Tracy W and Cheryl VT on "the middle child"

The 'Middle Child" is the type of student who does not feel at home at Langley because, while they may be smart and academically focused, they are not academically superior like many of their peers. Nor are they outstanding in extracurricular activities. This student does not enjoy the prospect of coming to school to face the intense competition, which is ubiquitous in excellent schools, only to be disappointed.

There is no simple answer to this problem. In my id eal world every student will walk through the front door on September 2 with an exuberant, positive attitude and feel comfortable and be happy throughout the entire year. Of course that does not happen. As we start the school year, the Instructional Council will open dialogue with the general faculty and I will talk with parents at PTSA meetings and parent coffees to solicit your input and ideas. As the discussion continues with all the stakeholders, I am confident we will find a way to serve the 'Middle Child'."

from: Open Letter from John Dewey to the Principal of Langley High School

There are a number of terrific comments in the "middle child" thread at Joanne Jacobs.

Tracy W on the bell curve

“Academically superior” and “outstanding in extracurricular activities” are relative terms. For there to be some kids who are academically superior, or outstanding, there must be some kids who are “academically normal” or “ordinary at extracurricular activities”. This is true no matter what the entrance criteria for the school are; as long as skills are distributed accordingly to a bell-curve the most rigorously selective school in the country is still going to have a few kids who are academically superior to the rest.

And thus it makes sense for any school to think about serving its non-superstars. Since it’s always going to have them.

It is most pragmatic to set high standards in school and let everyone know that they should strive to exceed them.

Indeed. But unless you are going to argue that kids are equal in academic ability and focus, there are always going to be kids who exceed them more than other kids do.

To put this in perspective: Would you take your car to a repair shop that had a reputation for working real hard and almost fixing the problem? Do you want your chest opened up by a doctor who worked real hard at being a “C” student and who possibly earned his credentials based on partial credit? Would you like to see your Astronaut nearly hit the moon?

Not relevant. There is always more to learn, and it is always possible to be better. Not everyone can take their car to the best mechanic in the best repair shop in the country. Not everyone can have their chest opened by the best surgeon in the country. I’m quite happy to take my car to a competent mechanic, and I just have to live with the knowledge that I’m unlikely to get the attention of the best doctor. The question of landing on the moon is an absolute goal: any number of people can achieve at that. Not everyone can win a medal at the Olympics 100m sprint, and not everyone can be “academically outstanding” by the standards of a certain school.

Cheryl v_T on the principal's meaning:

John Dewey and his child’s principal have obviously hit a nerve. I agree with Joanne, who wonders at the end of her post, if “…there’s no place for B students at a large public high school. What about C students? What about the not-so-smart, not-so-motivated students?”

The principal’s defeatist tone is inappropriate — regardless of his intentions. As a parent and educator, I understand exactly why Dewey is so ticked off.

It’s about sending the right messages and setting the appropriate tone for an academic institution required to serve all students. He has failed miserably. Like a previous commenter, I don’t want administrators to feed me and my fellow parents pablum or act like Pollyanna — but I also don’t want them to assume a position of defeat that accepts as “the way it is” that middle-performing kids will come to school unhappy and feel unsuccessful.

Hopefully Dewey’s principal will think twice before sending out the next missive. Or at least get a PR person.

and here is Tracy W on "rewarding for effort":

Achievement is difficult without effort. But effort does not guarantee achievement. Rewarding children for effort and not achievement does not prepare them for the adult world.

Oh dear, I feel so terrible. My 24-year old brother had a bad accident, and had to learn to walk again. And you know what ghastly things my family did? We celebrated the first time he walked two steps without aid! Then we celebrated the first time he walked down the corridor without aid! And then we celebrated the first time he walked upstairs without aid! How could we have been happy with such paltry achievements, when your average 24-year old can walk for miles without pausing! What messages did we send to our younger cousins?! And you know what, even though he still can’t walk as long as I can, I am still so thoroughly unenlightened as to be awestruck by the amount of effort he has put into working through his disabilities.

And I will say that I wish I had been obliged to put in more effort at school, rather than just being rewarded for achievement regardless of effort. I spent years achieving very easily, university came as a vast shock. Ideally, we should set goals that are a stretch, but are also achievable, for every kid.

Right on all counts, as far as I'm concerned.

I'll add that when Tracy and her family celebrated effort, they were also celebrating achievement. When a 24-year old person must learn to walk again, taking two steps without help is an achievement. A big one.

Same principle with Tracy breezing through school: no one was asking her -- or helping her -- achieve something difficult for her.

This is the problem with bell curves and bell-curve thinking. You're measuring students against each other, not against themselves. In a bell-curve school educators have no way of knowing whether any student, including the kids at the top, is achieving what he is capable of achieving.

Yet another argument for value added assessments.

And for introducing the concept of the personal best into edu-culture.