Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion A rising tide floats all boats...

So, I was having this discussing with my step-father last night and wanted input from others. I know that I disagree with him, but beyond saying that research shows that gifted children can't make it with no support, I apparently don't have convincing arguments. He is probably gifted himself and "made it" with no support (albeit 60 yrs ago).

His feeling is that, if education focuses on bringing the lower and avg bunch of kids up, that all kids will benefit b/c a rising tide floats all boats. As a financial analogy, he mentioned how providing tax cuts and services to those who are already wealthy only serves to increase the disparity of resources. However, if lower income folks are provided tax cuts, etc. it was of benefit to everyone in terms of not having pockets of crime and low income. (He's liberal and well off financially. I lean in the politically liberal direction as well. I'm not seeking to argue politics, just to provide his analogy.)

Thoughts?

The book Genius Denied has a great discussion about how egalitarian education is unfair for gifted and prevents society from reaching its full potential. You might find something good here info here:
http://www.geniusdenied.com/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=3&NavID=11_1

chrys

A rising tide floats all boats...
Yes - but what about the boats that are so high up in dry dock that even a flood wouldn't reach them?

I don't think the financial analogy works. The wealthy already have the resources they require, the gifted child does not.

What if you take his analogy and morph it into a sports analogy. All kids should be taught to play football in the same way, with the same resources. Those who are talented at football need no access to higher-level training because they're already good at the sport. The goal should be to make everyone good at the game. This way, everyone will be on an even playing field. All kids regardless of talent should be put in the same clinic, and go through all the same drills and exercises. Talented players should not be given access to any higher-level training. In fact, more time/resources should be given to those NOT good at the sport to raise the overall quality of the game played. (Of course, the Superbowl might not be as popular in this scenario! So, the advertisers may balk.)

Could we look at this as a waste of resources? Here's an off-the-cuff analogy. I'm typing as I think here, so feel free to take it or leave it. (Hopefully, I won't say anything that offends anyone....)

You have several different kinds of crops. Most can be developed using similar methods and provide value to society. There is one type of crop, however, that is more rare and requires different growing methods to thrive (not necessarily more expensive, just different). It has the potential to yield large benefits to the country -- types that are unlikely to be seen from the other crops. Would you ignore the one that needs something different to grow just because it's different and lose the benefits that could have resulted?

Nice topic. I'll be interested to see what others have to say.

He's 60 or 70-80? When my father was a boy in NYC in the 1920's - 30's he skipped two grades and then went to Stuyvesant High School.

I would double check the details of his education with him - he may have skipped grades. Also - if he lives in a fairly rarified environment he may have NO idea what level an average/below average student is at.

I taught some university classes a couple of years ago and I was given a good piece of advice - to give an "evaluation quiz" the first day. "Trust me, just do it," I was told. Turned out to be extremely valuable, because if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes that first day I NEVER would have believed how lacking the students were in basic skills and prerequisite knowledge. Some of them were just poorly educated, but many of them couldn't retain any material or make pretty obvious connections. And a considerable percentage of the students had almost no concept of how to study or educate themselves on a topic. They lacked work ethic and a sense of responsibility for their education. Google "rate my students" if you want to get an idea of the esteem professors hold their students in.

I can only believe that this differential is even more pronounced at an elementary school level.

I realize that this doesn't contradict your FIL's premise that education for average and below average students should be improved, but I bet if he understood what constitutes "average" these days he wouldn't argue that a classroom geared to this level is appropriate for a highy gifted child.

I really like the sports analogy. I wonder how persuasive it would be with someone who has a different world view about what is fair educationally. (it doesn't help that there is some correlation between the attainment of particular levels of education and income levels - that brings politics into it.)

As for the financial analogy, it may or may not work, depending on whether you define the resources to be educational resources to be used or innate intelligence resources that cannot be transferred. I think it will again come down to defining what equal opportunity means in terms of educational resources (one would hope not equal results - a low tide drops all boats?).

He's in his mid 60s, so I guess that he was educated 45-55 yrs ago for the most part. My grandmother, born in the early 20s, had a similar experience to your father: she skipped two grades and graduated high school at 15.

My understanding from my mother (they married when I was an adult), is that he grew up in a very small rural area, didn't do particularly fabulously in early school and was sent off to military school or boarding school of some sort around high school. I am sure that he didn't skip any grades, though.

So he didn't "make it" himself. My spouse was in the same situation. His mom jumped through hoops to get him into a boarding school for HS.

He believes that he did, though, in that he wasn't accelerated, placed in special GT classes, or given any special attention for being bright.

I do somewhat see his point.
If our education system could get more high risk kids to graduate, it would create more tax payers and less tax-users.
But, I don't see why it has to be us or them. A good education system should focus on every student being able to meet his/her pontial.

A lot of people live from crisis to crisis and never figure out how to plan and then work their way to a stable life.

Kids born into this type of life will never escape it unless they move into an orderly location and see another perspective.

In our society there are three main areas for providing stability and another viewpoint for kids from troubled circumstances. These are school, work, and friends' families.

The rising tide analogy relates specifically to work. A decent job empowers a kid to make their own decisions, gives them a value that is based on a stable contribution, and gives them independence to choose a better life.

For the kids that learn to plan ahead, the rising tide lifts them. For those that do get a job, but don't plan, it helps them for a little bit. Others will choose not to work at all.

The decision making process and wealth are highly correlated.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/poor_decision_making/

This might be just a weird coinsidence, but Renzulli, perhaps of a similar age to your FIL uses that saying all the time to support gifted education - see

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart03.html

What do you think?
Grinity

Exactly my thoughts! If a boat is high enough up the mountain, it's not going to be reached by the tide! And I certainly would not classify today's educational system as another Noah's flood!

I've only skimmed the article thus far, but my initial impression is that it would not be convincing to fil re providing more for high ability children, especially high ability children who are not economically disadvantaged. The article does mention pushing the services often found in GT programming into the regular classroom for all or most kids b/c kids other than gifted kids can benefit from them -- something that fil would support but something that also sounds a lot like everyone can benefit from these services, so we don't need to be doing something different for gifted kids only. The early profile of a child who lives in public housing and whose family receives food stamps would be a child he would see as one who needs support b/c he doesn't have it. White, middle class gifted kids don't need anything in his opinion, though, b/c they have educated parents and aren't poor.

To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge

"Don't expect to build up those weak in academics by pulling down those who are strong"

"A rising tide floats all boats..."

was just thinking. tend to do that sometimes. I'd hate to be the one *waiting* for the tide to rise.