Robert D. Shepherd previously wrote a post about why standardization fails. Now he asks whether we want to standardize for a certain outcome or whether we want an education that discovers the genius in every child:
| Every child born today is the product of 3.8 billions years of evolution. Between his or her ears, is the most complex system known to us, and that system, the brain consists of highly interconnected subsystems of neural mechanisms for carrying out particular tasks. Years ago, some Japanese researchers won the Nobel Prize for mapping the neural system in fruit flies that functions ONLY to detect movement from left to right in the visual field. Marvin Minsky calls this complex of interconnected systems a “society of mind.”Early in the twentieth century, a psychologist named Charles Spearman posited a single intelligence factor, “G.” A couple decades ago, Howard Gardner made a name for himself by positing seven (later eight) “multiple intelligences.” But that’s all hocus pocus. The truth is that there are, quite literally, billions of intelligences in the brain–mechanisms that carry out very particular tasks more or less well, many of them sharing parts of the same machinery to carry out subroutines.Over that 3.8 billion years of evolution, these many intelligences were refined to a high degree. Creatures, like us, who reproduce sexually and mix up our genes, are born with different unique sets of mechanisms, and these are pruned and refined based on our experiences, for the neural machinery is extraordinarily plastic. In other words,
1. People are extraordinarily variable, and In EVERY child some of these subsystems are extraordinary and some are merely adequate. In other words, there are no standardized children. Almost every new parent is surprised, even shocked, to learn that kids come into the world extraordinarily unique. They bring a lot of highly particular potential to the ball game. And every one of those children is capable, highly capable, in some ways and not in others. What if, instead of schools having as their purpose turning out identically machined parts, they, instead, existed to find out what a given child is going to be good at doing? What if children were carefully, systematically, given opportunities to try out the enormous range of purposeful human activity until we identified each child’s GENIUS? What if we said to ourselves, presented with a particular child, “I know that this little person is the product of 3.8 billion years of evolution, that he or she has gifts conferred by that history of fitness trials, and it is my responsibility to discover what those are?” I heard an Indian elder, whose name, unfortunately, I forget, speak about this once. He said, “Look at the kids. Really look at them. You can see who the leaders are and who the followers.” This insight can and should be generalized. Now, before you dismiss this as a preposterous idea, consider this fact: A child can be born with, say, perfect pitch and go through our entire K-12 education system without anyone ever discovering this about that child. A society, to be a society, needs SOME shared common culture, and it’s valuable, for that reason, to have some common, shared set of knowledge and skills transmitted from one generation to the next. But a pluralistic society also needs the astonishing variety of attributes that people are born with or are capable of developing. No list, however well vetted, will represent the natural variety of ability and potential that exists in children. Nor will it represent the variety of abilities that the society actually needs in order to function well. It’s bad for kids and it’s bad for society as a whole when someone has the hubris to come up with THE LIST of what everyone needs to know. Let me be clear about what I am NOT saying: I am NOT saying that school should be a place where kids “do their own thing.” What I am saying is that it should be a place that enables kids and their teachers to discover what kids, given their particular endowments, can do. I believe, strongly, that every child has some genius among those TRULY multiple intelligences. It would take a lot of re-envisioning to come up with a workable model of schooling that would do that properly and rigorously. And it wouldn’t look anything like what we are now doing. Finally, to get to the specific question. The revolutionaries who founded the United States recognized that any system that awards people based upon the accidents of their birth rather than based upon their talents, whatever their birth, wastes a lot of human potential. They were committed to the idea that everyone deserved a chance to follow his or her genius, whatever the conditions of his or her birth. That’s why many of them were also committed to the idea universal education and why it is in the interest of all of us to end disparity of educational opportunity. The founders had this crazy idea that no one was disposable, that everyone had gifts to bestow on his or her fellows that would flower in the right circumstances. Any rigidly enforced system of standards treated as a curriculum is not going to enable the achievement of the founders’ vision because while everyone else’s children are toiling through the checklist of standardized skills attainment, the children of the elite will be having extraordinarily varied experiences enabling them to find and follow their bliss (what they care about and have the potential to do well). If that’s the society that we want, the Morlochs and the Eloi, then uniform national standards treated as curricula, the same in every school, for every student, is the way to go. That works for folks who think that there are the few gifted who are destined to rule and the great mass of interchangeable worker bees who need to be as identical and predictable as possible. It doesn’t work for people who believe in pluralistic democracy. |

I am often surprised at the universal truths found in some simple sayings. One of my favorite across four decades as an educator is:
All children are gifted. Some need more help opening their packages.
LikeLike
This is an interesting idea, but I would be more comfortable with a toned-down version.
Instead of positing that every child has genius, why not simply say that almost every child has strong natural ability in some area and is capable of improvement in others? (I say “almost,” because some children with severe disabilities may lack the motor skills even for lifting a fork–and so their abilities may not have a way of coming forth.)
The idea of genius brings with it all sorts of hyperbole and prohibition. Parents on the lookout for that spark of genius will likely exaggerate it when they see it (“Henry is SO gifted, those people at Juilliard are fools not to accept him”) and set the child up for unrealistic expectations and disappointment.
I realize that the word “genius” is loaded and that you probably didn’t mean it in this way–but the concept seems a little distracting, all the same.
Children who think they’re supposed to show some sort of genius may may think, “If I have to work so hard at this, then it probably isn’t my area of genius.” Or they may wait and wait for the blessing from the big authority–the prominent gymnastics coach who says, “now, I’m not making any promises, but from what I have seen, you have what it takes to compete in the Olympics,” or the editor who says, “not only is your poem perfect for the New Yorker, but it is bound to be remembered for generations to come.”
To me, it makes more sense for children to find things that they enjoy doing and do well, and to develop these abilitites while studying a range of subjects. One can take these abilities and interests seriously–and intensely–without worrying about whether or not there’s genius in them.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Diane. I live in an upper-middle class town where half the parents think their children are gifted rather than just incredibly lucky to have so many resources available to them. As you can imagine, the pressure to perform can be intense. I am not in favor of institutionalizing that pressure. I am in favor of providing children a wide variety of experiences that allow them to find their interests without pressure to be “the best.”
LikeLike
Those are good points. Genius is as genius does:) I have taught a couple thousand kids, and I must stay that my “genius” classes generally get passed by hard-working kids who get that spark of inspiration.
I don’t agree that “universal” education ever was truly universal in this nation, nor was “freedom” for that matter, but as Washington and Franklin said, (paraphrased), “It’s the best we can do.”
I’ve been through several sets of standards and am closing in on the critical standardized testing, each one designed to measure somebody else’s idea of what the educational utopia should be. They’re all good ideas, some conflict and some coordinate. Some of these tests are pushing good, good people out of the field of education and others are stunting students.
To be fair, standards and benchmarks are critical in any organization’s success. We must have them and use them. But they must instill creativity and motivation rather than fear.
The Common Cores, done right, can do that. Done wrong, they will be misapplied.
I like that this article encourages people to recognize the individual talents of the student, but student do have to realize that it takes thousands of hours of practice to perfect those talents. Our system needs to provide a fine balance between “practice” and “create.” The students who fail to take advantage of these opportunities will be the worker bees, and that’s not a bad thing, because 1. Humans are inspirational–you can always make a change, and 2. A healthy dose of “worker bee” is the foundation of a great leader later on…
LikeLike
This is one of the BEST articles I have read in a long, long time. I retired after 33 years of teaching young children and I couldn’t agree with you more.
LikeLike
Diane, This is an excellent article. (I would think so, wouldn’t I? My book “The Genius in Every Child: Encouraging Character, Curiosity and Creativity in Children” was published last month). It builds on the truth of what you wrote here: In stories of the genius at work and principles of good practice to make your vision a reality.
In your statement:
“It would take a lot of re-envisioning to come up with a workable model of schooling that would do that properly and rigorously. And it wouldn’t look anything like what we are now doing.”
I completely agree with your first sentence, and disagree with the second. There are actually hundreds of schools doing it, and not all of them for the children of the rich.
I am as passionate as you are that hundreds is not enough; there need to be tens of thousands.
I am glad to see we are on the same team.
PS: If you use another definition of “genius” (the tutelary spirit of a person, place or institution) you can finesse the need to “tone it down.”
LikeLike