Third lesson we can learn form sports: Ability counts!

In this posting, I will explore what we in gifted education can learn from the following two principles of training in sports:

(4) Training occurs in stages beginning with basic skills, to specific competition skills, to expert performance skills.
(10) Skill levels, interest, and task commitment become more important as athletes get older and develop into expert or elite athletes.

How feasible do you think is the notion of a heterogeneous varsity basketball team based on age or a competitive marching band consisting of any interested musician, regardless of ability level?

How to group students to best effect for instructional purposes is the topic of continuing debate in the United States. This debate started when the first decision was made to move the responsibility for educating children from the home to the community and the formation of schools.

In most schools today, children are grouped into grades on the basis of age. This decision had its foundation in early psychology – remember Binet and his inquiry into what average children of a certain age was to be able to do? It was also a response to mandatory education laws that dramatically increased the enrollment in schools. It seemed to be the most efficient and cost effective way of grouping children for instruction.

When it became evident that this form of arranging students in schools had inherent flaws in that students showed different abilities, instead of rethinking the issue and starting over with a better plan, education administrators tinkered with the flawed plan (somewhat like Microsoft kept "improving" the original dos-based Windows operating system by building more and more on the original platform) and instituted tracking, where students were grouped within the original grade levels, but in ability-leveled tracks (usually based on IQ scores). In essence, they were just making more categories based on the original organizational chart.

Before the 18th century, this focus on age-based grades and set curriculum was not so distinct. In Ancient China the custom was to instruct interested students in particular knowledge and skills based on their ability, not their age. They advanced through the hierarchy based on test scores. Those who continued to achieve highly was able to move up and those who achieved well only at a certain level, found occupation at that level, with no disrespect for not reaching the highest levels. In Ancient Japan, students received instruction based on their birth status (one type of education for Samurai children and another for commoners). This instruction (especially for the Samurai) was not geared towards age-based grades, but depended on ability. In Renaissance Europe, education happened by taking children into apprenticeship for specific trades. They progressed from novice to master through ability. Those who did not show the skill or did not have the knowledge remained novices or beginners without ever rising in the hierarchy of expertise.

In modern times with the spread of universal education, the major philosophical issue affecting the decisions on how to structure education and group children for instruction is whether education should be aimed at elevating the masses (universal education) or at nurturing those who show evidence of the greatest potential. This issue is often posed as a dichotomy between elitism and democratic equality – the equal treatment of all.

However, Dr. Dun Yat-sen, a Chinese scholar, has said that the democratic practice of educating equally individuals of unequal intelligence (having the same expectations and standards for the bright and the not so bright) is a false conception of equality that leads to mediocrity and wasted talent. True equality consists rather in providing each individual an “equal opportunity to profit by education according to his intelligence, says Dr. Dun Yat-sen.

Grouping students by age into grades where specific curriculum is prescribed, brings with it some concern about those students who cannot achieve well in age-in-grade instruction. In US schools, there is a growing concern about the “achievement gap,” the gap between those students who are achieving at grade level and those who cannot reach that achievement level. Much research is being done on teaching strategies and curriculum that close the achievement gap. In other words, instruction that will help low achieving students “catch up” to those other students who are achieving on grade level. Very little attention is given to the other group of students whose needs are not met in such age-in-grade grouping – the high ability, high performing, gifted students. Most school reformers focus on the disadvantages that low performing students suffer in school, whether due to disabilities, low socio-economic status, ethnic and linguistic diversity, and other issues.

Few crusaders for better educational opportunities for disadvantaged students consider the fact that gifted children also suffer disadvantages when being grouped with students who evidence lower and slower cognitive abilities, or those students who have already mastered the curriculum designed for their age peers. Administrators now have to continually move the parameters:

- They have added Kindergarten before grade 1, primarily to prepare children for the curriculum covered in grade 1. Early Start programs and pre-school have to prepare students for what they will be learning in Kindergarten. The children left out in the cold, are the ones in Kindergarten who can already do everything the Kindergarteners (or even first graders) have to learn, but is stuck in Kindergarten because they are "the right age."

- They have to make exceptions to the plan: Early entrance to school, subject acceleration, grade skipping, special services for gifted students, etc. Administrators do not like making exceptions – it disrupts the even flow of students through the system, causes scheduling headaches, and costs money for extra personnel and materials.

We know that these high performing students come in many different forms: Some are high performing across the curriculum and in all domains; others are high performing in one or two domains. It seems sensible to group students by ability rather than age and grade, with others of similar ability and achievement, regardless of age and grade. This is a controversial subject however, deeply rooted in the belief that all students should receive the same education. The debate on equality vs equity continues to rage in the media, in professional journals, and in schools.

I believe that this logic is based on a faulty premise – that “same” means “equal.” Therefore the conclusion that grouping gifted students with peers of similar ability is discriminating against their age peers of different ability is falacious. However, this debate continues and educators concerned about gifted students have to seriously consider the grouping options available in their current teaching situations for their students that will afford them the best opportunities to develop their talents and improve their expertise.

So, here follows Rule #2 in Catharine de Wet's School of Dreams: Children will NOT be grouped by age. They will be grouped by ABILITY. They will be able to receive instruction on their ability level and they will be able to progress through curriculum that will not be set for coverage in a specified period of time.

Impossible you say? I don't agree. It happens in more places than you might know. The advent of the internet makes individualized schooling much more accessible to able students than when they depended on adults to dispense training and knowledge. You can read more about this at: http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Virtual_Schools.pdf in a report by Bill Tucker on Laboratories of Reform: Virtual High Schools and Innovation in Public Education.

It will however, require that parents, teachers, and administrators rethink the purpose of education. It's for the children, you see, not for teachers and administrators. And it is for developing talent and expertise, not for providing work for adults.