<$BlogRSDUrl$>

07 April 2004

Gifted Programs and Social Re-engineering

The WSJ article by Daniel Golden on 7 April 2004 ended with the statement by a School Board member in Greenville, S.C., that “We’re not here to socially re-engineer.” It is certainly true that the objective of the center for gifted students from his district is not to correct the imbalance in academic and interpersonal skills with which children enter the public school system. Gifted student programs around the country are intended to allow students with high learning aptitudes to escape, at least for a time, restrictive boundaries placed by the imperatives of public education on the development of their exceptional skills.

“Social re-engineering” is, however, probably the foremost goal of America’s public education system. That is at once the reason for the success of the multiracial, multicultural society that we have become, and an important contributor to the historical failure of public education to promote intellectual excellence. It has taken strong external aids, like inquisitive ethnic traditions and intellectually nurturing home life, to correct for that deficiency in the past. Since the 1970s, however, as Mr. Golden reports, school districts have sought to internalize those aids by incorporating gifted education programs into their curriculums.

Leveling and opening the playing field, as it were, is still the primary objective of public education. The institution of gifted education programs certainly does not relieve public education of that responsibility. If anything, it should make the performance of that function more effective. In order for that to be completely true, however, gifted education programs must continue to follow intermittent, “pull-out” schedules. They must return exceptional students to the rest of the academic community where, like TiShanna Smith does when helping her older brother with his homework, they will enrich the entire environment and benefit from interaction with their peers.

01 April 2004

Wrongheaded Prosecution of Martha Stewart

The prosecution of Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic for having lied to Justice Department investigators of the circumstances surrounding her sale of ImClone stock illustrates how the self-righteousness of supposed guardians of the public interest can lead them to harass prominent figures in order to highlight an inequity in society that they believe it is their duty to correct. Mr. Bacanovic would more appropriately be disciplined by the NASD for having violated the confidentiality of his relationship with Mr. Waksal by sharing with his celebrity client, Ms. Stewart, information on insider trading by the chief executive of ImClone.

Ms. Stewart has been admirably, if not stupidly loyal to her stockbroker. A securities dealer is licensed by the state in the expectation that he will abide by rules of fair play that prohibit the sort of actions he took when he learned of Mr. Waksal’s sale of ImClone stock. Indeed, Mr. Bacanovic seems to have made the decision to expand the generosity of Mr. Waksal by divulging to someone he thought deserved knowledge of the insider information that Mr. Waksal restricted to his close relatives.

Are clients really expected to question the source of information each time they receive a recommendation from their financial advisors? Apparently, wealthy celebrity clients are. If such clients tempt their stockbrokers to give them more solicitous treatment than the rest of us, is it the responsibility of the government to punish them for their allure? Certainly, a licensed financial advisor ought to be held to a standard of professionalism that seems to have been broken in this case. Thank God Maitre D’s are not subject to the same penalty for seating a favorite customer at a select table. More to the point, it’s a relief that sitting there does not attract federal investigation. It might tempt a diva to lie about the wink she flashes on entering a restaurant.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?