Donate now

Privacy Policy

Protection of privacy is our first concern, and SQE does not sell or trade information provided by its subscribers or supporters. Your information is used to process donations and newsletter subscriptions, and to contact you about upcoming publications and events.

feed iconSubscribe to our Blog

Follow Us
Follow SQESocQualEd
on Twitter

Please note Downloads require you to have the Adobe Reader installed, you can get it here for free Adobe.com

 

 
 
Society for Quality Education

The Fault, Dear Brutus, Is Not in Our Stars, But In Our Schools

November 21, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 10:50 AM

Margaret Wente’s column today takes on Malcolm Gladwell’s thesis in his book Outliers that phenomenally-successful people owe their success to three factors: a combination of a fierce drive to succeed; 10,000 hours of purposeful practice; and extremely lucky circumstances. Wente, while agreeing with the first two factors, would substitute extraordinary talent for lucky circumstances. She thinks that all the ambition and practice in the world will not result in élite performance if talent is lacking.

In a way, there’s not all that much difference between the two positions, in that for both Wente and Gladwell extraordinary accomplishment depends on the luck of the draw - lucky genes or lucky circumstances, take your pick. But there is in fact a crucial distinction in terms of the percentage of the population who can become accomplished performers. If Wente is right, only the very talented can achieve high-level performance. If Gladwell is right, high-level performance is possible for virtually everyone - although of course only a few individuals will be lucky enough to become superstars.

This distinction has important implications for educators. If Wente is right, then schools should be pretty much sorting institutions - identifying and supporting talented students. After all, in Wente’s scenario, there’s not much point in trying to teach calculus to kids who don’t have a math gene! But if Gladwell is right and élite performance is possible for most people, then schools should be trying to motivate students to reach for the stars and then providing them with the means to do so.

At School for Thought, it is our perception that schools lean strongly to Wente’s position - to the detriment of their students.

Comments

I do agree with the perception that schools will direct all their attention towards students who exhibit exceptional reading and writing ability, along with a talent or two. It has been my observations, that my dyslexic child in grades K to 6, became a victim of this practice, along with 2/3 of the rest of the students. I read a science research paper on why some dyslexics are successful, despite their poor reading and writing skills. In the paper, it discussed the traits of successful dyslexics, and the single trait that they all had in common, was lots of practice. The second trait, where they had a high interest in one or two areas such as science, writing, or ancient history. I took this to heart, and proceeded on a new road with my dyslexic child, using lots of practice, her interests, and combined the two, to improve weaknesses in reading and writing. This new road was taken, and spurred by the comments of the school. Comments such as, “Your child has received more than enough correct instruction in the classroom, more practice in math facts will not result in any improvements”. Another comment, that was common and told to me in different ways by educators was, “Your child does not display the same intelligence as our good readers.”
When I commence on my new road of lots of practice, improvement started to show within weeks, but the school offered no support, especially in areas of reading and writing mechanics. They did not approve of my methods at home, and felt strongly that my child should follow the same methods that is instructed in the classroom, using the same knowledge base.
My child steadily improve in small steps. By grade 7 , the hard work at home was paying off in terms of grades and remarkable achievements in public speaking, science awards, and math.
I can attest, that practice and lots of it is a tool that should be used and practiced by all. I believe all human beings have a talent or two, but for most of us in order to develop talents that our education system loves, we must have a firm foundation on reading, writing and numeracy first, before the hidden talents can be develop. As for luck, it was not a factor in my child, but others around me, including some educators would rather believe it was luck, than a lot of practice to overcome her learning problems.

Posted by Nancy on 11/23 at 07:46 AM

Funny thing, Nancy, my daughter was chosen for the ‘gifted children’s programme’ which amounted to nothing—no learning whatsoever; only role playing, and building model airplanes!  Needless to say, all four invitations for her to go were turned down (they were also unorganized). 
Beginning in fifth grade, I had to tutor my ‘genious’ daughter in math (two hours/nightly) for three years in order to get her up to the requirements in the math curriculam that was written in plain English by our board.
Therefore, my conclusion is that there are no winners in the publically-funded educational system.  The only winners come out of homes where the parents roll up their sleaves and get involved.
Good for you for getting your child a good education, and in spite the staff at the schools where your child was enrolled!
You know that in Finland, for decades they have had a 100% literacy rate.  Is dylsexia genetic?  Again, in my opinion, I don’t think so—it’s more a NBT situation.  When parents proactive and do what the schools are supposed to be doing, all of the children who are helped turn out well.

Posted by Bev Koski on 11/23 at 08:13 PM

I’m on the fence on this issue.  I think talent undoubtedly plays a role. WOuld Mozart have achieved what he did if he had a tin ear? On the other hand, if he had not been born to a musical family with a Walter Gretzky clone for a dad, would he have been composing symphonies at age 11?

My instinct is to take a middle view and acknowledge that talent is necessary for superstars—but then to *also* acknowlefge that we don’t know where that talent may be found.  The story in the media recently about the young whiz kid conductor from the slums of Lima (or somewhere in S.A.) is a case in point.  Who would think that street kids in the slums could be the new Toscanini? Some benefactor started a music program for street kids and it has been phenomenally successful. Maybe you guys could dig up some information about this, I heard it on the radio but haven’t read about it anywhere.

The point is, children may indeed have some extradordinary talent that is not apparent until late in adolescence or even adulthood, and not nurtured by their environment. Why not keep in the back of our minds the possibility that even the most ordinary kid might surprise us. Plenty of high performers in various fields were lousy students in their early days. And the Mozarts among us won’t get the chance to strut their stuff if we don’t provide them with lots of varied opportunities in many areas, combined with some coaching and pushing to succeed. The beginning steps in any skilled activity are usually pretty tough.

Posted by urbanteach on 11/25 at 12:01 PM

Thanks for posting! Its very helpful article nice and impressive. I like it, I have also bookmark it and will recommend it to many other peoples.
dissertations | writing a dissertation

Posted by dissertation on 02/02 at 03:36 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages

Leave A Comment

Name:

Email (required but not displayed):

Emotions

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: L'Etat, C'est Moi

Previous entry: Father Doesn't Know Best Anymore