Yes, But Can He Count to Five?

I'm writing some descriptive reviews, based on the Prospect School process (oh, how my grad school teachers would be bouncing with glee to know that), and I'm doing it in place of the assessments that my director keeps insisting I produce. I can't help myself.

And I can't help but notice the difference in what her sheet asks me to write, and what I'm actually writing. For your reference, this is:

- fine motor coordination
- gross motor coordination
- concept development
- continued observation of relationships
- observations of activities

versus

- physical presence
- disposition/temperament
- relationships with others
- interests and preferences
(I'm not doing the fifth Prospect piece, which is about a child's learning style, though I have at previous times.)

It struck me just as I was writing about this child who is very funny. I mean, he cracks people up, adults and children alike. I don't know, is that supposed to fit under "concept development"? Should I say "he has a highly developed concept of how humor works"? I will admit this assessment isn't as awful as many that are out there, but... I don't enjoy chopping a child up into a series of skills and activities. It's like I say, "this kid is really funny," and the paper says back, "yes, but can he cut with scissors?"

It gets me thinking about the lens we use to look at people, children or adults. (Ah, now there's one of those stellar academic catchphrases, "the lens" with which we view things.) What Prospect's process does that so many do not is look at a child for who they are and what they can do, not how they measure up to an abstract category of ability. Being funny is one of those things that is so important and definitive of who this boy is, yet would go completely unnoted if I were to focus solely on his activities or his fine motor skills.

See, the thing is, there's no "yes, but" with the descriptive review. There's plenty of opportunity to mention things that might be of concern, but they are in the context of an entire person with strengths and weaknesses; it doesn't end up sounding like there's this broken part of a machine that we need to fix so that it works properly. When it comes to people, there's a hell of a lot of parts, and the descriptive review allows you to have a to look at what is, not some idea of what "should be," and go from there.

The phrase that I mentioned in an earlier post - people don't see what they're not looking for - is one that certainly applies here and will apply again in a future post, one that will take a slight diversion from children themselves into a personal issue of mine as a teacher. For now let me end by saying it is dangerous to summarize someone, child or adult, by what they lack, and especially to do so while overlooking the context of that person as a whole being.