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.
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.
Comments:
Post a Comment
