thoughts on school

[deird1]

Competence is not a straight line.

I have no particular reason to post about this right now. But it's something I've thought about a lot before, and it's in my head today, so...


My first primary school seemed to think that competence was a point. (Which they were wrong about, by the way.)

They had a list of Stuff That Grade 2 Kids Can Do, and they assumed that all the kids in Grade 2 were at the same level. Hence my mother having to fight tooth and nail to get them to realise that WE COULD ALREADY READ. NO REALLY. STOP TRYING TO TEACH MY KIDS THE ALPHABET, AND LET THEM READ NOVELS.


My second school was much better: they thought that competence was a line. (Which was an improvement over school 1 - but they were still wrong.)

In the middle of the line are all the average kids, who are at the standard level for their age group.
On one end are the stupid kids, who need remedial help.
On the other end are the clever kids, who need extension activities.


I was a clever kid. I needed extension activities. And my school, being helpful, provided me with plenty of extension activities, extra-tricky maths, extra-awesome reading, and so forth.

What they didn't realise was that I needed remedial help.


I was a clever kid. I was at the top end of the line; clearly I couldn't be at the bottom end too.

So very logical. So very blind.

This is how I got through 13 years of school without a single teacher realising that I didn't know how to do homework, or how to do assignments, or how to study. Not one teacher realised that competency is not a straight line, and that it is perfectly possible to be very very clever and also in desperate need of remedial help.


I'm still rather annoyed about that.

Comments

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Oh man, I agree with this so much. I was always at the top of the class, clever, etc., etc. But, um, I'm in grad school and I still haven't the slightest idea how to do projects. I guess a few have gotten done. But anything that requires long term planning? No, nothing. And this was even true in elementary and high school. E.g., I'm great with science, but could never, ever do science fair projects. I was able to get by, generally, on writing convincing reports the night before. I could procrastinate on 95% of things and somehow do the other 5% in a flurry that I don't quite recall. I write well enough to get by on not actually being able to do anything that requires planning or diligent work. I still can't, really. And I'm not convinced it's some deep intrinsic flaw that can't be remedied (though I mean, sometimes I look back and think, wow, I can't ever be a scientist, I'VE NEVER DONE A GOOD SCIENCE FAIR PROJECT), but it's like I'm fifteen years behind where I should be and resources aren't exactly great for making that up.

[watchingtheaeroplanes.blogspot.com]

This resonates with me. I'm exactly the same. I think part of the reason I'm doing grad research in Arts rather than Science is that it's easier to do that sort of thing, despite being extremely strong in maths/science in school.