No Child Moves Ahead
Gifted versus “Special” Education in the U.S. Public Schools
In 2007 the federal government spent in excess of 25 billion dollars annually funding the education of underachieving and handicapped children, in contrast to 7.5 million dollars annually (1/3300) funding the education of the gifted (Ed.Gov, 2007). John Cloud’s recent article in Time magazine, “Are we Failing Our Geniuses,” highlights the neglect of our nation’s mentally elite. “In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit.” (Cloud, p. 3).
If the aims of public education are to educate for political participation, ensure civility, prepare for work roles, promote social responsibility and mitigate social problems, and convey cognitive skills, substantive knowledge and inquiry skills (Hilty Slides, 2009) then the omission of gifted education is not contrary to the goals of public education. Absent from these goals is a notion of student attainment to full potential. Indeed, there is an expectation that all children should meet some minimal proficiency, in some cases irrespective of their ability to achieve it.
Walker and Soltis Curriculum and Aims (W&S) detail the philosophy of curriculum development in public schools, including those of Apple and his Ideology and Curriculum, stating that “schooling functions … to reproduce and sustain an unjust, inequitable, and inhumane maldistribution of power.” (W&S p. 72 on Apple’s Ideology and Curriculum). In an odd turnabout of standards, the treatment of gifted children in the U.S. public education system seems to confirm this claim, as the educational machinery exercises its disdain and jealousy of the most endowed minds in our country by denying them an opportunity to pursue their potential. Knowledge is the currency of power in a culture, and in our public schools, these children are not being taught what they could learn. They are victims of the “Criterion Steering Group” of Dahllof, wherein “teachers set the pace of a class’s progress through the course material by depending on the performance of some subset of the class” (W&S p. 75), usually a subset below class average. “Advocates for gifted kids consider one of the most pernicious results to be ‘cooperative learning’ arrangements in which high-ability students are paired with struggling kids on projects” (Cloud, p. 5). By contrast, children who are able to skip grades and proceed at their own pace, even without special assistance, turn out socially well adjusted and achieve academic success. (Cloud, p. 6).
Gifted children by nature may not need the coddling support of the disadvantaged, since they are able to learn independently in many cases. Educational systems should allow them to proceed through the curriculum at an accelerated pace if necessary, and should provide them with minimal support through that process. Moreover, an incorporation of personal well-being and the importance of achieving one’s potential need to be incorporated into the aims of public education. After all, for most of us, our best teachers are the ones that pushed us to achieve to our full capabilities, showing concern and care for us as students even in the midst of their hectic teaching schedules.
The philosophy of “No Child Left Behind” is a blind admonishment to the fast pace of the gifted. Are they not allowed to move ahead? While intelligence or giftedness does not make one a better person, given the dramatic range for human intelligence differential abilities should imply differential pacing. To do otherwise is on the one hand a saddling of the disadvantaged with unrealistic expectations, while on the other hand a squandering of the gifts of the gifted. “No Child Left Behind” by its nature implies that “No Child Moves Ahead.” Public educational philosophy should be recast as “Every Child To Their Best” instead.
References:
ED.gov, “Title I — Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged” as portrayed by: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
Ed.Gov, “Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program” as seen by: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/funding.html
