�Let's start with the simple truth that many children are just not gifted enough to learn to do academic tasks at more than a rudimentary level, and schools can tweak their performance only at the margins�.�
�And yet to say such things in public is to invite shock and ridicule. The educational romantics will pummel you with four objections: 1) when children are below average we can raise their ability; 2) the schools are so bad that children at all levels of ability can learn much more than they are learning now; 3) the rising test scores of the past decade prove that big improvements are possible; and 4) there's no reason why the high educational achievement of children of the professional classes cannot be achieved by all classes.�
I�M STILL GOING WITH ANSWER #2, BUT WOULD CHANGE THE WORD *BAD* TO *MEDIOCRE*. IF THE INSTRUCTION WERE STRONGER, AVERAGE STUDENTS WOULD STILL BE AVERAGE, ONLY AT A HIGHER ABILITY LEVEL.
�Never mind, say the educational romantics. The schools are so bad that even low-ability students can learn a lot more than they do now. And it's true that the worst inner-city schools, in which nothing is taught, can of course do much better. But the vast majority of schools are ordinary rather than terrible. How much can an ordinary British school do to raise the academic performance of its students?
If the question is framed in terms of teaching them factual material about history, politics, science and the arts, the increases in learning across the board can be dramatic. But if the question is about reading and maths, the answer is that the quality of the school makes surprisingly little difference.�
INTERESTING HOW THE AUTHOR DISMISSES THIS MINOR DETAIL FOR AREAS OTHER THAN READING AND MATH. AREN�T HISTORY, POLITICS, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS WORTHWHILE SUBJECTS? THINK OF HOW LESS PAINFULL IT WOULD BE TO WATCH �JAY WALKING�.
