But a growing body of research�and a new study from the trenches of the New York public-school system�strongly suggests it might be the other way around. Giving kids the label of �smart� does not prevent them from underperforming. It might actually be causing it.
Is this information really just being �discovered� by the education professionals?
Okay, I'm confused.
I'm always reading articles about the so-called horrors of (honest) ability grouping because less-academically-capable kids will supposedly perform at a higher level if you tell them they're as smart as the kids who actually are smart. This idea is being re-re-recycled right now in middle schools in
Stamford, CT. The schools have started replacing ability-grouped classes with mixed ability classes. One bright kid they interviewed was not impressed.
So, which way is this supposed to go? If telling less-bright kids that they're just as capable as others isn't empty praise (and a lie), what is? If telling highly intelligent seven-year-olds that they can't do 4th grade math isn't empty criticism (and a lie), what is? Aren't these lies equally damaging?
Why doesn't the basketball coach have to tell these lies?
And why do educators seem to use them as they please to suit their own agendas?
Hmm.
Val
