It may not be a mere coincidence that, as the government has proceeded to further shift, over recent years, to an economy based on consumption of goods, our education system has continued to decline. The basic Keynesian view of stimulus- that if the government gives people and institutions money, there will be more consumption and improvement in service, and, consequently, growth and progress- has proven to be a faulty model for both the general economy and education as well.
A recent article in The Economist, examined a new study, released by the McKinsey consulting group, which focused on how to improve school systems. The authors of the study found that centralized government investment in education yields good results in still developing countries in which all children do not attend school. Yet, in those in which all children are required to be educated, the same government investment has not proven to be effective. For example, the article demonstrates that, between 2000 and 2007, both America and Britain increased spending on schools by 21% and 37%, respectively. Yet, in both of these countries, reading, math, and science skills standards dropped.
In fact, the study indicates that many poorer countries, without the benefit of the spending bug, fared much better on student achievement. The McKinsey researchers concluded that, in these countries, what makes a difference in improving education is not money, but the awareness that different types of schools need different types of reforms. In other words, a “one size fits all” model does not work. It appears that when education is dependent upon the federal government, standards suffer.
For countries such as the United States, which is considered to be, educationally, “beyond the basics,” the authors assert that choosing better teachers and treating educators like a true profession are steps to take to raise educational standards. Of course, “true professions” are found in the private sector, and those professionals in the private sector who are motivated, innovative, and contribute positively to their field, are rewarded with raises in salary, while others, who do not contribute in a meaningful way, are shown the door.
It is certainly sobering news to know that the billions of dollars spent on education, even through No Child Left Behind, have not “stimulated” learning among American students. And, understandably, these results underscore concern about those children struggling to master basic literacy and math skills.
However, for this moment in time, consider what these results mean to children at the other “end” of the achievement spectrum, those who are capable of achieving considerably beyond their grade level, those who are able to explore, create, and innovate at levels beyond the others of their chronological age group.
When skills standards drop, few educators and politicians will be concerned about the students with high abilities who experience less and less challenge, as the standards decline, so that public education becomes almost meaningless to them. The parents of these high ability, also known as “gifted,” children and adolescents must find ways to provide an educational environment that meets their academic, social, and emotional needs.
Imagine being a parent of one of these children. You know your child is quite bright. Each day, you see your child growing more frustrated in school. He is angry that he has to sit on the rug in his classroom every morning, while the other children are taught to say the date and describe the weather, when he is already reading Harry Potter. She is frustrated because the other students in her class are learning to add two-digit numbers, when she has already figured out multiplication. And a nine-year old with interest in unicellular organisms fits in better with high schoolers than with other kids his age.
According to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), as of 2009, there were approximately three million children with talents and abilities in the gifted range in the United States. Yet, twenty states in the nation have either no mandate at all to program for high ability students, or unfunded mandates for specialized curricula. In addition, most teacher training curricula does not require coursework on gifted learners, and teacher in-service training often does not require education for teachers regarding identification of, and appropriate teaching methods for, these students.
Understandably, the NAGC bemoans the fact that these high ability children- our future innovators and producers- seem to get passed over. As school budgets tighten, “gifted” programs are frequently the first ones cut. Yet, while organizations that represent the interests of gifted children do support them in a variety of educational settings, even they continue to primarily promote federal or state mandates to fund public school programming, rather than school choice and vouchers for parents who choose alternative educational settings.
If we look at the politics associated with this case of leaving one of our nation’s greatest resources to fend for themselves, we see vicious cycles of liberal thinking in the works.
First, we cannot ignore that there is somewhat of a “taboo” against children with high abilities: that, somehow, providing for the academic needs of these children is unfair, or socially unjust. It often seems that the prevailing mindset is that these children do not need special attention because they already have more of what other students need. This myth regarding the intellectually rich harkens to the liberal irritation with the financially rich. The liberal solution, as we have clearly seen in the recent tax rate extension debate, is that the government must take from those who have more and redistribute it to those who have less. Sound familiar?
To illustrate, these are actual accounts of public school teacher responses- from data from my private practice- to parents of high ability learners who request differentiated instruction for their children:
- “If you just wait a few years, the other children will catch up to him.”
- “Perhaps if you stop reading to her at home, she won’t go so far ahead.”
- “Don’t let him read ahead in the book. That’s why he’s not as interested in what we’re doing in class.”
- “Her problem is that she finishes everything early. If she’s going to do that, she needs to learn how to wait there at her desk until all the other children are finished.”
- “He’s the only one in the class who came up with that idea. I’m wondering if there’s something wrong with his thought processes.”
- “Your daughter corrected my spelling in class. I think you should teach her not to be rude to her teacher.”
- “We believe all the children in our school are gifted.”
Let’s make one thing clear. All children are special and deserving. All children should have their educational needs met. But, not all children are intellectually gifted. Kids with high abilities and talents have special needs and one of them is a curriculum that keeps pace with their higher levels of achievement. In a traditional school setting, this means that they need a differentiated program within a classroom, or acceleration to advanced grade levels. Forty-five minutes per week of a “gifted,” pull-out class does not satisfy the need since, amazingly, these kids are gifted the rest of the week, too!
To achieve differentiation for high-ability children, teachers need to be trained to teach at multiple grade levels, perhaps within the same classroom. Does this sound difficult? It sure does, and that’s why these teachers should get paid more.
Which brings us to another vicious cycle of liberal thinking: the issue of teachers’ unions’ adamant opposition to merit pay for teachers who have specialized training, those who are willing to perform multi-level teaching, and who do it well. Not surprisingly, many states with very liberal state governments and high levels of teacher union control, do not have mandates for programming for high ability learners.
In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, outgoing New York City Board of Education chancellor, Joel Klein urged that we “stop protecting ineffective teachers and stop basing lay-offs on a last in/first out rule.” He noted that this status-quo way of operating often causes us to lose some of our most talented and motivated young teachers.
President Obama has stated that he wants to reform education so that our country can produce innovators who can compete in the global economy. In addition, he has said that he is in favor of merit pay for teachers whose students perform well. However, we also know that he has a mutually dependent relationship with the teachers’ unions, and has come out clearly against vouchers for alternative education.
So, how are these high ability children getting educated these days, when more and more education dollars are being redistributed, apparently unsuccessfully, to programs that serve to raise some children to very basic standards of achievement?
According to Hoagies’ Gifted, a resource website for parents of gifted children, most gifted children are homeschooled, if you consider that even those high ability learners who attend public school are homeschooled part-time. Many parents, in fact, have found that home education allows their children to work at their own pace, to have more time for exploratory projects, and to socialize with other high ability learners in home school associations. True, parents of these students are footing the bill for curricula themselves, but with online learning and community resources that welcome homeschoolers, it’s a lot more satisfying to live with a very energetic, high ability child who is engaged, successful, and happy, than one who is frustrated, depressed, or even underachieving in school. Homeschooling is not for all families, but it represents a creative and independent way to resolve a problem that others are waiting for the government to solve.
Indeed, high ability homeschoolers have been using online learning as an educational method for quite some time. In an article in The Foundry, from the Heritage Foundation, Michael Wille asked why all students are not using virtual learning to individualize their academic programs.
The article quoted Katherine Mangu-Ward, in Reason Magazine, who highlighted some creative ways charter schools and virtual education companies are using online learning to enhance and customize students’ curricula. Wille noted, however, not surprisingly, that teachers’ unions are opposed to allowing parents this educational option for their children. Specifically, the National Education Association, in its “official” policy statement on charter schools, states that there “should be an absolute prohibition against the granting of charters for the purpose of homeschooling, including online charter schools that seek to provide homeschooling over the internet.”
But, Joel Klein begs to differ with the NEA. He urged schools to “innovate, as every successful sector of our economy does. The classroom model we have used since the 19th century…is obsolete. We should be making the most of new technology and programs that help teachers deliver personalized instruction and allow students to learn at their own pace.”
As Michael Wille concluded, in light of the fact that academic improvement has not been achieved with “stimulus” from the government, the best way to “improve student performance anywhere in the country is to support policy options that promote parental choice in education.”
Some of the country’s brightest students are succeeding only because their parents are taking upon themselves the costs of educational options outside of public education. And it seems more parents of children with a variety of needs are doing the same. Parental choice is the best way to make sure no child is left behind.
Source: "Big Government" via Glen in Google Reader
