The Brightest Students Don’t Get Enough Attention

As I’ve long thought, this longitudinal study of 5,000 mathematically precocious children concludes that very smart students do not get enough attention in school.

This is one of RIFI’s purposes – to provide exceptional learning to exceptional young people, whomever they may be.

What happened to “equality” for them? The equality warriors’ bottom line is to bring everyone to the same level, and that’s not the highest!

Business Insider reports “the overwhelming majority of class time was spent helping low-achieving students get to the middle.

“SMPY (“Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth,”) suggests that teachers should avoid teaching a one-size-fits-all curriculum and instead focus on doing the best they can to create individualized lesson plans for students.”

Ah, when will they learn that the Montessori program does just that and the mathematically gifted can soar as high as they can go in a Montessori classroom?

This Business Insider article is, unfortunately, illustrative of poor thinking, also, since it claims “SMPY has repeatedly found, throughout multiple follow-up analyses, that some of the smartest kids possess a great capacity for spatial reasoning.” Of course it did: it was tracking the mathematically gifted! If they had done a study of the literarily gifted, I’d bet the conclusion would have been different.

The study does have great data to plumb because of its longitudinal perspective.

Chinese Censorship Affects Cambridge U Press

Suppression of free speech and political facts about China in the U.S.

The NAS report that:

“universities with Confucius Institutes give up a significant amount of autonomy in order to receive China’s largesse. Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the Cultural Revolution—the same topics that were nearly excised from The China Quarterly—are currently off-limits in Confucius Institute classes offered at American colleges and universities today.”

 

Employers Find “Soft” Skills, Like Reasoning, In Short Supply!

“Companies across the U.S. say it is becoming increasingly difficult to find applicants who can communicate clearly, take initiative, problem-solve and get along with co- workers.

“Those traits, often called soft skills, can make the difference between a standout employee and one who just gets by.” – claims a recent Wall Street Journal article, Employers Find ‘Soft Skills’ Like Critical Thinking in Short Supply – WSJ.

Students who come to The Great Connections Seminars develop those pronto. Their increase in these skills in one-week is astonishing. Great Connections 2016 student Saulo Maciel, junior in Communications from Campo Grande, Brazil said “I learned more here in one week than in ten years at school.”

 

Do We Need the Department of Education?

In the latest edition of Hillsdale College’s ImprimisCharles Murray recently wrote an excellent piece entitled “Do We Need the Department of Education?” adapted from a 2011 speech of his.

He notes that the Department of Education didn’t come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965. In this piece he delves into the historical justifications and evolution of how education came under federal guidance, and based on its track record whether it should remain so. In the age of Common Core, of public education disappointing parents and failing children, it is an enlightening piece that’s worth a read in its entirety. Here are some important highlights:

On whether the Department of Education is constitutional:

Constitution Article 1 Section 8

“At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s constitutionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

On whether there are serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level:

“The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology. The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere—in civil rights. The Supreme Court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but—notwithstanding a few highly publicized episodes such as the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi—the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Supreme Court Bans Segregation

Was it necessary for the federal government to act? There is a strong argument for “yes,” especially in the case of K-12 education. Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale. But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy. What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment. Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.”

On the federal government’s track record in education:

“As I documented in my book, Real Education, collateral data from other sources are not as detailed, nor do they go back to the 1940s, but they tell a consistent story. American education had been improving since World War II. Then, when the federal government began to get involved, it got worse.

I will not try to make the case that federal involvement caused the downturn. The effort that went into programs associated with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the early years was not enough to have changed American education, and the more likely causes for the downturn are the spirit of the 1960s—do your own thing—and the rise of progressive education to dominance over American public education. But this much can certainly be said: The overall data on the performance of American K-12 students give no reason to think that federal involvement, which took the form of the Department of Education after 1979, has been an engine of improvement.

On the education of the disadvantaged, especially minorities:

“What about the education of the disadvantaged, especially minorities? After all, this was arguably the main reason that the federal government began to get involved in education—to reduce the achievement gap separating poor children and rich children, and especially the gap separating poor black children and the rest of the country.

The most famous part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was Title I, initially authorizing more than a billion dollars annually (equivalent to more than $7 billion today) to upgrade the schools attended by children from low-income families. The program has continued to grow ever since, disposing of about $19 billion in 2010 (No Child Left Behind has also been part of Title I).

NAEP Data on Achievement Gap

Supporters of Title I confidently expected to see progress, and so formal evaluation of Title I was built into the legislation from the beginning. Over the years, the evaluations became progressively more ambitious and more methodologically sophisticated. But while the evaluations have improved, the story they tell has not changed. Despite being conducted by people who wished the program well, no evaluation of Title I from the 1970s onward has found credible evidence of a significant positive impact on student achievement. If one steps back from the formal evaluations and looks at the NAEP test score gap between high-poverty schools (the ones that qualify for Title I support) and low-poverty schools, the implications are worse. A study by the Department of Education published in 2001 revealed that the gap grew rather than diminished from 1986—the earliest year such comparisons have been made—through 1999.

That brings us to No Child Left Behind. Have you noticed that no one talks about No Child Left Behind any more? The explanation is that its one-time advocates are no longer willing to defend it. The nearly-flat NAEP trendlines since 2002 make that much-ballyhooed legislative mandate—a mandate to bring all children to proficiency in math and reading by 2014—too embarrassing to mention.

In summary: the long, intrusive, expensive role of the federal government in K-12 education does not have any credible evidence for a positive effect on American education.

Read Charles Murray’s entire piece here.