Let's blame the student

I spent last week taking care of my mother after a hip replacement operation, and had the opportunity to chat with some of her bright and interesting friends. One friend was a teacher and told the following story: A boy who has always done well turns in a paper that is below his usual standard and she grades it accordingly and gives it a B. It turns out that the B resulted in the boy and his family going into therapy.

The response in our conversation was a bit of disdain that the boy couldn't take a lower grade, and the comment that it was good for the boy to get a B or even to fail at something, and the conversation went on to say the children (perhaps especially gifted children) shouldn't expect to always excel.

At this point I broke in, because I felt they were blaming the victim. Children in school are certainly not told that it is okay to be less good at one subject, or to only be good at one subject (unless, perhaps, its a varsity level sport). Quite the contrary. Similarly, they are not encouraged to allowed to continue to formally study a topic after the class has finished it, regardless of how good they may be at it, or how much they like it. To excel academically, a student must be good at every subject and must be willing to give up a subject of interest to move on to the next topic on which they will be graded.

How about not blaming the student, but acknowledging that when he or she reacts with shock and dismay to a low grade, they are responding to the system that teaches them that they must excel at everything? School is just one big game, and only a few can win. You're supposed to win, and to win you have to be good at everything. If you can't be good, don't even try, is what they learn as the corollary.

So then kids move on to real life. Real life is much less clearly a game to win, although some adults will make it so. As an adult, you don't have to be good at everything -- not that it wouldn't be nice, of course. What matters as an adult? The ability to be happy, to figure out what needs to be done and then do it or delegate it, the ability to get on with others. And certainly an ability that allows you to make a living is extremely useful. But being good at math, science, literary analysis, essay writing, a foreign language or two, and history isn't going to serve you particularly well unless you enjoy them, and they they will provide hours of entertainment in your leisure time.

What would a school that actually prepared kids to be adults look like? It would certainly let children continue to study a topic that interests them. It would not set up such a win/lose situation. Many more people can succeed at real life than can be in the top echelon at school. It would nurture those characteristics that contribute to success as a self-supporting and somewhat content adult. Content would be broad and real, not watered-down, and children could, after an initial introduction, choose how far to pursue a topic. I'm feeling my way here -- what do you think?

Students need different tools for success

A teacher writes about school from much the same perspective that I wrote my letter. In Waging a Battle on Standardized Tests by Dan Brown in the Boston Globe today a teacher writes about his students unique needs and how the current system, with its emphsis on testing, fails to nurture students individual strengths. He writes "American public schools have more money than ever, but students are still widely denied the most crucial tools for their success: individual attention and specialized support."

No answer here, but an agreement on the problem.

What's wrong with kids these days?

A recent letter I wrote to our local paper was chosen as Letter of the Week! My pen (gift from the paper) arrived today!

Columnist David Brooks writes about the odyssey years, the years of wandering during young adulthood. He claims this wandering is a sensible reaction to the uncertainties of the modern world.

I think he comes closer to the truth when he quotes, “Young people grow up in tightly structured childhoods, but then graduate into a world characterized by uncertainty, diversity, searching and tinkering.”

How do we prepare our children for life in a world of uncertainty? By putting them in a highly structured environment for 13 or more years; by teaching them many facts, facts that are at their fingertips in this wired world, which they know how to navigate better than their elders.

We separate them from the fluid world so they don’t get the chance to figure out how they are uniquely qualified to serve the world and live a fulfilling adulthood until they are on their own. The system doesn’t encourage the creativity and innovation we need in the world today. Do children have the opportunity and encouragement to enable them to find their gifts?

If we can figure out how to structure childhood to give children a basic smattering of facts, to learn how to find out what they need to know, and, most of all, to nurture their individuality and give them the freedom to figure out where they will fit in the world, we might find that young adults had a tremendous amount to give to this troubled world.

A friend wrote me that on reading my letter her husband was convinced that they should homeschool, even though he had never considered it before.

This is, in fact, my philosophy of why we homeschool. In it's current incarnation, I do offer my kids a fair number of facts, but not for more than an hour a day or so, and they have most of the rest of the time to explore their own interests. This is what works for us now, but as time goes on my kids may need/demand something different.

I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a childhood like this, not just those whose parents have the time to nurture their individuality. I don't know what this model looks like in an institutional/mass setting. It is not a simple change by any means, but an important one. If I figure out how to work toward it for society, you'll hear more about it here.

Educational Labeling

There's a lively discussion at Twisty's about gifted education. I have thoughts that I thought I'd written about, but I can't find them, so here goes.

One of my biggest concerns about institutional education, especially at primary school age, is labeling. There's the clearly harmful labeling children as slow. I find this particularly troublesome at young ages because children mature differently, read at different ages, grasp ideas that someone has decided are important at different ages. Often, the labels stay with them even as they outgrow any issues. Whether or not they outgrow problems, whether or not the problems have any relevance to their adult life (and I think this is key), the harm is done. I'm sure in most cases the label stays with them internally, inhibiting their success. For instance, an acquaintance of mine’s husband makes a fine living doing plastering. Yet when people who knew him in school hear my friend married him, they’re surprised, because he was such a loser (in their eyes). Well, he’s not now, and I’m sure he’s not an isolated example. But I’m also sure there are many people who don’t manage to overcome their early labels, despite their actual abilities.

Then there's the so-called helpful labeling: Gifted or GT, or whatever they call it where you are. Being Gifted often gets you more interesting teachers, more interesting classes, more interesting projects. Nothing wrong with that -- although I strongly believe that all kids should get those things. Sometimes it just gets you more work that you’re not particularly interested in. It also often gives kids a feeling of entitlement – I am smart, therefore I get special treatment; clearly I will succeed at life like I’ve succeeded at school.

In an academic setting, Gifted generally means being good at skills that are valued in an academic setting. People who are good at other skills do not get the same treatment. Academic skills have little bearing on success in life (labels, on the other hand, may have all too much bearing on success in life). Only a few careers need academic skills, yet students labeled Gifted in school may easily go on to expect easy success. Many Gifted kids don't have to work that hard at academics, but in the real world, success nearly always requires hard work. The gifted label doesn't get you there -- not even close. Another example – a very smart friend in high school who understood physics without apparent effort. He never took notes and never did homework and was in general a goof off. He also had a drug problem. Being gifted was not going to get him far in the real world, and I’ve often wondered what happened to him.

For me this is all tied in to the issue of praise that recently got so much press. The idea of too much praise for the wrong aspects of performance resonated strongly with me. And being promoted and given special treatment for being gifted rewards aptitude rather than effort.

What would I like to see? Education that can play to each students’ strengths, while providing them the necessary basics in the least disagreeable way – preferably in a context that makes the topic relevant to each student. At the elementary level that means somehow avoiding labeling – either overt or implicit (and to be honest, I think this is next to impossible). All students should have access to interesting electives. Students can learn the basics through subjects that interest them. Newsweek’s list of best high schools rates high schools according to the ratio of AP and IB tests taken divided by the number of graduating seniors – I am sold on the idea of opening upper level classes to all students, and letting each student get as much out of a class as they can.



(If you like the Newsweek articles on the best high schools, you should also read this.)