Well, this is just a thought that came into my head earlier this week and I was just thinking that maybe there isn't a thing such as stupid children; only bad teachers. I believe that in the majority, every child has the potential to be a highly intelligent individual but with poor teaching this isn't going to be achieved. Teaching branches to a lot of differen't things, from one to one management to breaking down complicated problems. A teacher is pretty much a leader; in this sense, a leader of their class or whoever they may be teaching and this suggests that many of the qualities needed to be a good leader are related to what's needed to become a good teacher. Also, teaching may not only be somebody who works in a school or as a tutor; it could be parents or even a child's peers. I was just curious as to what other people's opinions are on this little idea that I thought up. I would like to make it clear though, that I'm not trying to defend every action that children make, just looking at this from a different perspective.

An interesting thought, and one that I've had at some time or other. Largely the ol' nature vs. nurture debate. I personally feel that it's more of a cognitive technique employed to better make sense of the world - to oversimiplify things to enhance our understanding. Unfortunately, I think that human behaviour is far too complex that way. The truth seems to lie somewhere in the middle.

To take an example to the extreme, according to what you've said, if a class full of children were to be taught by the same teacher and given equal attention across their entire education, they should largely have a similar degree of intelligence once they graduate. This is possible, but I think highly unlikely: tbh, I don't feel that it gives enough credit to the kids themselves. We know that there's a genetic link for intelligence, and yet we also know that the environment has a huge effect on this potential. But keeping the environment constant cannot eradicate these genetic influences. Thus, I would say, that there might not be such a thing as a stupid child who's stupid purely because of their IQ or whatever, but there are still children who are stupidER than others.

I know full well why my peers are "stupid". They have no discipline. They do not care about their education enough to succeed. They are not pushed to their greatest potential. You hardly find a stupid kid at all. It is all a matter of choices.

Anyone has the ability to be really clever, it's probably more to do with their attention span and how clever they want to be. It also depends on what interests them. Somebody could learn all the average stuff from every lesson and get reasonable marks, whereas another person might focus more on lessons they only want to pass on, thus not being bothered about how they do in other
classes; which at the end of the day is probably a bad way to go about it if we're talking about getting as clever as you can.

Like mentioned, a child's attitude is probably also affected by the parents teachings, or lack of it, which leads onto Rome's post of saying that his 'peers' have no discipline, which could be part of their upbringing.

quote Guugley

Anyone has the ability to be really clever, it's probably more to do with their attention span and how clever they want to be.

So you don't believe that with the right upbringing, teaching and perserverance a child can be highly intelligent ?

I believe that that is the only way that you can maximise a child's intelligence. I do not believe that they will all be highly intelligent given the right upbringing, no.

Think of autistic kids, to use an extreme example. This isn't what you're talking about, obviously, but it demonstrates a genetic role in intelligence. If you concede this, then you should concede that other (less radical) genetic influences can also be inhibitors on intelligence.

It strikes me as a rather clumsy way of putting it, personally. Realistically the statement is as much about saying 'If there are stupid students, it is because there is a bad teacher'. This shifting of onus is exactly the problem with our western paradigm of teaching these days (the teachers blame the parents, and the parents blame the teachers, and they both blame society).

If you are able to pass through the education system without failing, technically you have what is perceived to be a functional intelligence. The 'average' student should only really be getting Cs or Bs, whilst the A is reserved for the 'gifted'. Schooling as it stands now is not about propagating overachievers, it is about functional socialisation, and to a fair degree it is successful at that.

Since intelligence is relative, theoretically it is impossible for everyone to be such. We aren't born equal, aptitudes, talents, giftedness, these are all factors in our 'potential' (whatever that denotes). Nothing really suggests that we all have an equal potential, the variables are way to pronounced.

Teachers only represent a fraction of what learning is, particularly considering that its rare that one teacher represents your entire education. Whilst 'bad' teachers can lead to misbehaviour and the like, that often says as much about the socialisation of the students as anything. Everything plays a role, 'blaming' teachers isn't really fair.

One wouldn't pick you for a teacher at all, Torebaa.


All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

You aren't the first to say that (my friends, other students in my course, my parents, etc; the only people that actually think I would be a good teacher are other teachers now that I think about it). I happen to be decent at it, apparently, since I tend to functionalize things well. I do suppose that doesn't outweigh what will be the ultra cynics I will churn out.


Suggesting that all children are able to, and should be, getting As is a great way to cause problems. Education isn't about making equal, its about equivalence, and to think otherwise is what I call 'dangerous'.

Torebaa, I think you've taken what I've said and put it in a different perspective. I mean, like I said previously, teachers could be anyone and that does not exclude yourself. Especially as some people believe the only person you can rely on is yourself. You've taken a bit of what I've said and made it seem as though I believe teachers are to blame for the idiocy of students.

Edit: Onto your example of autistic children, there are obviously going to be exceptions to everything and to maybe say that everybody is able to be equally intelligent may be a dangerous thing to do but what about to simply say that everybody has the ability to be intelligent. After all, there are different levels of intelligence and it can become subjective as to what you perceive as intelligent.

You aren't the first to say 'There aren't stupid children, just bad teachers', heck, its in the Simpsons (not bad student, bad principal). I was making a commentary on that statement, and how it is clumsy.

[Sorry, you editted whilst I posted.]

As it stands, the current system we have does promote the idea of intelligence, the bell curve does exist. Its just that what society teaches and what society expects are different.

Like I said, there might be some degree of truth in what you're saying. But you can never hope to create a rule to which there are no exceptions. So, to attempt to do so is dangerous indeed. Virtually how all stereotypes are forged.

Yeah, I guess that's true as well. This isn't really straying off topic so I'll bring it up. My old tutor [an eccentric man with very extreme beliefs] was against the current school system and believed that what we're taught at school, the majority is vastly unnecessary. He believes that English [language], Maths and the Sciences are all we need and that any other subject is useless and surplus. He admits they may be interesting but that's all. He said more on this which would be a lot more relative but it escapes me right now. Do you share the same opinion as him that those three subjects [usually compulsory] are all we need ?

Well, it all depends on what you want to do with your life, doesn't it? I'd daresay that Home Ec. isn't merely interesting if you were planning on becoming a chef, for instance.

I would agree, however, that ALL students should be taught those subjects, and none else should be compulsory.