Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Misconception #7: The schools need to keep lessons simple enough for all of their students to understand

Over the years, I have been writing about misconceptions regarding the schooling process. The purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with various comments that I have heard people make about schooling. These are meant as personal thoughts rather than conclusive proof, and I will admit that I'm not always the best at explaining my thoughts. Regardless, I have decided that I should be willing to share these posts when I encounter someone online who makes an argument that I have already discussed.


No two students have identical learning styles. In an attempt to accommodate all students, teachers tend to aim low. If enough students struggle with a lesson, the class may be asked to repeat the lesson. What about those who succeeded the first time? They will be subjected to the same lectures as those who struggled, and they will be assigned the same homework assignments. Teachers aim low, and faster students will always be asked to waste time and effort learning something that they already know.

Since the schools are supposed to ensure that ALL students learn what they need, the pace will always be oversimplified and repeated for the slowest students. Even below-average students must slow down in order to succeed at everything required by their teachers. This ultimately means that only the slowest students can have their educational needs met.

Not only is the pace designed to work for as many students as possible, but their methods are intended to work for everyone. Teachers are not going to add variability or explain anything in an overly complicated manner. 100% of all students are exposed to a single approach that meets 0% of the students’ individual needs. As a result, none of their students will be allowed to learn in an efficient manner. This can force children to develop bad mental habits, hate learning, and fail to come anywhere close to their educational and intellectual potential.

No comments:

Post a Comment