Brookings, Fordham Institutes’ reps plead for attention for public school gifted students

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute often speaks to issues related to charter schools and wrote an extensive and critical but constructive report in 2006 on specifically Ohio’s charter school system (which has helped it earn my respect, because they seem to recognize that sure, charters can be huge enhancements to a system but the Ohio deployment has been fraught with misdirection and misapplication of the intent behind the movement – 50% of rated charters are in academic emergency or academic watch).

This week, the New York Times ran this op-ed, “Smart Child Left Behind,” written by Tom Loveless, “…a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of the task force on K-12 education at Stanford’s Hoover Institution,” and Michael J. Petrilli, “…vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.”  I could not agree more with pretty much every assertion and conclusion, including this:

It is clear that No Child Left Behind is helping low-achieving students. But it is also obvious that high-achieving students — who suffer from benign neglect under the law — have been making smaller gains, much as they did before it was enacted. Alas, this drug is producing no miracles.

No doubt, some will claim victory: We are closing the achievement gap between our top and bottom students! But is that our only national goal in education? What might happen if federal law encouraged educators to improve the performance of all students? Our analysis of the federal data identified tens of thousands of high achievers who are black, Hispanic or poor. They are excelling at their studies, often against great odds. Shouldn’t we be addressing their educational needs?

As we look for ways to improve No Child Left Behind, we must recognize that our top students still have much to learn.

Emphasis is mine.  I pray and wish that it would be that of many, many others as well.

4 thoughts on “Brookings, Fordham Institutes’ reps plead for attention for public school gifted students

  1. Well, helping out the students with ability wouldn’t be very progressive / egalitarian, now would it?

    If you value a level playing field, this is one way to go about it.

    Snark aside (but when do I ever do that?), the state run effective monopoly on education really, really, can’t be expected to produce an educated public. The one size fits all government option just doesn’t work very well .

  2. I graduated HS in 1971 in Clark Co, OH. I got as good an education as I was willing to get, admittedly OH had a good reputation at that time, but it was in my hands.

    Sure, I have a very high IQ, I had proffessional parents, and I didn’t actually work at it, but in the end, it still is up to the student. A teacher provides tools and exercises and maybe inspiration but that isn’t the same as being the one doing the work.

    My kids have been out of school – in OR for quite some time and I obviously for a long time, but I’m unsure what it is that either the critics or the boosters of the system think is the root cause of education failure or success since they don’t even seem to speak the same language.

    If a child’s culture doesn’t value education and instill that desire there isn’t really much the physical plant can do about that. I guess I see the problem as broader based than the school board.

  3. I wholeheartedly agree.

    My own sense is that the community of educational administrators in this nation value social engineering over academic achievement. Instead of propelling our students to be as smart as they possibly can, their overriding goal is to create a classless society without distinctions between one student and another. They want Stepfords, not scholars.

  4. Pingback: ShortWoman» Blog Archive » Why This Recession is Different

Comments are closed.