"All Children Can Learn": Facts and Fallacies.

Abstract

The thinking behind a simplistic interpretation of children can suggests that there is no need for adequate resources and child- friendly public policy, the authors point out. A FEW decades ago, leaders in the field of school reform introduced the concept of as a way to identify what works best in educating children and to provide models for struggling schools to use for improvement. The effective schools movement is frequently attributed to the work of the late Ronald Edmonds. In a speech delivered to the National Conference of the Teacher Corps in 1978, Edmonds defined the five characteristics consistently evident in effective schools: strong leadership, clear emphasis on learning, positive school climate, regular and appropriate monitoring of student progress, and high expectations for students and staff.1 From these straightforward principles, an entire belief system has evolved that offers a variety of solutions that are designed to improve schools. However, the effective schools movement, like most other reform efforts, has developed philosophical and political schisms along its major fault line: the central tenet that children's learning can be improved if schools adopt effective practices. At its heart, this belief is positive, useful, and practical - but it does engender strong opinions and political reactions. The initial understanding that school practices and policies can make a difference, even for children from homes in which parents have few educational or financial resources, has now been translated into the popular mantra children can learn. This phrase sometimes confuses the public and deters the possibility of substantially helping disadvantaged children obtain a high-quality, resource-rich education. In our view, because of the simplistic acceptance of this phrase at face value, the effective schools movement as currently promoted is contaminated with a series of fallacies and a number of unintended consequences. We offer the following ideas as a starting point for further, in-depth discussions that can lead to more thoughtful school policies. The Fallacies When we look at many of the potentially harmful policies and practices being implemented in schools today, we can only assume that they have been inspired by the following fallacies, which do not bear careful scrutiny: * the fallacy that all children can learn - at the same level and in the same amount of time; * the fallacy of the principal as sole instructional leader; * the fallacy of setting standards on the basis of exceptions; and * the fallacy of uniform standards for all children. The fallacy that all children can learn - at the same level and in the same amount of time. All children can learn, at some level, and most children, as Ronald Edmonds stated, can learn the basic curriculum if sufficient resources are provided. The fallacy, however, is the belief that all children can learn the same curriculum, in the same amount of time, and at the same level. The problem with such an unexamined belief is that it may be used to deny differential financial support for those who come to school with environmental disadvantages. Not all children have high-quality nutrition, stimulating homes, and extensive learning opportunities prior to entering school. Research in cognitive brain development shows that formation of synaptic contacts in the human cerebral cortex occurs between birth and age 10,2 and most of the brain gets built within a few years after birth. Environment matters greatly in brain development. The period of early childhood is critical in brain development, and those who have high-protein diets and lots of sensory stimulation tend to have more synaptic connections. Brains that do not get enough protein and stimulation in their environments lose connections, and some potential neural pathways are shut down. …