"Equality" can be a dangerous idea.

My title might have startled some, alarmed others. However, its meaning is not immediately apparent. I agree, in principle, with equality of a kind – it is just equality of another kind, that I disagree, rather fundamentally, with. I shall, of course, explain and you would do well to wait until that explanation is over, before concluding what I mean by “Equality can be a dangerous idea”.

On Monday, I met a Professor in education, who had some rather unexpected beliefs. Though these were not religious beliefs, he clearly held them as strongly as any worshipper could.

He had asked me what I did.

“I am doing psychology research. One of my primary interests is giftedness.”

My last word seemed as a goad to him. He became immediately energized.

“ALL people should be EQUAL,” he expounded vehemently, his face filled with a somewhat disquieting fervor. “There should be no separate group of SUPERBEINGS. You know, “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” and all that”.

This was a very odd thing to say, considering that we stood in a conference room in which the question of how to education gifted science students had been addressed, all morning. Here was a man who didn’t even believe in giftedness…so why was he here?

His eyes scrutinized me, in challenge.

“Is there a lot of research into giftedness?”, he said, with the hint of a sneer at the thought.

“There is now.”, I said, confidently, which seemed to bother him somewhat.

“Don’t you encounter skepticism?”, he pursued, with a little smile that was a lot like something else.

“Scepticism?”, I asked, puzzled, for I was genuinely so. “Why should I encounter skepticism? I never encounter it.” Except, of course, for today, at this very minute, from this man and his silent, female colleague, who clearly agreed with him.
That thought was clearly in his doubting eyes.

It was obvious to me that this “Professor” didn’t understand gifted children at all. It was a mystery to me how he had endured so long in education, and yet managed to remain in denial about them. I resolved to enlighten him…simply, for I did not detect, before me, much evidence of any “giftedness” of his own.

“Imagine that a child has a ratio IQ of 200, and yet they are 9 years old and are placed in a classroom of agemates. Mentally, the child is an adult, even if physically he or she is a 9 year old. That is just like placing an adult in a classroom with young kids. Can you understand how bored they would be?”

He smirked, the smirk of the incorrigibly ignorant.

“It seems we have different views.”

His body language indicated that the conversation was at an end.

Later, I reflected on the enigma, to me, of how a man could hold such views, lifelong, in his field. He was not a young man: his hair was grey, his face was lined. He could not be any younger than late fifties and was probably in his sixties. He was an educator, yet did not grasp one of the most important issues in education: the realization of the gifted.

It was clear that he had misunderstood what true equality was all about. For him, equality was “equality of outcome”. He wanted all people to achieve the same results. He wanted all people to have the same ability. He had not, however, seen the essential contradiction of this. Equality of outcome is not possible unless there is inequality of opportunity. For outcomes to be equal, then two things must happen: the lower a child’s native ability, the more educational help, they must receive. So, too, the higher the child’s native ability, the less help and the more HINDRANCE they must receive. The only way to achieve equal outcomes is to facilitate the naturally dull and oppose the naturally bright. So, the only way to achieve equality of outcome, is through INEQUALITY of opportunity. The brighter a student, the less opportunity for growth they must receive, in a nation that seeks equality of outcome. This “Professor” was too dim, himself, to see the essential injustice, indeed, madness of such an approach. The very notion cast aside all ideals of fairness and human rights.

For him, “No child left behind”, meant “No child must get ahead.” They are not the same intention at all. The former is meant to raise up the performance of the lowest ability – but the latter, which he was espousing, was that no one bright should flourish. It is the most toxic idea, I have ever heard expressed by a educator, in all my years. If widely held, this idea has the power to destroy a nation, indeed, the world. Were it universally held, that equality of outcome should be the goal, then all that was great about mankind would never get the chance to become…we would become a static, stagnant, unprogressive culture, without new ideas, new technologies, new art. Nothing great would be allowed to be. That is the inevitable consequence of the wholesale application of this Professor’s poisonous outlook.

Equality of opportunity should be the goal. That is all should have equal chances to maximize their abilities. That means that gifted education should be given as much weight, in all societies, as “special education” for the mentally disabled. Only then will there be true educational equality, in the world.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

No Child Left Behind Act: Is Bush One?

Is President George W. Bush a child left behind? I can't help but wonder - for he characterizes to a great degree, the very children he espouses to support in his keystone educational legislation - the No Child Left Behind Act.

For those of my readers who are not American and do not know, the No Child Left Behind Act requires education authorities and schools to focus on the weaker children - to ensure that, "No Child is Left Behind". This may seem admirable, but has its downside. The effect is that all the more capable kids - that is, almost everyone else - gets ignored, to a greater or lesser degree. In other words, most kids in the American system suffer because of the No Child Left Behind Act. The aim of the schooling system is now to bring up the performance of the worst performers, which tends to lead to the better performers being ignored. Apparently, in many school systems, the lowest scorers improve - but how about everyone else? This matter is largely ignored.

Anyway, the reason I ask whether President George W. Bush is in fact a child left behind, himself, is because of something which happened on Wednesday and which was reported by Reuters.

At a televised event, surrounded by schoolchildren and in the presence of Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, he said: "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

Wow. Children might learn, in such circumstances but, clearly, in the impoverished circumstances of President George W. Bush's own difficult upbringing, he didn't manage to learn basic English grammar.

Now, you might say this may be an isolated incident. But it isn't. The President's grammar is frequently original - but never insightful. He is capable of mistakes I have never heard any native speaker of English ever make - and he does it quite spontaneously - and with mind-numbing regularity. The Reuters report also noted that, the "education President" - as he thinks of himself, once asked: "Is our children learning?"

Probably not, if their President isn't and hasn't, either.

Now, President George W. Bush defends himself by saying that he was an average student at school and makes light of his tendency to mangle English grammar - but I think that poses deeper questions. He may have been an average student - but should an average student be leading a meritocratic nation? (Is America a meritocratic nation? If not, why not?)

Now I have no political opinion on Bush or any other President of America since I don't live there and am largely insulated against most of what they say and do - but I am able to make, therefore, fairly impartial observations.

Generally, a well-functioning brain does not make grammatical errors, on a regular basis, in the speaker's native language - at least, that is what I have observed in the course of my life. Does, therefore, the President of America not have a well-functioning brain? If he doesn't, surely he should.

Perhaps his intelligences are biased towards the non-verbal spheres of mental life. Sadly, I cannot illustrate any decisions, events or actions in favour of this view. Perhaps others can.

It may well be, that, mysterious as it seems, the President of America, George W. Bush is, in some ways, a child left behind. His No Child Left Behind Act, could be the work of a man who empathizes with these children who cannot keep up with their peers. Perhaps, in some way, George W. Bush cannot keep up with his own peers. He must daily be surrounded by his intellectual superiors, in his office. Perhaps that is the very source of his passion for the No Child Left Behind Act. It would seem apt.

Perhaps you, as a reader have some personal experience of the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act and might like to share them. Or maybe you have some insights into that most unusual of figures: the present President of the United States, George W. Bush - and a child left behind?.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)