Do most educators genuinely attempt to "meet the students where they are at?"

As soon as I started reading this article, I became intrigued by some of the author's insight. There were several things that I could have written about, but this area of discussion really caused me to think. The author states that "the first goal [of an educator] is *of course* to meet the students where they are at, and then begin to raise them to the level of understanding......." I put stars around the words 'of course' because it implies that this statement is in a sense a "no brainer." Could he possibly be surprised that some educators would not do this? I firmly believe that most educators do not do this. I couldn't tell you how many classes I have sat in on the first day, and immediately realized that the professor *assumed* he knew at what level the students were functioning. I haven't been able to decide if the educator doesn't care to know what level his students are at, or if the real problem is that he has never really considered the issue. I think I could probably find instances of both. From my experience, "meeting students where *THEY* are at," (and not where the educator is at) is a foreign idea. I think that is why half of the time you have a classroom full of students who have blank stares on their faces. The educators probably haven't met them where they are at, but have met them where they assume they are at. In my life, I have realized that assumption is a very, very dangerous thing. I have put myself in more than one "loaded" situation due to my misinformed assumptions. And likewise, I think it is dangerous for educators to use assumptions while attempting to educate a student. Now I am sure we can take this prompt right into the time issue......Most would probably say that they don't have time to do this or that to ensure that they meet their students. But isn't it a critical part? If learning is truly based upon building blocks, aren't educators skipping over the crucial building blocks by possibly meeting the students at a level higher than where they should be? I remember when the first day I went to my SOCIOLOGY 200 class. Our professor gave us a "test' to take. At the time, I thought it was probably the most stupid thing I had ever seen. But looking back in retrospect, those tests gave her valuable insight as to where her students were at in the subject. Using that information, she could then do what so often is not done........."meet the students where they are at." Maybe more educators should consider giving "tests" on the first day. It might be one of the simplest ways to accomplish what seems like such an arduous task. I just don't see how educators can underestimate finding out such valuable information about the students that they are being paid to teach.

*I also think it is interesting to note that we could probably argue that the problem reaches back in time to grade school, high school, etc. We could point the blame to the educators who taught us during the time when we were most susceptible to learning. But at this juncture, blameshifting doesn't solve the problem. Just because our high school teachers may be at fault for not teaching us enough, doesn't give an excuse for college educators to overlook the problem at hand. The reality is that some college educators are teaching a classful of students who are missing the crucial building blocks for that specific discipline. How can students learn without a foundation?