Letter from the AAP
American Academy of Pediatrics
DEDICATED TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN™
(Download letter in Word format)
January 2, 2004
Recently, the Delaware Chapter of the American
Academy of Pediatrics has been approached with concerns regarding the Delaware
Student Testing Program. At first we were unsure how to address this issue.
However, after reviewing recent media coverage and having done some preliminary
investigation as to how the “DSTP” was developed, we began to recognize in the
program a lack of understanding regarding the “physiology” of learning.
First, the brain may not be infinitely
flexible. For example, theory by Samuel Orton in 1925 was recently validated by
the work of Guinevere Eden and colleagues at the Georgetown University Center
for the Study of Learning, in Washington, D.C. Their work confirmed via MRI
scans that beginning readers without dyslexia increasingly suppress visual input
from the right hemisphere of the brain as compared to readers with dyslexia.
The purpose of this is to prevent the right side of the brain from interfering
with the left side, which is typically associated with language and matching
letters and words to sounds. This suggests that, at least for this disorder,
the brains in these two groups are in effect “hardwired” differently. While
strategies can be developed to help overcome this, for all functions of learning
it may be safe to postulate the expenditure of unlimited resources may not
result in even the most gifted students being able to master all areas of
primary education. As examples, geometry and expository writing are two
subjects that can be dependent on an individual’s natural ability rather than
the intensity of instruction, perhaps due to a not yet understood “hardwiring”
phenomenon.
We recognize that there is a mainstream body of
evidence-based information gathered by scientists who study the brain and that
this information can tell us what we can reasonably expect the average person to
learn. While there are always ongoing research initiatives examining how to
stimulate higher level thinking skills, these studies have not resulted in
practical applications for a standard classroom setting. In addition, the
scientists who study this information are not necessarily educators but rather
neurologists, psychiatrists, and developmental psychologists. To the best of
our knowledge, there was little or no input from such experts in the development
of the “DSTP”.
Providing a “World Class Education,” as stated
on the DOE website is an admirable goal. However, we feel that, as with any
aspect of the care and well being of children, attention to neurodevelopmental
appropriateness is key.
In general, a review of the content standards
and many of the resultant test questions reveals some confusion about what
constitutes an acquirable skill versus an innate talent or even a personality
trait. For example, one of the criteria for receiving a high score on the
writing prompt is compositional risk taking. We would submit that this
requirement should be thoroughly explored with psychologists who have studied
this behavioral characteristic. Under math standard number 6, it says that
students will develop spatial sense. This is another area where medical
researchers have found that individual ability may be hard-wired into the brain.
Our goal, as children’s advocates, is not to
become entangled in the politics of whether academic standards and programs
should be legally codified, but to ensure that those standards are based in good
science. We believe there is enough evidence to ask the state to allocate the
resources to have all content standards and their implementation reviewed for
developmental appropriateness by properly trained medical and allied health
professionals. This may eliminate untold frustration, as well as senseless
spending, on an initiative that may be unrealistic and unachievable.
If you have questions, feel free to contact our
Chapter Vice President Kevin Sheahan, MD at 302-672-5657.
Sincerely,
Aaron S. Chidekel, MD
President
|
