You probably need to watch the movie for yourself, but Forrest Gump’s Principal and his “State designations according to IQ” bear a striking resemblance to National Standards.
Here’s the script.
INT. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL / PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE – DAY
PRINCIPAL
Your boy’s… different, Mrs. Gump.
Now, his I.Q. is seventy-five.
MRS. GUMP
Well, we’re all different, Mr.
Hancock.
The principal sighs, then stands up.
Forrest sits outside the principal’s office and waits.
FORREST (V.O.)
She wanted me to have the finest
education, so she took me to the
Greenbow County Central School. I
met the principal and all.
The principal stands in front of Mrs. Gump. Forrest, sitting left, listens.
PRINCIPAL
I want to show you something, Mrs.
Gump. Now, this is normal.
The principal holds up a chart with designations according to I.Q. and points to the center of the graph, labeled “Normal.” A red line below the normal area is labeled “State Acceptance.” The principal points to the section below the acceptance line labeled “Below.”
PRINCIPAL
Forrest is right here. The state
requires a minimum I.Q. of eighty to
attend public school, Mrs. Gump.
He’s gonna have to go to a special
school. Now, he’ll be just fine.
MRS. GUMP
What does normal mean, anyway? He
might be a bit on the slow side, but
my boy Forrest is going to get the
same opportunities as everyone else.
He’s not going to some special school
to learn to how to re-tread tires.
We’re talking about five little points
here. There must be something can be
done.
Forrest sits outside the principal’s office.
PRINCIPAL
We’re a progressive school system.
We don’t want to see anybody left
behind.
LOL
Ha ha.
So True
He also said “is there a mr gump”.
Oh, I get it, you want to base your policies on fictional stories. In real life people with IQ’s below 80 are more highly represented than those with higher IQ’s in sadisctic murder and abuse of infants. Refer the case of Baby P in England, Nia Glassie here at home, and many others.
Merry Christmas you funny guys!
@ LabRat
There was a subtle message about labeling/ branding kids who fail to meet a ’standard’. Those labels/ brands may become self fulfilling prophesies that end up creating more people who commit, to use your own words, “sadistic murder and abuse of infants.”
There’s nothing funny about kids failing. No one has yet explained how National Standards will raise achievement. As I’ve said before if all strategies to raise achievement were lined up on a continuum from most effective to least effective, National Standards would struggle to be in the top half of strategies. So why have them when we should be focusing on the top 10% of most effective strategies?
But surely there is a standard that ought to be maintained? We expect, for example, airplane pilots to meet a standard. They are set for a reason and don’t shift and aren’t fuzzy precisely because the standard is important. Otherwise people die. Would you fly with an airline that used pilots trained at a school that has no standards – a school where they simply passed because they attended the course. No you wouldn’t.
(Also – I’d like to see the percentage of Labour MP’s children that go to private schools. Do you have a guts to provide that data? I suspect that you’d find many go to private schools. Why? Because they know that those schools have standards)
Thanks, Kelvin, a useful quote. I know several people who have had similar conversations with their local school principal. But, however inadequate standards assessment is, at least we aren’t as fixated on IQ as they are in the US, and used to be in NZ.
Please stop personal stuff Trevor
@ Michael – most schools already have standards, many probably set higher than Anne Tolley’s standards. Those schools who haven’t set their standards high enough need to be identified and assisted to set their up. Leave the majority of schools doing okay alone.
As for where Labour MP’s kids go to school, I can’t speak for anyone else but mine just go to the local schools and are doing very well.
@ Hilary – no we’ve moved on from IQ type stuff thanks to much great research on what makes a difference. National Standards don’t actually feature in any research. There may be parts of National Standards that do feature in research, but who would know? What exactly is left of the National Standards when you scrape away the rhetoric and what most teachers/ schools are already doing?
“Those schools who haven’t set their standards high enough need to be identified and assisted to set their up.”
Apparently Labour was the government for nine years.
On a less smart-alec note, we all know this is about teachers’ (more accurately the teachers’ unions) unwillingness to be assessed. Let’s have that discussion…
No Michael, this isn’t about unions. This is about raising student achievement as quickly and as far as possible. We will continue to see poor educational achievement while people continue to debate the wrong issues. What the country needs to remain focused on is the answer to the question, “What will raise achievement as quickly and as far as possible?” The answer to that question is to improve teaching. ‘National Standards’and ‘plain english reports’ to parents will never ever teach one single child a single thing. Excellent teachers make kids learn. Identify those teachers who aren’t excellent and invest in them to become excellent. The $30m spent on developing National Standards would have gone a long way in providing comprehensive professional learning for teachers who need it.
Michael, I love it when people say that Labour had 9 years because it shows that they have no substance to back up their point of view. Yes, Labour was in power for 9 years but the question is what is National doing to imporve the system. It’s not, what did Labour not do to improve the system. Instead of living in the past why don’t you hold the National party accountable for it’s (in)actions. The standards arn’t going to improve the way kids are taught and it’s not going to improve acheivement. So they’re a waste of time. At least Labour had a competent minister of Education unlike like Tolley. I would be surprised if she met the National standards that she loves so dearly….
Merry Christmas.
I’m off to midnight Mass.
“Identify those teachers who aren’t excellent and invest in them to become excellent.”
Not very smart. How about ‘Identify those teachers who ARE excellent and invest in them’, let those who are not excellent find their incentives in the trade that they are excellent at.
“like Tolley. I would be surprised if she met the National standards that she loves so dearly….”
This comment is personal, will it receive the same treatment as others here?
Close call but not as abusive as comments ruled out. And her inability to follow basic written instructions and problems reading answers in Parliament get it into the fair comment window.
Fair enough Trevor
Sonny
I’ve no problems in investing more in excellent teachers.
To be honest I’d prefer sublime teachers to simply excellent teachers. We should invest in excellent teachers so that they become sublime teachers.
Those teachers who aren’t excellent may in fact be very good, but with a bit of an investment in professional learning they may well become excellent.
We need to differentiate between the teachers who need a bit of help and those who are incompetent. My guess is there are very few truly incompetent teachers, but those who are, do need to be identified and assisted to find another career.