Why Gifted Education Will Never Improve
Catana
Post a Comment
Mass education is designed for the average student.
Its goal is to provide students with the basic knowledge they need in order to function in the modern world. The most efficient way to do this is by standardizing curriculum and teaching methods. This is what teachers are trained to accomplish.
Differentiated curriculum is a political football
School financing is always subject to current economic conditions. Changing levels of funding means that special interest groups must fight for a portion of what is available. As a small and almost invisible minority which generally arouses animosity rather than sympathy, the gifted have an uphill fight. The mentally and physically handicapped are both visible and sympathy-evoking, and are supported by a large and vocal block of special-needs advocates. When the needs of the underdogs are perceived to be in conflict with the needs of those who “have it all,” public sentiment will always favor the underdog, and politicians will take the path of least resistance.
No foundation exists for differentiated gifted programs
There is general agreement that programs for gifted students need to be highly differentiated to meet the wide range of intelligence and skills. The standard approach is broadly defined programs with vague goals. They are designed more for appearance and to deflect complaints and criticism than for actual results. A multitude of problems stands in the way of any real change. 1. A lack of trained teachers, and the costs of special training. 2. Lack of measures for evaluating students’ needs and abilities. 3. Scheduling and curriculum chaos that would ensue from individualizing education to the extent necessary. 3. Lack of real commitment to gifted education, and even disbelief in the concept of giftedness.
No clear social benefits of gifted education have ever been shown
The value of an idea or action is judged by its results. In pragmatic nations such as the U.S. and Australia, the benefits of social programs for society at large are far more important than any benefits for the individual. If any attempts have been made to quantify the social benefits of gifted education, they are well-hidden from public view.
And the rest
Bureaucracies have a life of their own, a good proportion of which is centered around keeping things running smoothly, and protecting jobs. School systems are large, complex bureaucracies whose inertia defeats most attempts at real change.
The traditional anti-intellectualism of the U.S. is being bolstered, however inadvertently, by the NCLB act, which focuses educational time and energy on the fundamentals, leaving little of either for for a more expansive view of knowledge, and locking the gifted into a pervasive round of testing and boredom.
That anti-intellectual culture is increasingly turning in the direction of outright anti-rationality, an environment in which attempts to educate for more than minimal literacy are seen as both unnecessary and an imposition on fragile minds and egos. Ignorance of the past and of the world beyond one’s doorstep is becoming a matter of pride rather than shame, at least in the U.S. A valuable commentary on this trend is a recent article by Susan Jacoby: Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces
Its goal is to provide students with the basic knowledge they need in order to function in the modern world. The most efficient way to do this is by standardizing curriculum and teaching methods. This is what teachers are trained to accomplish.
Differentiated curriculum is a political football
School financing is always subject to current economic conditions. Changing levels of funding means that special interest groups must fight for a portion of what is available. As a small and almost invisible minority which generally arouses animosity rather than sympathy, the gifted have an uphill fight. The mentally and physically handicapped are both visible and sympathy-evoking, and are supported by a large and vocal block of special-needs advocates. When the needs of the underdogs are perceived to be in conflict with the needs of those who “have it all,” public sentiment will always favor the underdog, and politicians will take the path of least resistance.
No foundation exists for differentiated gifted programs
There is general agreement that programs for gifted students need to be highly differentiated to meet the wide range of intelligence and skills. The standard approach is broadly defined programs with vague goals. They are designed more for appearance and to deflect complaints and criticism than for actual results. A multitude of problems stands in the way of any real change. 1. A lack of trained teachers, and the costs of special training. 2. Lack of measures for evaluating students’ needs and abilities. 3. Scheduling and curriculum chaos that would ensue from individualizing education to the extent necessary. 3. Lack of real commitment to gifted education, and even disbelief in the concept of giftedness.
No clear social benefits of gifted education have ever been shown
The value of an idea or action is judged by its results. In pragmatic nations such as the U.S. and Australia, the benefits of social programs for society at large are far more important than any benefits for the individual. If any attempts have been made to quantify the social benefits of gifted education, they are well-hidden from public view.
And the rest
Bureaucracies have a life of their own, a good proportion of which is centered around keeping things running smoothly, and protecting jobs. School systems are large, complex bureaucracies whose inertia defeats most attempts at real change.
The traditional anti-intellectualism of the U.S. is being bolstered, however inadvertently, by the NCLB act, which focuses educational time and energy on the fundamentals, leaving little of either for for a more expansive view of knowledge, and locking the gifted into a pervasive round of testing and boredom.
That anti-intellectual culture is increasingly turning in the direction of outright anti-rationality, an environment in which attempts to educate for more than minimal literacy are seen as both unnecessary and an imposition on fragile minds and egos. Ignorance of the past and of the world beyond one’s doorstep is becoming a matter of pride rather than shame, at least in the U.S. A valuable commentary on this trend is a recent article by Susan Jacoby: Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces
Reader Comments