biased toward people who are native speakers of the language in which the test was written - the K-ABC is an example of this type of assessment.  There have been attempts to create entirely non-verbal IQ tests, which rely on gestures (examples are the UNIT and the TONI) - but those assessments rely on gestures which vary by culture, and contain biases of their own.  There is no such thing as an unbiased IQ test, and therefore there is no such thing as an unbiased IQ score.

 There is no one answer to this question, and, I suspect, will not be for some time to come.  But it certainly makes for an interesting discussion!


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sure, if you are in the psuedoscientific habit of collapsing causation with correlation.
> 
> I found nothing in the aforementioned data that clearly differentiated ethnicity from variables such as economic class, social upbringing, or cultural values. It shouldn't go without saying that there is a considerable overlap between certain ethnic groups and cultural standards.



Well, I don't have time to rewrite the papers I've read and written on this subject during my courses for a masters in Special Education (not done yet!), but let me say this, the initial study is hoplessly inadequate to explain the "cognitive distribution" used to justify such racial (not racist!) stereotyping.

In short, it's bull.  Other studies with _*the same test subjects  *_show a much greater correlation between socio-economic status and cultural mores in determining "cognitive ability".  Also, I placed the term in quotation marks because conventional thinking in the educational circles is that most of this so called "cognitive ability" is in fact judged and tested biasly to begin with!  For example, some cultures teach their very young children much differently than others.  This leads to the children learning through different modalities and in fact tparents often emphasis learning different things.  Put simply, they think differently at a fundamental level that the tests do not address.

Now having said that, it is also clear that people who are able to learn and assimilate information quickly - however they do it - are more likely to succeed in life, whether they live in America or a third world tribal village _*as long as they have other abilites equally developed!*_

This brings up my final point.  I teach autistic and asperger students.  Autistic children often test off the charts in certain cognitive areas such as science and math - genious level.  But they stand almost no chance of success on their own.  Ever.  They can master Calculous, but they cannot do the rest.  They have no social abilities because they cannot understand it.  Eventually, an autistic child will hit his or her limit of ability and understanding of social cues, and it will take most of their life.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

Haha!  I wish I had read the whole thread.  Kacey covered it perfectly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is a problem with the aforementioned theory only when you take what Arnett wrote out of its proper context, which was explicitly a comparison of the intelligence scores between Whites and Blacks.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The theory, if I may, maintains that different cultures (and subcultures) value certain qualities and abilities more highly than others. That other cultures (or subcultures) may value some of these same abilities even more highly than the majority culture in no way denigrates from the validity of this explanation. Rather, this criticism only looks at one-half of the data and then argues that the theory proposes something that it, in fact, does not.




I think that one must look at all minority groups in order to understand the effects of majority culture.  If one looks at the data I posted earlier, it looks as if all ethnic groups "resist" the majority culture's influence one way or another.  Are we really saying that cultural groups in America are so different that they are the sole determinant of the measured differences?  In my experience, it seems as if we much of our culture is a shared phenomenon.  Knowing that, couldn't some of the difference be explained by genotypic difference?




> Perhaps, but you have absolutely no data to support this conjecture. It is simply an assumption on your part, one apparently motivated by an intellectual commitment to your aforementioned position on the subject.


 
I wanted to go back and edit the above statement to say "could easily be explained" because the only data that I have to back this statement up is knowledge of the adoption process...as in knowing that it is not a random selective process.  Asking this question, IMO, still casts doubt on the conclusions presented.

As far as my intellectual commitment is concerned, the only reason that I'm entertaining these thoughts is because I'm wondering if the current paradigm is creating schools that aren't giving kids what they need.  I'm not committed to these ideas.




> As it currently stands, this data is a powerful repudiation against the claim that there are overtly "ethnic" or "racial" differences in intelligence testing. When sociocultural variables are controlled for, as I argued in an earlier post, we see very slim differences when it comes to racial differences in so-called "intelligence". This interracial adoption research helps to do that.


 
If one "controls" the data so it produces certain results by using data, like the interracial adoption data, which is, itself a uncontrolled set of assumptions, then one really isn't controlling the original data at all.  One is manipulating it to say what one wants it to say.  With that being said, I think that it is possible to test peoples abilities by designing a test that focuses on a certain culture.




> I must say I find your conjecture intriguing, though. For it to actually have any kind of meaningful validity, several hypotheses must first be validated. Do you also maintain that White children that are adopted by White families will also score significantly above the adopted Black children?? Do you further maintain that there is no significant difference in testing between Black children adopted by Black families and Black children adopted by White families?? What about White children adopted by Black families compared to White children adopted by White families??


 
These are all interesting questions, but I have no answers.




> Considering the number of premises needed to validate this criticism, Occam's Razor tells me this isn't a very powerful argument.


 
Perhaps, but one must take care not to use Occum's razor to slice off bits of reality.  The question of whether or not the selective process of adoption affects ability scores is a valid one and it remains unanswered.  Until then, the conclusions drawn above are in doubt.




> Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the data on adolescents and young adults is still there. Although, I'm quite curious as to what age you believe these cognitive domains are supposed to have "solidified", as well as any data supporting this proposition.


 
I am not using the correct terminology.  Domains refer to something entirely different then what I wanted it to mean.  Im attempting to talk about cultural memes.




> I would be interested in hearing your definition of "children" in this context.


 
 Elementary age or below.





> Are you suggesting that all young children display roughly equivalent capability in, say, mathematical reasoning and artistic ability?? I find that hard to believe.


 
That isnt what Im suggesting at all.  In fact, Im suggesting the opposite and Im wondering if some of this difference is determined by our genes.  If a rather large portion (40% and up) of the difference is genetic then we may be teaching our kids with school models that are not giving them what they need.




> I am also curious as to the source of you're claim that a variety of cultural influences can be controlled for at an early age. The research I've read, particularly concerning the development of particular linguistic abilities, seems to contradict such an assertion.


 
Im assuming that certain cultural practices would be less ingrained in a younger individual.  Attitude toward education and learning, for instance, is something that can change overtime.  People who teach in inner city schools often report that students attitudes toward learning shift negatively as they get older.




> No. They're not.





> In fact, even a cursory understanding of statistics will demonstrate that a statistical mean is only valid if the variance in one's sample is within an appropriately small range. Extreme scores on either end of the variance will skew the data. In this context, this means that a child that scores average on items 1 through 4, but scores well above average on item 5 will have a resulting "general intelligence" that registers as slightly above average.




I see your point yet I still suspect that if all of the domains were able to be accurately tested and the scores were averaged, one would find that the combined scores (the real g) would still be normally distributed.  This indicates that there are certain individuals who have high ability in all of Gardners domains and that there are certain individuals who have low ability in all of them.  How our society reacts to this difference is very important.  

Right now, teachers in regular education have large class sizes and are forced to shoot for the mean in their curricular approach.  If the kids in our classes are normally distributed in terms of g then this approach is going to be successful with the majority of kids.  Yet, the more an individual diverges from the 50th percentile, the less the curriculum is going to service the childs actual educational needs.  

If we could somehow group kids by standard deviation, teachers could offer a curriculum that better serves a students actual educational needs.




> You're correct. They are "right on" in schools that emphasize a limited subset of cognitive abilities (namely, mathematical and linguistic logic).





> Ergo, these "predictions" have a certain hint of self-fulfilling prophecies to them: in schools that evaluate success on the basis of competency in math, science, and English, then _of course_ the students that score high in tests of math, science, and English will "succeed". Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.




One might want to consider whether high scores in certain domains will make one more successful or not.  I would wager that high scores in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and mathematical/logical would be a major determinant of success _in our society_.  An individual may have high scores in other domains, but these would play second fiddle to the big three.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

While Kacey's post as a whole was brilliant, there was one part that stands out....



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> Is cognitive ability a part of achievement? Certainly. Is cogntive ability influenced by genetics? Also certainly. Is cognitive ability influence by a variety of environmental influences? Again, certainly. Are IQ tests biased toward certain cultural (and often racial) groups? Again, certainly.


 
This sums up my own views --- and, I suspect, the views of most developmental and education psychologists --- almost perfectly. I couldn't agree more.

The only slight disagreement I have with the aforementioned post is the notion that one's genetics provide one with a predetermined "potential" or end-limit that the individual is capable of. I accept a more epigenetic model that both a) sees both human intelligence and human neurophysiology as incomparably plastic structures (examples including the Baldwin effect, the Flynn effect, and long-term potentiation), and b) sees human intelligence (in any domain or stream) as a dynamic relationship between genetics and environment (at all levels of interaction, whether they be that of the gene, the organism, the population, or the species). 

As such, along with Dr. Gardner, I reject entirely the "nature/nurture" dichotomy. The variables of genetics and environment simply cannot be selectively "teased" apart from one another so easily, as one mutually informs and co-develops the other. It is, in essence, a two-way system.

But, in everything else, I am in complete agreement.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> In short, it's bull. Other studies with _*the same test subjects *_show a much greater correlation between socio-economic status and cultural mores in determining "cognitive ability".


 
I suspected as much. 



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Also, I placed the term in quotation marks because conventional thinking in the educational circles is that most of this so called "cognitive ability" is in fact judged and tested biasly to begin with! For example, some cultures teach their very young children much differently than others. This leads to the children learning through different modalities and in fact tparents often emphasis learning different things. Put simply, they think differently at a fundamental level that the tests do not address.



Agreed.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Now having said that, it is also clear that people who are able to learn and assimilate information quickly - however they do it - are more likely to succeed in life, whether they live in America or a third world tribal village _*as long as they have other abilites equally developed!*_



Yes, but this brings up the question as to whether this "learning ability" is consistent across all cognitive domains (logico-mathematic, visuo-spatial, verbal-linguistic, socio-emotional, etc.) _or_ whether the supposed "learning ability" an individual possesses is context-specific within a given cognitive domain.

I feel that Dr. Gardner and his colleagues have amassed a wealth of evidence in support of the latter explanation. Hell, the very _existence_ of idiot savants seems to indicate that a general "learning ability" does not carry across all cognitive domains. Furthermore, some of the most compelling evidence comes from the ever-growing fields of neuropsychology and biopsychology. There seems to be an emerging consensus that our brains compartmentalize different areas for different cognitive capacities, which are usually referred to as "modules" in cognitive science.

I do not deny the reliability of "g" as a measure of testing, but question the scope of its validity. It is my opinion that it only tests for a limited subset of cognitive abilities that are available to human beings.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> This brings up my final point. I teach autistic and asperger students. Autistic children often test off the charts in certain cognitive areas such as science and math - genious level. But they stand almost no chance of success on their own. Ever. They can master Calculous, but they cannot do the rest. They have no social abilities because they cannot understand it. Eventually, an autistic child will hit his or her limit of ability and understanding of social cues, and it will take most of their life.



And bingo was his name-o.

Laterz.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> While Kacey's post as a whole was brilliant, there was one part that stands out....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you, however, one must certainly admit that there *IS a practical limit* to an individuals ability to learn and utilize information in the real world.  This is _*very clear*_ in working with Special Needs Students.  It's a type of "diminishing returns" scenario.  True, the student can continue to learn and improve their whole life, but realistically, they will reach a plateau wherein their progress will for all intents and purposes cease.  This is true of students with no other disability than borderline Mental Retardation - a disability BTW that is determined based on Stanford Binet IQ scores primarily.  This indicates that it is a natrual phenominon of the learning process that becomes more pronounced the less "cognitive ablility" the individual has.  Simply put, some people are smarter than others and no amount of studying in the world will change it.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yes, but this brings up the question as to whether this "learning ability" is consistent across all cognitive domains (logico-mathematic, visuo-spatial, verbal-linguistic, socio-emotional, etc.) _or_ whether the supposed "learning ability" an individual possesses is context-specific within a given cognitive domain.
> 
> I feel that Dr. Gardner and his colleagues have amassed a wealth of evidence in support of the latter explanation. Hell, the very _existence_ of idiot savants seems to indicate that a general "learning ability" does not carry across all cognitive domains. Furthermore, some of the most compelling evidence comes from the ever-growing fields of neuropsychology and biopsychology. There seems to be an emerging consensus that our brains compartmentalize different areas for different cognitive capacities, which are usually referred to as "modules" in cognitive science.


 
Absolutely! (speaking of Bingo :wink2: )  I am most definitely a fan Gardner's work, and not just because it makes sense - but because it works when applied to my classroom.  Autism makes much more sense and is much more managable when thought of in this context.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Simply put, some people are smarter than others and no amount of studying in the world will change it.


 
This really is the nuts and bolts in the debate.  You spoke above of a borderline where the returns diminish and one's abilities plateau.  I would imagine that this line exists in every single individual...including myself.  I just completed my degree in physics a few years ago and at the end of my degree, I was learning things that stretched me to the limit and pushed me a little beyond.  For example, I still don't really intuitively understand quantum physics and I know that others, my professors, do.  

So does it make sense to spend a lot of time, energy, and money teaching me the intricacies of quantum physics?  Not really.  And I think that this applies to other kids as well in regards to other subjects.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So does it make sense to spend a lot of time, energy, and money teaching me the intricacies of quantum physics? Not really. And I think that this applies to other kids as well in regards to other subjects.


 
Well, quantum physics most likely isn't as important to success as say balancing a checkbook, that's why there are standards for all highschool students who wish to obtain a diploma.  If a student cannot meet those standards, we are faced with a serious issue.  The reality we face is that it IS neccessary to teach these skills, and some students will not learn it by "traditional methods".  Are they stupid?  Not at all, because chances are that if you take the time to learn how the student assimilates knowledge naturally, you will find an alternative way to teach the student.  This is one of the basic concepts behind special education.

For example, in my Special Ed. math class last year I had a linguistic learner and an intrapersonal learner.  That meant that one had to be told everything and then re-read it, while the other couldn't stand the interuptions caused by my voice - he wanted to do everything by himself, totally alone.  Well this led to the idea of a headset for the student so that he would not continually run out of the class, and later I had the linguistic learner listen to my lecture with his eyes closed and his head down as he was primaily an auditory learner over a visual one.  Both passed a Geometry class taught to state standards.  differnt modalities, but the ability was there all along.  Now to be fair, I don't think either one will ever understand Quantum Physics, but it is up to them to try it in college if they want to.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that one must look at all minority groups in order to understand the effects of majority culture.



Agreed. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If one looks at the data I posted earlier, it looks as if all ethnic groups "resist" the majority culture's influence one way or another. Are we really saying that cultural groups in America are so different that they are the sole determinant of the measured differences?



I'm certainly not. For the record, neither does Dr. Gardner.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In my experience, it seems as if we much of our culture is a shared phenomenon. Knowing that, couldn't some of the difference be explained by genotypic difference?



Quite possibly. 

However, it should be mentioned that we do not yet know the exact genetic relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. It could very well be that the genotypes associated with intelligence exist across all human cultures and ethnicities.

At one time it was also believed that Piaget's formal operations were not prevalent in certain cultures, until culture-sensitive modifications to his tasks were developed. This could very well be the same case with traditional intelligence testing.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wanted to go back and edit the above statement to say "could easily be explained" because the only data that I have to back this statement up is knowledge of the adoption process...as in knowing that it is not a random selective process. Asking this question, IMO, still casts doubt on the conclusions presented.



Certainly.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as my intellectual commitment is concerned, the only reason that I'm entertaining these thoughts is because I'm wondering if the current paradigm is creating schools that aren't giving kids what they need. I'm not committed to these ideas.



I agree with your concerns here, but I also feel that traditional intelligence testing and standardized testing as a whole is a big part of the problem here.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I am not using the correct terminology. Domains refer to something entirely different then what I wanted it to mean. I&#8217;m attempting to talk about cultural memes.



With all due respect, memetics as it is generally used was mostly baseless speculation on the part of Richard Dawkins based on his equally questionable paradigm of "Universal Darwinism". To my knowledge, it has very little corroboration in developmental or social psychology.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Elementary age or below.



By age 5, most children have already begun to develop concrete operations and rules, which are pretty much culturally-informed. By age 2, children have already begun to develop pre-operational and symbolic-representational thought, which is strongly informed by both the dominant language they are exposed to and their daily experiences/observations.

I would be exceedingly skeptical of any attempt to control for cultural variables _within the individual_ after two years of age. And, even before age 2, we cannot entirely rule out the role of culture, language, and daily experiences.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That isn&#8217;t what I&#8217;m suggesting at all. In fact, I&#8217;m suggesting the opposite and I&#8217;m wondering if some of this difference is determined by our genes. If a rather large portion (40% and up) of the difference is genetic then we may be teaching our kids with school models that are not giving them what they need.



Neither I nor any of the others with psychology backgrounds on this thread have argued that genetics do not play a role in intelligence. Please see my outline of an epigenetic perspective in my previous post.

However, there is a difference between associating aspects of intelligence with genetics and associating aspects of intelligence with racial ethnicity. We do not know what genes may encode for intelligence, nor what relationship these genes may have with the genes that encode for a number of racial characteristics.

In any event, as before, it is futile to try to "tease" apart the influence of genetics from that of the environment. They go hand in hand.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I&#8217;m assuming that certain cultural practices would be less ingrained in a younger individual. Attitude toward education and learning, for instance, is something that can change overtime. People who teach in inner city schools often report that students attitudes toward learning shift negatively as they get older.



Be that as it may, the daily observations and experiences that a child has will inevitably vary from culture to culture. Culture has a pivotal role in the child's development almost from the very beginning, and definately by age 2.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I see your point yet I still suspect that if all of the domains were able to be accurately tested and the scores were averaged, one would find that the combined scores (the real g) would still be normally distributed.



Within a given domain, yes. Dr. Gardner has made it very clear that he recognizes competency within a domain on the basis of hierarchical excellence. Please see his "The Socialization of Human Intelligences Through Symbols" in _Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences_. The section entitled Waves of Symbolization is of relevance here. 

Across all domains, however, the validity of your hypothesis is far from clear. The problem is that, while it is almost universally recognized that cognition is domain-specific, we don't actually know _how many_ domains there really are. Even Dr. Gardner admits that his seven or eight intelligences may not be the only ones there are. In fact, in his _Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century_, he openly considers the existence of moral, existential, and spiritual intelligences (among others).

As such, until we conclusively determine exactly how many domains or streams there are, as well as devise a means of reliably testing for competency in each one, there is just no way of testing your hypothesis.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This indicates that there are certain individuals who have high ability in all of Gardner&#8217;s domains and that there are certain individuals who have low ability in all of them. How our society reacts to this difference is very important.



I find the existence of an all-high or all-low individual possible, but extremely unlikely.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Right now, teachers in regular education have large class sizes and are forced to &#8220;shoot for the mean&#8221; in their curricular approach. If the kids in our classes are normally distributed in terms of &#8220;g&#8221; then this approach is going to be &#8220;successful&#8221; with the majority of kids. Yet, the more an individual diverges from the 50th percentile, the less the curriculum is going to service the child&#8217;s actual educational needs.



"G" as it currently exists only tests for a limited subset of human cognitive abilities. There is a reason that Gardner's theory is so popular among teachers and education specialists.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One might want to consider whether high scores in certain domains will make one more successful or not. I would wager that high scores in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and mathematical/logical would be a major determinant of success _in our society_. An individual may have high scores in other domains, but these would play second fiddle to the &#8220;big three&#8221;.



I would agree with this.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I agree with you, however, one must certainly admit that there *IS a practical limit* to an individuals ability to learn and utilize information in the real world. This is _*very clear*_ in working with Special Needs Students. It's a type of "diminishing returns" scenario. True, the student can continue to learn and improve their whole life, but realistically, they will reach a plateau wherein their progress will for all intents and purposes cease. This is true of students with no other disability than borderline Mental Retardation - a disability BTW that is determined based on Stanford Binet IQ scores primarily. This indicates that it is a natrual phenominon of the learning process that becomes more pronounced the less "cognitive ablility" the individual has. Simply put, some people are smarter than others and no amount of studying in the world will change it.


 
I agree completely, provided we are addressing the topic of domain-specificity here. That very same individual may be "smarter" in one domain but "dumber" in another. A rather extreme example being, of course, idiot savants.

That being said, I never meant to imply that there is no end-limit at all that individuals possess. Rather, I was addressing the notion that this end-limit is genetically determined. I believe the end-limit is a result of interacting genetic and environmental variables.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Absolutely! (speaking of Bingo :wink2: ) I am most definitely a fan Gardner's work, and not just because it makes sense - but because it works when applied to my classroom. Autism makes much more sense and is much more managable when thought of in this context.


 
Truthery!!! :boing1: :boing1: :boing1:


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

I can't believe I missed this part....



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If we could somehow group kids by standard deviation, teachers could offer a curriculum that better serves a students actual educational needs.



Hmm. I'm gonna have to go back to Sigelman and Rider on this one:

"Finally, it does not matter much whether or not a school uses *ability grouping*, in which students are grouped according to ability and then taught in classes or work groups with others of similar academic or intellectual standing. Grouping by ability has no clear advantage over mixed-ability grouping for most students (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000; Rutter, 1983). It _can_ be beneficial, especially to higher-ability students, if it means a curriculum more appropriate to students' learning needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). However, low-ability students are unlikely to benefit and may well suffer if they are denied access to the most effective teachers, taught less material than other children, and stigmatized as 'dummies' (Mac Iver et al., 1995; Mehan et al., 1996). Too often, this is just what happens. As Hugh Megan and his colleagues (1996) put it, 'It is not that dumb kids are placed in slow groups or low tracks; it is that kids are made dumb by being placed in slow groups or low tracks' (p. 230)."

But, they later state:

"Finally, characteristics of the student and characteristics of the school environment often interact to affect student outcome. Lee Cronbach and Richard Snow (1977) called this phenomenon *aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI)*; it is an example of the broader concept of _goodness of fit_ between person and environment that we emphaseize throughout this book. Much educational research has been based on the assumption that _one_ teaching method, organizational system, or philosophy of education will prove superior for all students, regardless of their ability levels, learning styles, personalities, and cultural backgrounds. This assumption is often wrong. Instead, many educational practices are highly effective with _some_ kinds of students but quite ineffective with other students. The secret is to find an appropriate match between learner and teaching method.

To illustrate the ATI concept, highly achievement-oriented students adapt well to unstructured classrooms in which they have a good deal of choice, whereas less achievement-oriented students often do better with more structure (Peterson, 1977). Sometimes alternative teaching methods work equally well with highly capable students, but only one of them suits less capable students. In one study, for example, highly distractible students got more from computer-assisted instruction than from a teacher's presentation of the same material, whereas more attentive students benefitted from both methods (Orth & Martin, 1994). Finally, students tend to have more positive outcomes when they and their teacher share similar backgrounds (Goldwater & Nutt, 1999). Evidence of the importance of the fit between student and classrom environment implies that educational programs are likely to be most effective when they are highly individualized --- tailored to suit each student's developmental competence and needs."

- Carol K. Sigelman & Elizabeth A. Rider. _Life-Span Human Development, Fourth Edition_. pp. 266-267.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I find the existence of an all-high or all-low individual possible, but extremely unlikely.


 
Why would this be so implausible?  I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that we all have an equal amount of intelligence points to spread among the domains.  In fact, in my line of work, I see plenty of individuals that would qualify as low in most domains.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I can't believe I missed this part....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
These guys are on the right track, but educational research has moved on quite a bit in the last twenty five years.  Differentiated instruction based on ability groupings is coming back.  So is tracking by ability...mostly by the "Big Three" of Gardner's domains which I listed above.  There is still alot of resistence to tracking though.  People are clinging to the Blank Slate model.  

I find it sad that the authors above would say that ability grouping would work well with kids on the right of the bell curve but not the left.  Throwing lower ability kids into the mix with others who are at the mean or above can be very frustrating and demeaning.  They are over their heads and they know it and they hope to god that no one else knows it, so they often act out and "remove" themselves from class.  Thus destroying their educational opportunities.  When these kids recieve instruction that is more on their levels, they are engaged in learning and even enjoy it.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

Uh oh...


We're comming dangerously close to the segregation / inclusion debate - a totally different animal


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 18, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Uh oh...
> 
> 
> We're comming dangerously close to the segregation / inclusion debate - a totally different animal


 
This discussion regarding the limitations set by cognitive ability has a direct impact on the outcome of the segregation/inclusion debate.  

For the layman, segregation, in the educational sense, means taking low cognitive ability kids and putting them in their own classes.  Inclusion puts these kids in a classroom with the general population of students.  The philosophy behind each is based on cognitive theories and social conditions.

Segregation, for instance, takes a look at kids cognitive limitations and attempts to teach kids what they are really able to learn.  Inclusion is based off the fact that low ability kids have been treated like second class citizens in schools and they do not get the resources they need for a quality education AND the premise that putting kids in an environment that challenges their abilities, will ultimately bring those kids up higher then if they were segregated.

My initial thought on this is that if a kid does not not have the cognitive ability to learn certain things, NO amount of effort will be enough to teach them those things.  

The segregation/inclusion debate can also be applied to high ability students.  Does one pull them out of the regular classroom so they can be challenged to the highest degree or does one keep them in the regular classroom so they can help bring others up?

Again, I think it is important to give these kids the challenges they need to rise as high as they can.  In a regular classroom environment, this can be very difficult because the rigor and amount of the work can seem really unfair.  This is complicated by the "teach to the mean" approach that many (most) teachers use.  The end result of inclusion of high ability kids is that they are bored and frustrated with school.

This is an ironic mirror image of what low ability kids feel.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 18, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For the layman, segregation, in the educational sense, means taking low cognitive ability kids and putting them in their own classes. Inclusion puts these kids in a classroom with the general population of students. The philosophy behind each is based on cognitive theories and social conditions.
> 
> Segregation, for instance, takes a look at kids cognitive limitations and attempts to teach kids what they are really able to learn. Inclusion is based off the fact that low ability kids have been treated like second class citizens in schools and they do not get the resources they need for a quality education AND the premise that putting kids in an environment that challenges their abilities, will ultimately bring those kids up higher then if they were segregated.
> 
> ...



And herein lies the layman's problem:  the vast majority of students in special education do NOT have low cognitive abilities; they have learning disabilities.  By definition, cognitive delay is NOT a learning disability; it falls under a different definition entirely, and accounts for less than 1% of students identified for special education.  The legal definition of a learning disability is:

[SIZE=-1](A) IN GENERAL- The term "specific learning    disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological    processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which    disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,    write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such    conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,    dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not    include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing,    or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of    environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
  [/SIZE]​ When discussing inclusion and segregation, this definition is vital.  As a special education teacher, students with learning disabilities are the ones I work with the most.  They are NORMAL kids who have difficulty learning for one or more reasons.  The two most common learning differences are

*Specific learning disability:* A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. 
*Speech or language impairment:* A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired  articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance. ​These kids need additional instruction - not DIFFERENT instruction.  The vast majority of them are able to learn the same material as their peers, but they may need extra time, may not be able to read as well as their peers but can demonstrate competence/understanding verbally, and so on - but as long as they are segregated from their peers, they will have only each other to model and learn from.  It has been proven that if students are placed only in ability-homogeneous groups, the average and below-average students will only achieve at the level of the highest student in the grouping; if they are placed in heterogeneous groups for most of the day and provided additional instruction where needed, the average performance of the group as a whole improves.  High achieving students achieve well regardless of the grouping.  The key is to provide heterogeneous grouping for general instruction, and homogeneous grouping for additional instruction, during which time students who need extra help recieve it, and students who don't need extra help can recieve enhancement to improve their skills beyond the grade standard.


Even for students who are cognitively delayed, inclusion is a legal requirement.  The two key phrases are "least-restrictive environment" - that is, it is legally required that disabled students be educated in an environment as close to that in which their non-disabled peers are educated as possible, and "free and appropriate public education", which is just what it sounds like.  The overlap between "least-restrictive" and "appropriate" is where inclusion and segregation exist - even for the most cognitively delayed students (and there is a student at my school with a tested IQ of 37) can benefit from inclusion in classes such as art.  Will this student ever draw like her peers?  Not likely... but they will model appropriate behavior for her in a way not possible if she spent all day, every day, in a room with only other cognitively-delayed students... and likewise, her peers learn from her about the range of human ability, and the need for empathy.  Less-impacted students benefit from inclusion in PE, Health, Choir, and so on.  Learning disabled students and speech/language students, by definition, have normal intelligence, and, if they experience difficulty reading, writing, and/or doing math, can still learn the concepts through participation in oral discussions in all subjects, and can be assessed through alternative means.


Sorry to go on so long, but I live with this argument every day.  Remember, special education is not a place, it is a service-delivery method regulated by federal law.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 18, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This discussion regarding the limitations set by cognitive ability has a direct impact on the outcome of the segregation/inclusion debate.



Well, in as much as proponents of inclusion believe that cognitive ability has zero place in determining where a child goes to class.  In full inclusion - which is considerd by the "experts" to be the only form of inclusion that will work - places all children of the same age in the same classroom; special needs, exceptional needs, and "average" students alike.



> For the layman, segregation, in the educational sense, means taking low cognitive ability kids and putting them in their own classes. Inclusion puts these kids in a classroom with the general population of students. The philosophy behind each is based on cognitive theories and social conditions.



Most people on tyhis forum will have gone to school that practiced this model.  Think Special Ed. classes down the hall, and gifted and talented classes upstairs.



> Segregation, for instance, takes a look at kids cognitive limitations and attempts to teach kids what they are really able to learn. Inclusion is based off the fact that low ability kids have been treated like second class citizens in schools and they do not get the resources they need for a quality education AND the premise that putting kids in an environment that challenges their abilities, will ultimately bring those kids up higher then if they were segregated.



Well, of course it goes much deeper than that, and both sides are full of studies, case histories and social theoryies to justify their positions



> My initial thought on this is that if a kid does not not have the cognitive ability to learn certain things, NO amount of effort will be enough to teach them those things.
> 
> The segregation/inclusion debate can also be applied to high ability students. Does one pull them out of the regular classroom so they can be challenged to the highest degree or does one keep them in the regular classroom so they can help bring others up?
> 
> ...



Well, here is where we agree.  Reality has no time for "ideal classtroom conditions"  required for the concept of inclusion to work.  However, with the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) directive by our glorious leader completely neglecting to even mention Special Needs students, let alone make provisions for them, inclusion has gained significant popularity because that's a possible way to bring up all test scores - theoretically.  Remember, those high functioning kids become "peer educators" under the inclusive classroom setting.  In reality, the low functioning kids are literally removed from school so that inclusion looks better, and test score do indeed meet the minimum required by NCLB to continue recieving their funding.

The problem is, if we accept Gardners intelligences as valid, then we quickly realize that no single classroom could ever hope to address the needs of 40 students at once, aspecially if you include students who are Emotionally Disturbed, Autistic, Mentally Retarded, etc. all in the same classroom.  Mark my words, by the time we get rid of NCLB you will see a vast majority of Special Needs students shuffled off to non-public schools like the one I teach at because it is WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to keep them in public school.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 18, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> And herein lies the layman's problem: the vast majority of students in special education do NOT have low cognitive abilities; they have learning disabilities. By definition, cognitive delay is NOT a learning disability; it falls under a different definition entirely, and accounts for less than 1% of students identified for special education. The legal definition of a learning disability is:
> [SIZE=-1](A) IN GENERAL- The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. [/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1](B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1](C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.​




Also, remember that in order to be defined as Special Ed. the student needs to be 2 or more years behind his / her peer group grade level.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
  [/SIZE]​


> When discussing inclusion and segregation, this definition is vital. As a special education teacher, students with learning disabilities are the ones I work with the most. They are NORMAL kids who have difficulty learning for one or more reasons. The two most common learning differences are
> *Specific learning disability:* A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
> *Speech or language impairment:* A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance. ​These kids need additional instruction - not DIFFERENT instruction.



I think it's important for the layman to understand that  - in context of this discussion thread - that both regular education and special education should involve teaching to different learning modalities such as we have been discussing.  It is also worth pointing out that Special Ed. Students often benifit greatly from implimenting these strategies.



> The vast majority of them are able to learn the same material as their peers, but they may need extra time, may not be able to read as well as their peers but can demonstrate competence/understanding verbally, and so on - but as long as they are segregated from their peers, they will have only each other to model and learn from. It has been proven that if students are placed only in ability-homogeneous groups, the average and below-average students will only achieve at the level of the highest student in the grouping; if they are placed in heterogeneous groups for most of the day and provided additional instruction where needed, the average performance of the group as a whole improves. High achieving students achieve well regardless of the grouping. The key is to provide heterogeneous grouping for general instruction, and homogeneous grouping for additional instruction, during which time students who need extra help recieve it, and students who don't need extra help can recieve enhancement to improve their skills beyond the grade standard.



What is being refered to here is a "semi-inclusive" setting that seems to be at times the best of both worlds.  Most often the inclusive classes are NOT core ciriculum classes such as science or math, but generally classes with more social interaction such as P.E., Art, etc.



> Even for students who are cognitively delayed, inclusion is a legal requirement. The two key phrases are "least-restrictive environment" - that is, it is legally required that disabled students be educated in an environment as close to that in which their non-disabled peers are educated as possible, and "free and appropriate public education", which is just what it sounds like. The overlap between "least-restrictive" and "appropriate" is where inclusion and segregation exist - even for the most cognitively delayed students (and there is a student at my school with a tested IQ of 37) can benefit from inclusion in classes such as art. Will this student ever draw like her peers? Not likely... but they will model appropriate behavior for her in a way not possible if she spent all day, every day, in a room with only other cognitively-delayed students... and likewise, her peers learn from her about the range of human ability, and the need for empathy. Less-impacted students benefit from inclusion in PE, Health, Choir, and so on. Learning disabled students and speech/language students, by definition, have normal intelligence, and, if they experience difficulty reading, writing, and/or doing math, can still learn the concepts through participation in oral discussions in all subjects, and can be assessed through alternative means.



And this is the meat of the issue.  Let me be honest here.  I am not a fan of blanket inclusion - at all.  Luckily, the means exist - if the administration is willing to use it and not abuse it - to individually plan out every childs education to best suit there needs.  This starts by defining the student's Special Needs, and deciding what is in fact the least restrictive environment for that child.  Some children find themselves being placed in a non-public school or Self Contained classes because that is in fact the environment they need to succeed.  My students fit this category.  I teach Children on the Asperger spectrum with Behavioral issues and / or Emotional Distrubance.  Inclusion fror these children is simply not possible *AT THIS TIME.  *However, the main goal of my class is to get these children back into our "General Autistic Population", which is what my campus specializes in  In other words, we want them to have a less restrictive environment that they can function in.  After that, our goal is dual enrollment at a public school, then transfer to that school for the full day.  Some make it, some do not, but i believe that ALL of our students belong on our campus.




> Sorry to go on so long, but I live with this argument every day.


  Yeah, me too.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 18, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Also, remember that in order to be defined as Special Ed. the student needs to be 2 or more years behind his / her peer group grade level.
> [/size][/font]



Actually, this isn't true - it used to be; when I started teaching SpEd it was having achievement scores below the 11th percentile, but now it is based on a formula comparing the student's IQ (theoretical ability) to the student's performance on a standardized acheivement test (demonstrated ability).  The higher the student's IQ is, the larger the discrepancy required.  Unfortunately, a discrepancy criteria will qualify a student with an IQ of 130 who is performing on grade level, and not qualify a student with an IQ of 70 who is 3-4 years behind in all areas... and we have both at my school.  The latter child, who is much more in need of help, is classed as a "slow learner" and is not qualified for services under a label of "learning disabled" - luckily for said student, she DID qualify for services under a speech/language label.
[SIZE=-1]
  [/SIZE]


			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> [/indent]
> I think it's important for the layman to understand that - in context of this discussion thread - that both regular education and special education should involve teaching to different learning modalities such as we have been discussing. It is also worth pointing out that Special Ed. Students often benifit greatly from implimenting these strategies.
> 
> 
> What is being refered to here is a "semi-inclusive" setting that seems to be at times the best of both worlds. Most often the inclusive classes are NOT core ciriculum classes such as science or math, but generally classes with more social interaction such as P.E., Art, etc.



 Um... maybe not where you are, but where I am (Colorado) by both law and district policy, all students are included in content-based classes - and that includes the cognitively-delayed students, who DO go to Science, Social Studies, Math, and English, where they receive work on their level but in the subject of the class they are attending.  Not all students attend all classes - but all students are SOME grade-level content classes at some point in their day.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> And this is the meat of the issue. Let me be honest here. I am not a fan of blanket inclusion - at all. Luckily, the means exist - if the administration is willing to use it and not abuse it - to individually plan out every childs education to best suit there needs. This starts by defining the student's Special Needs, and deciding what is in fact the least restrictive environment for that child. Some children find themselves being placed in a non-public school or Self Contained classes because that is in fact the environment they need to succeed. My students fit this category. I teach Children on the Asperger spectrum with Behavioral issues and / or Emotional Distrubance. Inclusion fror these children is simply not possible *AT THIS TIME.  *However, the main goal of my class is to get these children back into our "General Autistic Population", which is what my campus specializes in In other words, we want them to have a less restrictive environment that they can function in. After that, our goal is dual enrollment at a public school, then transfer to that school for the full day. Some make it, some do not, but i believe that ALL of our students belong on our campus.



 There are no "special needs" schools in my district, except for the Adolescent Day Treatment program, which is predominately non-special ed students; in fact, it is very difficult to get special ed students into that program.  Nor do we have center schools - and our students, across the spectrum of ability and disability, are doing very well in most classes - and where they aren't, it is the fault of the teacher, for not following the guidelines of the IEP.  This is the clash between IDEA and NCLB - the former REQUIRES that students be taught with the modifications and accommodations necessary for them to succeed, and the latter REQUIRES that they be assessed without those modifications and accommodations.  This is just one of the many problems with NCLB.  My district is moving towards a response-to-intervention model, and my school already has one in place.  As I said, ALL students (with the exception of the 9 in the severe needs program - out of the 837 currently enrolled) attend all 4 grade level content-based classes (Math, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies) - and even the severe needs students are in at least 2 content-based classes (these students include two with autism, one with a childhood-onset schizophrenia, and 6 with abilities ranging from an IQ of 37 up to about 60).  They are in these classes with support, but they are with their peers - and we have had great success with this level of inclusion.  These classes are heterogeneous.  Students who performed in the lower 50% on the CSAP and/or who are recommended by teachers are needing additional assistance are placed in an extra class, in Math, Language Arts (or Reading, if necessary) or both.  This program was implemented last year.  While it has it's problems, it has also been very successful - and by very successful, I mean our failure rate is down, our attendance is up, behavior referrals are way down, our composite scores on the district assessment have risen significantly, and we had the second highest gain in NCLB-legislated assessments for secondary schools in our district.  We are an at-risk school, with unsatisfactory scores  - but we improved our students' performance by 11% last year, and if the program continues to work as it seems to be doing, we will be in the Average range this year.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems - but I lean toward inclusion, if only because these children will have to live in the world someday - and the sooner they begin to learn how, the more time they have to perfect those skills.  There is no single easy, clear, or obviously correct answer to this problem... but either way, it is still better than warehousing children because they are "defective" - or worse still, the old-style treatment for mental or physical defect:  exposure.  However bad the current system is, and however much debate there is, it is still better than it has been in the past.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Yeah, me too.



Those of us who know the problems and continue to work for the good of the children - measured in the success of individual children and aggregrate groups of children - are the only ones who truly understand the difficulties that face both children and educators.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> And herein lies the layman's problem: the vast majority of students in special education do NOT have low cognitive abilities; they have learning disabilities. By definition, cognitive delay is NOT a learning disability; it falls under a different definition entirely, and accounts for less than 1% of students identified for special education. The legal definition of a learning disability is:
> 
> [SIZE=-1](A) IN GENERAL- The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. [/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1](B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1](C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.[/SIZE]​


​When one considers Gardners multiple intelligences, the definition of SLD written in IDEA becomes obsolete.  If one had difficulties in certain academic areas because of "delays" or "imperfections" in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and/or logical/mathematical, there is no other way to describe it other then saying that the individual has a lower ability in one or more of those domains.  IMO, interpreting a learning disability with Gardner's model is fundamental in correcting the current model which lets too many slip through the cracks.



> When discussing inclusion and segregation, this definition is vital. As a special education teacher, students with learning disabilities are the ones I work with the most. They are NORMAL kids who have difficulty learning for one or more reasons. The two most common learning differences are
> 
> 
> *Specific learning disability:* A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
> ...


 
If one considers that these students have low abilities in one of Gardner's domains then it become apparent that no amount of additional instruction will allow certain kids to learn certain things.  Just as I will never be an olympic weightlifter no matter how hard I work out, these kids can NEVER learn certain subjects.  Thus there is a need different instruction.  Additional instruction may get some kids back up to grade level, but it does not always work.  And this, IMO, reflects the environmental vs genetic, things we can change vs things we can't, dichotomy.  The bottom line is that a certain amount of ability in these domains is predetermined...and this thought just may change everything about how we teach kids.



> The vast majority of them are able to learn the same material as their peers, but they may need extra time, may not be able to read as well as their peers but can demonstrate competence/understanding verbally, and so on -


 
What would happen if you scheduled your kids into an AP physics class with the general population of students?  Most would be unable to learn the material.



> ...but as long as they are segregated from their peers, they will have only each other to model and learn from.


 
This is not a bad thing when one considers Gardner's domains.  We already separate kids with low abilities in the kinesthetic domain.  We call that Adaptive PE.  Why is this done?  Because these kids can't keep up with other kids with kids with higher abilities.  What do they learn from being separated?  They learn to try their hardest at what they can do...and that is a very important lesson because it cuts alot of resentment stemming from false personal expectations.



> It has been proven that if students are placed only in ability-homogeneous groups, the average and below-average students will only achieve at the level of the highest student in the grouping; if they are placed in heterogeneous groups for most of the day and provided additional instruction where needed, the average performance of the group as a whole improves. High achieving students achieve well regardless of the grouping. The key is to provide heterogeneous grouping for general instruction, and homogeneous grouping for additional instruction, during which time students who need extra help recieve it, and students who don't need extra help can recieve enhancement to improve their skills beyond the grade standard.


 
The average performance of the group will not improve.  The average performance of the group will, however, be higher then what a low ability student can acheive on his/her alone.  The simple truth is that the high acheiving students will drag the low ability kids along and many will resent the weight holding them back.  Thus, while it may be true that high acheiving students still do well in heterogeneous groups, it is also true that they are not doing as well as they could be doing if they were homogeneously grouped.  The end result is that heterogeneous grouping is negative for both high ability and low ability students.  The high ability students are being held back and the low ability students aren't really learning what is supposed to be going on in the group.



> Even for students who are cognitively delayed, inclusion is a legal requirement. The two key phrases are "least-restrictive environment" - that is, it is legally required that disabled students be educated in an environment as close to that in which their non-disabled peers are educated as possible, and "free and appropriate public education", which is just what it sounds like.


 
First of all, if we consider Gardner's theory of intelligences, then we need to change the laws that were written thirty years ago...and this should come as no surprise because we know so much more now.  Labeling a student with low abilities in one of Gardner's domains as "disabled" really disempowers that student.  They are what they are and perhaps it would be better for people to realize this, quit trying to make them "normal" and give them what they really need.

Further, the "least restrictive environment" isn't something that should apply to "disabled" students.  It is something that should apply to everyone.  If this is the case, then why do we hold our high ability kids back with inclusion?  It can (and has) easily been demonstrated that high ability students function even better when grouped homogenously.  Thus, wouldn't inclusion be giving them a "restrictive environment?"



> The overlap between "least-restrictive" and "appropriate" is where inclusion and segregation exist - even for the most cognitively delayed students (and there is a student at my school with a tested IQ of 37) can benefit from inclusion in classes such as art. Will this student ever draw like her peers? Not likely... but they will model appropriate behavior for her in a way not possible if she spent all day, every day, in a room with only other cognitively-delayed students... and likewise, her peers learn from her about the range of human ability, and the need for empathy. Less-impacted students benefit from inclusion in PE, Health, Choir, and so on. Learning disabled students and speech/language students, by definition, have normal intelligence, and, if they experience difficulty reading, writing, and/or doing math, can still learn the concepts through participation in oral discussions in all subjects, and can be assessed through alternative means.


 
Inclusion has a place in social settings within a school.  Certain domains identified by Gardner like the interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences can be bolstered by contact with dissimilar individuals.  Yet, in other areas inclusion is detrimental.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2006)

As an MAist, I know that there are certain individuals that can learn how to do a jump spinning hook kick and certain individuals that cannot.  I sense a lot of reluctance in people to say that mental abilities are similar to this.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 19, 2006)

Inclusion can be very good for the included child. It can have some benefits for the other children, but those benefits are _not _academic. The abilities and interests of the students make a big difference to the level at which a class is conducted. Bringing in less-prepared students tends to slow down the class, but more so, it tends to make the class as a whole less responsive. Those who are doing poorly and are less interested/capable in the material are less interactive (on topic) and more likely to be disruptive, even in the small way of looking obviously bored and thereby distracting other students. Give the same lecture/lab. to the top 20% of the class vs. a mixed-ability group and you'll see in the former much more questioning, discussion, and attention being paid. They reinforce one another...in a positive direction or in a negative direction.

So, for the included child the benefits/costs analysis is perhaps simpler, but for the other children, the benefits to their developing empathy and social skills must be weighed against the lowered level of academics they are receiving. We saw this type of thing--not inclusion exactly, but the effects of differing abilities--first-hand in moving from California to Indiana. In addition to all the other reasons why the class level was different, it quickly became apparent that in the rural area to which we had moved, expectations were different because fewer kids came to school prepared to read, etc. The level of your fellow students has a big impact on the education you receive.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 19, 2006)

The whole argument (IMHO) boils down to this.  Every student is an individual, with completely individual needs.  No one system of education is going to satisfy every students needs.  Therefore, opportunity for the student to seek and find their most effective learning environment is essential.  To me, this means that there need to be inclusive schools, but that there also needs to be selfcontained classes as well.  IDEA 97 may have provided for the least restrictive environment, but it also recognizes those environments as viable - all the way from full inclusion to hospital settings.

NCLB is a travesty of a plan that has essentially forced many schools to choose their student population based on test score potential.  It is the main reason why our non-public school has gone from 120 students to over 400 in the last five years.


Kasey - I'm surprised and not at all happy about the change in Special Ed. classification you describe.  As of 11 months ago when I took my assessment class for my masters, they were still teaching that the two year lag was the guideline.  Also, I have heard of some great success in Colorado (and N. Carolina I believe?) concerning inclusion, but it was a travesty here in California and in Maryland where I started my teaching career.  It was misunderstood, poorly implemented and most importantly, the teachers did not buy into the program - a recipe for disaster, I'm sure you'll agree.  And in California, there are still some schools that place their special needs students in Core classes with seperate work more geared toward their level, but for the most part, the schools have slowly gone back to grouping like ability students in the same classrooms, so a good mathematician might be in with the regular ed classes, but in a lower functioning reading program, but the main focus of inclusion has become the social aspect, not academics.  Personally, I have no problem with it as long as the student is experiencing success.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> [/indent]When one considers Gardners multiple intelligences, the definition of SLD written in IDEA becomes obsolete. If one had difficulties in certain academic areas because of "delays" or "imperfections" in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and/or logical/mathematical, there is no other way to describe it other then saying that the individual has a lower ability in one or more of those domains. IMO, interpreting a learning disability with Gardner's model is fundamental in correcting the current model which lets too many slip through the cracks.



I've read much of Gardner's work, and I agree with a fair amount of it. However, I don't agree with your interpretation, because people who have no natural talent for things have been known to learn them through sheer determination - because for some reason, they want to learn the information badly enough to overcome lack of a natural bent for it.  To use MA as an example, I was an uncoordinated and non-athletic child; I hated PE, and hated the time it took away from things I would rather be doing or learning.  When I was in college, I was talked into trying a TKD class.  I was horrible.  I had no coordination, no stamina, no understanding of body movements... the list is endless.  I certainly did not have an aptitude for it.   Nineteen years later, TKD is the focus of my life, and I cannot even speculate what my life would have been without it - because I decided I was interested in it, and persevered despite difficulty and even repeated failure before eventual success with various activities and requirements.  But based on a strict reading of Gardner, I should never have been let in in the first place.  I know a young man who was diagnosed as dyslexic in 4th grade, placed in special ed, and provided with direct instruction to bolster his strengths... his teachers repeatedly told his mother he would be lucky to make it out of high school, never mind any farther, because he just "wasn't a school kind of kid".  Reading and writing came hard to him.  He is now a graduate fellow in the Cornell School of Fine Arts - because he wanted it badly enough to do what was necessary, lack of aptitude with reading and writing notwithstanding.

The same concept goes for much of the rest of what you said.  Is inclusion the best method?  Not for everyone, no.  But I think it's a lot better than the mysterious corner room in the back of the school where "those kids" went when I was in middle school, about the time the first special ed law, PL 92-142, was passed - which was itself a massive improvement over the total lack of public education available before that.

Is the legal definition appropriate to every child's learning style?  Of course it's not... but it's what we have, and what we have to deal with... blurred as it is by the fact that laws are written by legislators, many of whom have never stepped inside a public school, because neither they nor their children ever attended one, and who cannot comprehend the difference between the average public school and the preselected sample that attends private and parochial schools - preselected because, no matter what else the parents do or do not do for the rest of their educations, they CHOSE to put the time, effort, and money into placing their children into a different setting - thereby setting up an environment containing only students whose parents are interested and invested enough in their education to put them there - and in a setting that can, and does, kick out any child who does not meet the academic or behavioral, and often financial, standards of the institution.  This is segregation - legal because it is not a public organization.  There are benefits and deficits to this - as there are to public education.  Modification for all students' needs is best teaching practice - that is the concept behind the response-to-intervention (RTI) model, one of the better ideas (in concept, if not in execution) to come up in education theory - and with some work, properly executed, RTI will lead to seamless inclusion of students with all sorts of needs - ELL, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed (long- and short-term), physically disabled, and so on.  

The educational system isn't perfect, and Gardner has some good insight into why - but his ideas are not the be-all and end-all of educational theory and need, and placing too much weight on any one theory or implementation method, his or anyone else's, leads, in my opinion, to rigidity and inappropriate responses to children's needs.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> The whole argument (IMHO) boils down to this. Every student is an individual, with completely individual needs. No one system of education is going to satisfy every students needs. Therefore, opportunity for the student to seek and find their most effective learning environment is essential. To me, this means that there need to be inclusive schools, but that there also needs to be selfcontained classes as well. IDEA 97 may have provided for the least restrictive environment, but it also recognizes those environments as viable - all the way from full inclusion to hospital settings.



True - and this is what we do, to an extent; we are using a response-to-intervention model.  It's not perfect, but it's better than some of what it's been in the past.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> NCLB is a travesty of a plan that has essentially forced many schools to choose their student population based on test score potential. It is the main reason why our non-public school has gone from 120 students to over 400 in the last five years.


 
I agree wholeheartedly - NCLB, while well-intentioned, is badly written, nearly impossible to implement, and not understood by the majority of the legislators who wrote it.  I'm all for accountability - but students, as discussed, are individuals, and make progress in a variety of ways and at different speeds - high-stakes annual testing is a rotten way to test achievement, especially when a school or district can simultaneously be failing under the definition of NCLB and yet be considered one of the best schools in the state - something that is happening all over the place.  In addition, NCLB is a punitive law - and the cost of the assessments has driven many school districts, especially smaller ones, to choose to not take federal funding because the loss of federal funding is less than the cost of administering the assessment.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Kasey - I'm surprised and not at all happy about the change in Special Ed. classification you describe. As of 11 months ago when I took my assessment class for my masters, they were still teaching that the two year lag was the guideline. Also, I have heard of some great success in Colorado (and N. Carolina I believe?) concerning inclusion, but it was a travesty here in California and in Maryland where I started my teaching career. It was misunderstood, poorly implemented and most importantly, the teachers did not buy into the program - a recipe for disaster, I'm sure you'll agree. And in California, there are still some schools that place their special needs students in Core classes with seperate work more geared toward their level, but for the most part, the schools have slowly gone back to grouping like ability students in the same classrooms, so a good mathematician might be in with the regular ed classes, but in a lower functioning reading program, but the main focus of inclusion has become the social aspect, not academics. Personally, I have no problem with it as long as the student is experiencing success.



I don't know why you were taught the 2 year lag, unless it was a misunderstanding on someone's part; for a child of average intelligence, the qualification equation comes out to about 2 years, but it varies based on the child's IQ.  For the most part, what we've seen is not a lessening of the number of kids in sped (which was the intent of the change) but a shift from PCD (which requires a discrepancy) to speech/language (which is a cutoff score).  

As far as placing sped kids in core classes and modifying their work - this is the ideal scenario, and falls under best teaching practice - good teachers modify for ALL students, regardless of identified needs.  Bad teachers don't - again, regardless of identified needs.  This is a lack in the system educating teachers - one that, I am happy to say, seems to be getting fixed.  My school is in a partnership with a university, and we get teacher candidates in all areas of the school every year - and the newer teachers both in that program and coming from others are MUCH better at modifying than the older ones, which I find very encouraging.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 20, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> As far as placing sped kids in core classes and modifying their work - this is the ideal scenario, and falls under best teaching practice - good teachers modify for ALL students, regardless of identified needs. Bad teachers don't - again, regardless of identified needs. This is a lack in the system educating teachers - one that, I am happy to say, seems to be getting fixed. My school is in a partnership with a university, and we get teacher candidates in all areas of the school every year - and the newer teachers both in that program and coming from others are MUCH better at modifying than the older ones, which I find very encouraging.



I agree completely that good teachers modify for all students.  Gardner as well as many others are a great starting point for modification strategies.  I find it heartening to see first year teachers entering the school year with strategies and new modifications that they can teach *us*.  I guess where I draw the line on inclusion is when the class would contain several students of significantly different cognitive / processing abilities or "learning speeds" because the teachers are then in effect teaching several lesson plans a period that are not complimentary. TA's or not, it's just not viable.  Last year, I had 11 students in my class - self contained all day - grades 9-12.  I am required to teach to the state standards which is something I am glad to do because I agree with it.  However, that meant literally teaching six different math classes in one period.  I had one TA.  Now this is of course an extreme example, but it's because of things like this that I think inclusion - especially at the highschool level - is a tricky proposition.  I wrote a minimum of 21 lesson plans for every day of school.  Servicing my students needs was near impossible, and I had to threaten to quit before the pressure was relived and I was able to actually be a teacher.  

Now, another thing about me is that my students have severe emotional / social issues and I consider it my *primary job* to develop these skills with them.  This is something that seperates me a little from "mainstream teachers" and public school thinking, so my opinions and beliefs are a little different from most, but in this pursuit I can't imagine NOT creating an inclusive setting for modeling purposes at the least.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 22, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I agree completely that good teachers modify for all students. Gardner as well as many others are a great starting point for modification strategies. I find it heartening to see first year teachers entering the school year with strategies and new modifications that they can teach *us*.


 I agree completely.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I guess where I draw the line on inclusion is when the class would contain several students of significantly different cognitive / processing abilities or "learning speeds" because the teachers are then in effect teaching several lesson plans a period that are not complimentary. TA's or not, it's just not viable.


 I think this depends on the system and how well teachers can work together; if you go into it with one or both teachers have decided that it is not possible, then it won't be. I have had some awesome successes team teaching with content teachers, and seen incredible growth in every student in the class, regardless of the level of the students, from SLIC (IQ below 70) to the gifted/talented kids in the same class. I have also seen it bomb horribly when the other teacher does not buy in to the concept of inclusion, and either ignores the SpEd teacher entirely or treats him/her as another paraprofessional (teacher's aide) present in the room. As far as students of different learning speeds, I have never written separate lesson plans - I have chosen the concepts from the lesson that are most key and then chosen the repsonse options that demonstrate at least a basic understanding of those concepts - but every child was participating in the same lesson; only the method of demonstrating understanding was different, and, when the content teacher cooperates, it works quite well. When it doesn't work, then every special needs child (be the need cognitive, learning disability, second language issues, visual or hearing disability, emotional disability, etc.) will flunk, because the content teacher refuses to provide modified work for students who won't even try work... the fact that the work is too hard notwithstanding. Happily, I have encountered fewer of those rather than more, and my administration is very supportive of special needs students (the principal has a child who was identified as special ed all through school) and keeps forcing the issue with those uncooperative teachers.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Last year, I had 11 students in my class - self contained all day - grades 9-12. I am required to teach to the state standards which is something I am glad to do because I agree with it. However, that meant literally teaching six different math classes in one period. I had one TA. Now this is of course an extreme example, but it's because of things like this that I think inclusion - especially at the highschool level - is a tricky proposition. I wrote a minimum of 21 lesson plans for every day of school. Servicing my students needs was near impossible, and I had to threaten to quit before the pressure was relived and I was able to actually be a teacher.


 See previous.



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Now, another thing about me is that my students have severe emotional / social issues and I consider it my *primary job* to develop these skills with them. This is something that seperates me a little from "mainstream teachers" and public school thinking, so my opinions and beliefs are a little different from most, but in this pursuit I can't imagine NOT creating an inclusive setting for modeling purposes at the least.


 The students I work with are primarily evenly split between learning disabilities and speech/language disabilities, with a few students with emotional disabilities and a few with cogntive delays, plus a couple with physical disabilities (cerebral palsy) and one with a vision disability (legally blind but with some working vision, very constricted field and acuity). Most of them are doing quite well in inclusion settings; the ones who aren't are having the problem I described above - because they are given work they cannot do, and therefore do not complete (or complete incorrectly - and the teacher I'm thinking of will give no credit for effort if over half the answers are wrong - so why try? I wouldn't), the teacher will not modify because they are, in the teacher's view, lazy; this generally leads to motiviation problems that can spill over into other classes. This is the fault of the *teacher, *not the student. I have provided alternate assignments for many of these teachers, and they can't be bothered to use them - even when I provide packets of ready-to-assign work that have been successful in the same content with a different teacher in the building, some teachers cannot be bothered - but again, that is the teacher's fault, not the student's, and while it makes inclusion ineffective, it is not the fault of the inclusion concept.

 Are there some kids who should never be included? Maybe a very small percentage... but we have a lot of high needs kids in my school who are very successfully included in a large percentage of school activities, including sports, lunch, electives, and content classes - more in content classes, for some kids, than in the more social aspects, because that is where they are most successful; others are the reverse.

To go back to the original question that began this thread, "Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success..." I don't think so. I think that motivation, resilience, parent and community involvement and support, good relationships with at least one teacher or other adult in the school (the head custodian at my school probably knows by name, and is liked by, more students than any other adult in the building), interest in a subject, involvement in extracurricular activities, and so on all help children become successful, well-rounded adults with good social skills, and the ability to be successful in any area in which they are sufficiently interested. The only exceptions I see to this are children who are so disabled (emotionally, cognitively, and/or physically) that they are unable to lead independent lives - and even for those, a good educational experience can lead to a more positive outcome for the rest of their lives than a poor experience. Resilience, which can be an internal trait, but which can also be fostered, is as much of a key to success as cognitive ability - and like any other aspect of personality or ability, cognitive ability does not exist in a vacuum. 

A student with strong cognitive ability who does not learn, for whatever reason, will be at a disadvantage compared to a student with average cognitive abilities, and in some cases below-average cognitive abilities, who choose to spend the time and effort necessary to improve their abilities. This is where motivation plays a part in success.


----------

