The following is a Counterpoint:
By Dr. Ronald L. Rubenzer
A long time ago, in a far distant school system, a group of talented students received special attention.
Imagine, if you will, students grouped on their exceptionally talented performance. These students, sons and daughters of taxpayers, received special equipment, treatment and specially trained teachers to help nurture their precocious talents. This special group even got to go on field trips.
Since we don't want to encourage a culture of underachievement, these students' skills are stretched to the limit with after-school events. The performances of this special group are proudly attended even by nonrelatives. All is well. It is a win-win situation. The students get to build their self-esteem by building their skills, and the school gets to show off its best students, demonstrating what a great school these students attend.
On the horizon, however, is a well-meaning group of people who feel their children are being shortchanged. For whatever reason, these children were not "tapped on the shoulder" to be in the program described above.
To equalize things, it is felt the special equipment, treatment, trips and specially trained teachers should be spread out for all children, regardless of need. Now all children can get a little more attention in developing their skills. Everyone will perform better, not based on need but on the even per-pupil expenditure of resources.
Well, in the name of fairness, there goes the varsity basketball team (those students who get special equipment, treatment, trips and specially trained teachers). Now everyone will shoot baskets a little better, dribble a little faster.
No student-athlete will be left behind, but then no potential varsity athlete will get ahead, either.
Now apply this logic to another high-performing group of children, the advanced learner program.
Watering down a program to raise the overall tide of performance of everyone sounds democratic. But the most undemocratic education is when "everyone" is treated absolutely equally, regardless of needs.
Some children will be "left behind" because they wouldn't get the support they need to finish the race. Some children, with the need to speed ahead (learn more), would not be allowed to get too far ahead, because they may get out of our reach and may raise the bar of performance for those who like the comfort of underachieving.
No child left behind does not mean let no child get ahead. There's a wise old saying, "Everyone according to their talents." Let's give all kids a chance to feel the thrill of success during their academic career.
The writer lives in Greensboro and is a licensed psychological associate and the author of "How the Best Handle Stress."
Comments (12)
Ronald, Thanks for the view from a distant galaxy far away, for there lived sane people with common sense and were not afraid to use it!
They had children who were important to them and they gave each child the opportunity to become the best and of, by the way, these children were recognized in public for their good work!
Meanwhile, back in this galaxy, schools are getting worst because of what is known as a "politically correct group of liberal wanna be
parents"
The sane people here wonder how it was done "out there". What is their secret?
Posted by Billy F. Hammack | August 6, 2005 6:27 AM
This is absolute fantasy. You can't find any solid evidence that any scenario in this diatribe has actually come to be, or is even close. You people continue to shop in your own newsroom and agree with each other ... I hope reality doesn't hurt too much when it bites.
Come on, examples now, I want to see them. And for every silly, weak example, I'll show you five counters. Governor's School, Science Olympiad, Academic Skills Camp, Lincoln School come to mind, and I haven't even broken a sweat.
"No Child Left Behind" has been pretty much mucked up by Team Bush, but it is not a device for keeping the top down. It is a safety net, in its original conception, for catching those the system would simply pass over.
You be the one to tell an above average child that, because he was born in a county where the tax base couldn't support the purchase of new text books, good teachers, decent physical plant for schools, he's likely to get a substandard education.
Posted by Lon | August 6, 2005 12:36 PM
Could privatization of our school systems be the answer?
Posted by yard dog | August 6, 2005 12:56 PM
" There's a wise old saying, 'Everyone according to their talents.' "
There are several Biblical passages which read "to everyone according to his ability." Wonder if this is the "saying" to which the writer refers? If so, it's interesting to note that those passages are not about teaching people according to their abilities, but to giving to others according to one's ability to give. I agree that each child should be taught according to individual need, but if that is to be done by the public schools, that will require that the community be willing to give far more than it nows does to support the schools.
Posted by Missy | August 6, 2005 3:19 PM
I've been cruising and perusing the comments. Yellowdog, how'd you get so inept? Fleas? Eric, are you still in love with mean 'ol Satan? Ed Conical, have you ever been wrong? Ya'll take care and try not to let them yellow dogs hump your laig.
Posted by dr. t | August 6, 2005 3:49 PM
Governor's School rocked!
What in the world is a licensed psychological associate?
Posted by Buck | August 6, 2005 10:21 PM
Lon, do you have kids in the Guildford County school system? From what you have stated I think not but to answer your questions:
"examples": Although the Rhino does not have the archives up for me to search the story this was on a N & R blog: "Under the proposal, students wouldn't get the more in-depth services until second semester of third grade. And the most advanced third-graders would no longer get to attend a special program at a separate site." Not only that but Greir wanted to lower the standards for who is allowed into the Advance Leaner classes (to make it more diverse) to get more information read the comments at this blog posting: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/chalkboard/archives/2005/03/board_to_discus.html
That is just one example you want more, I have them but before I waste my time I would like to know if you have kids in the system, because if not, what's the point?
Governor's School: is this a year around program? Science Olympiad: haven't heard of it but sounds like a magnet school same with Lincoln School and as we all know magnet schools are hard to get into the few slots they have seeing is that is the way Greir gets around NCLB, moving gifted students into lower performing schools to raise the overall school grade. Academic Skills Camp: again a camp and how many students does this reach?
"No Child Left Behind" has been pretty much mucked up by Team Bush": really how so? It was after all written by none other then Teddy Kennedy, but yes I can see where Bush went wrong in allowing Teddy to draft the bill.
"he's likely to get a substandard education.":
Spoken like a person with no concept of what goes on in the Guildford County school system, again I have to ask how many of your kids are in the system? First off mind telling me what HALF A BILLION dollars is? Chump change? Secondly if money was the answer explain why the highest per pupil system (Washington DC) is the lowest rated school system?
Posted by Trish | August 7, 2005 12:26 AM
(I'm going to hate myself later in the day...)
The headline? "everyone" / "their"?
Posted by Sue | August 7, 2005 8:56 AM
Sue, if you are responding to my post I'm sorry but you are going to have to be a little more direct. I am terrible at trying to interrupt what point someone is trying to get across. If you were not then I apologize.
Posted by Trish | August 7, 2005 11:11 AM
Trish, no - that was NOT directed to your post. It was to the editors' choice of title, "Everyone according to their talents."
It's gramatically wrong. That's what my comment was about.
Posted by Sue | August 7, 2005 12:33 PM
Thanks Sue, I wasn't sure so that is why I asked. English class was not one of my strong suits so I didn't even notice that!
Posted by Trish | August 7, 2005 12:40 PM
"What in the world is a licensed psychological associate?"
Buck: Basically, a licensed psychological associate has a master's in psychology, as opposed to a licensed psychologist, who has a doctorate in psychology.
There is more involved post-grad for the licensure, which you can read about here: http://www.ncpsychology.com/html/GeneralPublic.htm#What
Posted by Missy | August 8, 2005 4:31 PM