 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
You
are here:
Little Jennifer is a genius. Her grades in school are not nearly as good as those of her older sister, Jessica; but as far as I'm concerned, Jennifer has a much more impressive mind. The Plural of Leaf is Tree
by Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D.
I certainly don't mean to denigrate Jessica. She is an extremely bright and conscientious student; and her straight A's in every class from kindergarten to junior high indicate that she has accumulated vast stores of knowledge and developed superb academic skills.
Meanwhile, Jennifer's scholastic performance has been a little spotty. She has always managed to bring home a better-than-average report card, but her occasional B's and C's have been accompanied by comments like "could do better," "should apply herself more," and "has a tendency to get distracted."
So if Jennifer is so smart, why is her record inferior to that of her sister? The answer lies in the notion that there is a significant difference between doing well in school and learning. And the fact of the matter is that because it's hard to quantify, the educational system routinely fails to recognize and reward true educational excellence.
As Socrates said over 2,000 years ago, "Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel." Unfortunately, report cards ordinarily reveal how much a vessel has been filled rather than the extent to which a flame has been kindled. The emphasis in most scholastic assessment situations is on whether a student's response is right or wrong. The process by which the student arrived at her response is discounted or disregarded. As a result, a response that is just as good or even superior to the one designated as "correct" often does not get the credit it deserves.
Consider the classic case involving a high school science exam. One question was, "How can you determine the height of a building using a barometer?" Most students, after recalling the relevant section of the textbook and the teacher's lecture on this subject, gave the answer, "Measure the atmospheric pressure at the top of the building, measure it at the bottom of the building, note the difference, and the calculate the height."
Two students were marked wrong for their answers. One responded, "Take the barometer to the top of the building, throw it off the roof, time how long it takes until you hear a crash, and then use the acceleration-through-space formula to calculate the distance it traveled." That answer was not what the teacher was expecting; but if you think about it, this method would work quite well.
The other student responded in a way that was even more ingenious. He said, "Find the owner of the building and say, 'Hey, Mac, if you tell me how tall your building is, I'll give you this beautiful barometer.'" Of course, the teacher not only marked this student wrong, she labeled him a wise guy as well. It's a shame she couldn't see that he really was a wise guy in the literal sense. After all, his method probably would produce the most accurate information with the least amount of effort.
I'm not saying there is no such thing as an ignorant delinquent who deserves to be flunked. The point is that for many children, the thrill is not in acquiring knowledge, but rather in manipulating that knowledge in an interesting manner. And satisfaction comes not from perfecting skills, but rather from applying those skills in a new and different fashion. Regrettably, these youngsters often are stuck in a standard system where they are frequently chastised and rarely cherished.
Also, I'm not saying one shouldn't be proud of a kid who gets excellent grades. However, it is critical to recognize that scholastic performance is not necessarily the sole indicator of a person's potential for making valuable contributions to society. Society needs knowledgeable and skillful people in order to function; but it needs creative and innovative people in order to flourish.
That is why the role of parents in the learning process is so crucial. Schools generally are designed to instill standard knowledge and skills. Consequently, they cannot be counted upon to have either the inclination or the ability to inspire creativity and innovation. Since teachers typically are trained and equipped merely to fill the vessel, it usually is up to mothers and fathers to fan the flame.
The best way to pursue this task is to take note the products of a child's mind, but to focus more intently on the underlying processes. If a particular product is clearly inappropriate for any reason, the child should not be criticized, and her thinking should not be stunted by the immediate provision of an acceptable alternative. Instead, she should be advised to review what she has done and challenged to devise something that is more suitable on her own.
Like a lot of parents, Jennifer's mother has difficulty adopting this philosophy. Because of her traditional background, the idea that schools are the ultimate authorities on all educational matters is deeply ingrained, and she believes that pleasing the teachers is the surest sign of educational success. So she was mortified when Jennifer replied that the plural of "leaf" is "tree" on a fourth grade exam.
Jennifer's father, on the other hand, was delighted with the way his younger daughter's brain works. Her reply caused him to collapse with laughter; and after he recovered, he and Jennifer had a fascinating discussion about the rules of grammar and their relation to the meaning of words, as well as the intent of a test and its occasional lack of connection to common sense.
His wife complains that all this is distracting their daughter from her studies and that it is just instigating trouble. Nevertheless, while he promises to discourage Jennifer from developing blatant disrespect for the formal educational system, he insists he will continue providing what he considers to be eminently appropriate exercises for enriching her mind.
For instance, the other day, Jessica was listening to CDs with her friends. When Jennifer tried to join the group, she was chased away and insulted by her older sister. As is normal in the course of sibling interactions, Jessica felt totally justified in her actions, while Jennifer felt terribly aggrieved.
Later that evening, Jessica, as usual, was studying in her room. Meanwhile, Jennifer was pacing the hallway outside, plotting her revenge for the earlier incident. Her mother told her to stop being silly and to start her own homework assignment. Her father, however, asked what she planned to do.
Jennifer said she was thinking about setting up a booby trap so that Jessica would be hit on the head with a heavy object, soaked with water, or otherwise subjected to pain and humiliation when she emerged from her room. Her father listened and sympathized with her. He also pointed out that although Jessica had definitely dented her feelings, no bodily harm had befallen her.
He went on to explain that while Jennifer might be entitled to retaliate with an act of humiliation, inflicting pain was out of the question. In addition, he introduced her to the concept of innocent bystanders. He concluded by saying that under the circumstances, she would not be punished for setting a booby trap as long as two conditions were met: Jessica could not be physically hurt by the contraption; and the floor, furniture, and fixtures in the hallway could not be damaged either.
Jennifer spent the next couple of hours conducting experiments in which her father cheerfully served as a stand-in for her older sister. Eventually, she came up with a device that would shower Jessica with confetti when she opened the door. However, after having to clean up the confetti after each trial run, she discovered that her anger had subsided, and she decided that the revenge just wasn't worth the effort.
The next morning, Jessica handed in yet another perfect piece of homework. Jennifer's assignment was rushed and it contained several mistakes. There is no doubt that Jessica earned her A and Jennifer deserved her C. But in my opinion, it was the younger sister who had the more productive educational experience the prior evening.
As I said, Jennifer is a genius. Jessica can tell me everything I need to know to avoid getting stranded on a desert island. But if something extraordinary happens and I do get stranded, I am equally confident that Jennifer will figure out a way to get me home.
Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D., a former researcher with the Harvard Preschool Project, is executive director of The Epicenter Inc., "The Education for Parenthood Information Center." He is available for program consulting, public presentations, and staff training workshops/seminars. He may be contacted through The Epicenter Inc. at 452 Crooked Lake Lane, Lindenhurst, IL 60046, Telephone: (847) 265-2727, Fax: (847) 265-2728, epicntrinc@aol.com
Copyright © October 1999 New Horizons for Learning, all rights reserved.
http://www.newhorizons.org
E-mail: info@newhorizons.orgFor permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information