Adapt or Die!

In my teaching days, I used to tell my students that evolution is a law of history.  They might, if they chose, deny evolution as a biological principle, but they'd never understand history without it.

Human institutions adapt and evolve in the face of changing circumstances - or  they die.

Adaptation often flies in the face of human expectations.  We tend to assume that the future will be much like the present, only more so.  Change, we suppose, goes in only one direction.

We assume, for example, that growth is natural.  Things start small, and if they are successful, they become ever larger.  This assumption is built into our present economic system - corporate consumer capitalism - which we assume to be permanent.

There is, of course, no such guarantee.  The theory of markets has a certain logic, and will probably be with us for centuries to come.  But our present economic system evolved to meet a specific set of circumstances - and, as those circumstances no longer prevail, it will either evolve, or it will die.

We have entered a reality very different than that prevailing in the 2oth century.  In the new century, bigger will not inevitably be better.  Often, the opposite will be true.

Which could be beautiful thing. 

Consider the birds flitting about in your yard.  Most of us like birds.  Many love them.  By some measures, one in four Americans is at least a casual bird-watcher. 

But the birds were not always with us.  Evolutionary biologists are fairly sure that birds evolved as the result of catastrophic events which led to the extinction of the great dinosaurs.

Some dinosaurs, preferring evolution to extinction, became the first birds.  

The mockingbird harassing your cat, the robin hopping around your lawn, the chicken in your refrigerator - all are lineal descendants of fearsome ancestors. 

All things considered, a pretty successful case of down-sizing.

For the past century, in this country, education has become an enormous - and enormously expensive - sector of our national economy.  Every Federal administration - Republican or Democratic - has increased our investment in schools and universities, and the scope and power of the bureaucracies which govern them.

Conservatives and liberals will do battle over what is taught; how students are disciplined; how much teachers are paid; and how resources are allocated among school districts and universities.

But our schools and universities - exercising a virtual monopoly over the certification of educational attainment - have been virtually untouchable.

Until now. 

Recently, I've experimented with my first MOOC - a massive, open, online course - a technology-based course offering online lectures, reading materials, interactive learning tools, tests, research assignments - even discussion groups.

I've found it to be a reasonably challenging, college-level course.

And the remarkable thing is that anyone with access to the internet - anywhere in the world - can enroll in this MOOC.   For free.

MOOCs are a new thing under the sun, and they raise legitimate questions about the delivery of content.  If it's now possible for anyone to have access to some of the best teachers on the planet - experts in their fields - at little or no charge, do we still need all the secondary school teachers and college professors we now employ? 

Do we need all the school buildings, lecture halls, and dorms? 

The answer, almost certainly, depends upon defining what our schools and universities are supposed to be doing for us.

If the purpose of schooling is to deliver content - facts and concepts - then clearly, our big educational institutions are in danger of obsolescence. 

What use is a high school teacher who is neither a subject-matter expert nor an outstanding lecturer, when his students have access to both expertise and star-quality teaching online?

What use is four or more years at a residential college - at enormous cost - when better quality instruction can be had at your kitchen table or local coffee shop?

Most importantly, why should we -  as taxpayers, parents, and students - continue paying vast amounts of money for the personal delivery of inferior products, when better products are available online, at almost no cost?

It's a question our schools and universities are already scrambling to answer.

My guess is that, at the K-12 level, many of the answers will come from the home-schoolers - a growing community which has already rejected the public school model and is oriented to taking advantage of every new resource as it becomes available.

At the university level, I suspect that solution might well be found in the tutorial model prevailing at England's elite universities.  Students would obtain their information from a variety of sources, including MOOCs - and their professors would meet with them individually, or in very small groups, to develop their understanding of the material and their critical thinking skills.  

In both cases, the calculation will involve such questions as the relative effectiveness of online lectures and labs at conveying information - and the educational value added by individual or small-group tutorials.

There are, of course, many other possibilities.  But whatever the eventual outcome, online learning has arrived.  As Americans become comfortable with this new mode of learning, existing schools and universities will have to adapt - or they will surely die.

Decoration Day

A friend of mine - a Northern Virginia attorney and conscientious liberal - is starting a campaign to remove the statue of a Confederate infantryman from outside the courthouse in one of NoVa's exurban counties.

  

His argument, as I understand it, is that some of his clients feel intimidated when they see that statue standing outside the courthouse in which they are about to face trial.

While I have the greatest respect for my friend, I cannot bring myself to support his latest crusade - nor to feel much sympathy for any client who is such a quivering mass of gelatin as some of his seem to be.

A statue of a Confederate soldier is, after all, just a chunk of stone.  Fifty years ago, brave men and women had to walk past such lifeless monuments on the way to face living white judges and all-white juries whose daddies and granddaddies had been actual Confederate soldiers - and who were absolutely determined to re-create the Old South in the middle of the 20th century.

We've come a great long way since then, as even the most timorous defendant must know.

Besides, a weathered, old statue of a Confederate soldier - an infantry grunt - is hardly a statement about race.  It is, primarily, a statement about courage and self-sacrifice - as all soldiers' memorials should be.  Admire the cause or deplore it, the millions of men (and more than a few women) who wore blue or grey fought for what most soldiers fight for - their comrades and their homes.

Most of the men, North and South, who made the war possible were too old - or too "important" - to risk their own lives on the battlefield.

There is a troublesome nostalgic tendency among modern liberals.  They love to wade  about in their imagined guilt for past injustices in which they played no part.  They glory in the struggles of the Civil Rights movement and the anti-Vietnam war movement, when issues seemed clear-cut.

It's so much easier than working up the energy and courage to confront modern challenges, such as building an educational system which provides every child with - not just an equal education - but a good one.

Or reining in the absolute corporate dominance of every aspect of our political system.

Or doing something serious about the gathering storm of global climate change.

My friend's campaign against the old Confederate statue seems to me an evasion of this type - and a plain waste of time.

Still, as it is Memorial Day - a holiday which had its beginning as a celebration of those who died in the Lost Cause - this might be the right time to propose something a bit more useful than pulling down a statue.

How about putting one up, instead?

For some years now - ever since I read a biography of the man - I've wished to see a new equestrian statue on Monument Avenue, honoring a gentleman who was -  yes - a white Virginian and a general who rose to prominence during the Civil War.

Indeed, there are serious military historians who rank him as the best of an outstanding generation of strategists and battlefield commanders.

His name was George H. Thomas.  His troops called him "Pap".  Admirers called him "the Rock of Chickamauga". 

Civil War buffs will immediately recognize the symbolism of adding Thomas to Monument Avenue's ranks.  Thomas, a native of Virginia's Southampton County and the son of a slave-holding family, fought for the Union. 

In 1861, Thomas - an active-duty officer since his graduation from West Point - faced the same choice which confronted his good friend and professional colleague, Robert E. Lee.  But Thomas arrived at a different decision.

He honored the oath he had taken upon joining the United States Army.  Enduring the suspicion of his fellow Union officers - to say nothing of the icy silence of his family, which disavowed him - Thomas stolidly performed whatever duty was assigned him.

In January, 1862, Thomas won the Union's first major battle, at Mill Springs, in Kentucky.  

His stand at Chickamauga, in 1863 - when his commander had fled the field - won him fame and promotion to the command of the  Army of the Cumberland.  His victory at Nashville, late in the war, destroyed General John B. Hood's army, removing it permanently from the field.

Unlike other commanders, Thomas preferred to spare the lives of his troops.  Through careful preparation, excellent logistical planning, and maneuver, he won victories without sacrificing lives unnecessarily.  This characteristic is often put forward to explain his chilly relations with his commander, U. S. Grant, who showed no such concern.

I admit it's a strange fancy, the idea of putting a Union general on Monument Avenue.  But if old-school liberals mush waste time on something, a statue to Thomas would be a better use of it than "disrespecting" an anonymous Confederate foot-slogger standing outside a courthouse.

Besides, it would - in a tiny way, at least - deal with something relevant.  A new traffic circle - replacing a set of traffic lights - would make a small contribution to reducing our profligate use of fossil fuels.

And that would, in itself, be memorable.

Elementary Fairness

Four years ago, the Commonwealth Book Club read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers - a book which surveys some of the latest research on the factors contributing to human success.

One factor Gladwell deals with in detail is the importance of being born in the right part of the year.  Apparently, when young children begin an activity which has a cut-off date for participation, those with birthdays just after the cut-off date do much better than those with birthdays just before that date.

Gladwell focuses much of his attention on Canadian youth hockey, but recently, there has been significant research indicating that birth-dates and cut-off dates also have significant impacts on the success of children in the first years of school.

For example, if a school system requires that a student entering kindergarten be five years old by September 30 - Virginia's legal requirement - then students born in October and November will probably do much better (on average) than students born in August and September.

The explanation is that students born just after the cut-off date are nearly a year older than those born just before that date.  And when you're a little kid, a year is a big percentage of your life.

Consider the situation in Virginia schools.  Suppose two kids, with similar backgrounds and native abilities, start kindergarten this September.  One was born on September 30, and thus begins kindergarten on her fifth birthday.  The other was born on October 1, and starts school the day before her sixth birthday.

Which child would you expect to display more maturity, greater reading ability, and a quicker grasp of arithmetic?  Which child do you suppose the teacher will be more likely to identify as "gifted"?

After all, one child is almost 20% older than the other.

Gladwell is a journalist, not a researcher, but there is increasing research to support the notion that children born late in an age cohort are at a significant disadvantage compared to those born early - and that this disadvantage can persist throughout that child's school career. 

If this is true - and really, it would be a fairly easy thing to research - then it's truly a fundamental injustice. 

And it would be relatively easy to fix. 

All we'd need to do is re-structure the early grades of our elementary schools to take birthdays into account.

The more ambitious plan would be to have three starting dates during the elementary schools' academic year.  By putting some of these schools on a year-round schedule - and allowing parents to choose those schools for their little kids - we could have new cohorts starting on say, January 1 and May 1.  That way, the difference between the oldest and youngest child in a cohort would be four months, not 364 days.

It might be even easier simply to group entering students into age-related cohorts within a school, while keeping the same calendar.  If a specific school had, say, three kindergarten classes, the entering cohort could be divided into three equal-sized groups, based on birthdate.  The later-born students would undoubtedly be, as a group, less mature and less able than those across the hall - but they would be far more competitive within their own classroom.

And after a few years, when the age differences mattered less, the groups could be blended.

Now, it will be argued that truly outstanding children will overcome the disadvantage of starting school at a younger age than their classmates.  And this is true.  Children of exceptional intellectual ability - and those with remarkable diligence - will find a way to overcome the artificial advantages our bureaucratic rules create.

The problem with that sort of thinking is that human institutions should not, as a general rule, be designed around the qualities of exceptional individuals. 

Think about it.  Suppose we designed our legal system around the qualities of people of exceptional moral character.  We wouldn't need criminal laws.  We could stop locking our houses and our cars.  We could save a lot of money by laying off most of our police force.

Anybody think those are good ideas?

If not, then perhaps it would be better not to design our schools around the qualities of the smartest, most diligent students.

Now, it might be objected that grouping students into sub-cohorts with an age-range of only a few months will show up in standardized testing.  But sooner or later, we're going to have to recognize that standardized testing - in its present form - has been a huge mistake.

And designing educational programs around the testing regimen is a classic instance of putting the cart before the horse. 

Besides, that problem could be eliminated by going to a year-round schedule, with new cohorts starting kindergarten every few months.

What's far more important than any objection is that every student's potential be fully developed.  That's not just a question of fairness to the student - but fairness to ourselves.

As we never tire of saying, our children are our future.

If that's true, why on earth would we condemn a substantial portion of them to a bad start?

Whom Do Our Schools Serve?

In previous posts, I have argued that our educational establishment – and the public at large – have lost sight of why we have schools.  It seems strange to ask the question, “Why should we have public schools?” 

But only because most of us take the answer for granted. 

In truth, the “why” of public education is rarely discussed - or even considered – where you’d most think it would be.  In three years of graduate study at UVA’s Curry School, I don’t recall one serious investigation of why Americans devote so many resources – trillions of dollars; endless political wrangling; court-clogging litigation; and the lives and careers of millions of smart, dedicated, underpaid professionals – to this enterprise we call public education. 

I'm pretty sure we talked about why Americans decided to get into the business of public education in the first place - but that was in a class called “History of Education”.  And it’s pretty clear that earlier generations of Americans established schools for solid reasons.

If we think about it at all, most of us assume that those reasons still exist. 

We’re just not too clear about what they were.

Our politicians aren't much help.  Time and time again, you'll hear a political type declare, “I believe in our public schools.”

Public education has become an article of our civic faith - but, like many articles of faith, it doesn’t bear up very well under scrutiny.

It's just a whole lot easier to believe - or pretend to believe - than to doubt.  So we all say we believe.

But this lack of a clearly-defined public purpose creates a kind of policy vacuum, and into that vacuum, much mischief has spread.  Since it’s hard to enunciate a public purpose for the schools, a lot of private interests have crept in - and we will play the devil getting them out again.

Probably the most pernicious private interests are those of parents. 

Motivated by their understandable concern for their own children, most parents think our schools exist to cooperate with them.  This shows up in all sorts of silly ways – such as the eternal controversy over closing schools for inclement weather.  Many parents expect schools to function as a free babysitting service - which is hardly their purpose.

But parental entitlement also shows up in more vital contexts.  Some parents want the schools to teach the curriculum they prefer.  Others insist that their children selected for the gifted program.  Or that the schools offer advanced artistic training they consider appropriate for their offspring.

Many demand that teachers motivate kids who arrive at school without the benefit of the slightest parental example of intellectual curiosity at home.

All of which, in our narcissistic society, is understandable.  But that hardly makes it right.

If our schools exist to serve the interests or preferences of parents, then why must the rest of us – those with no children, or whose children have graduated, or whose children are not yet of school age, or whose choice is to home-school or to educate their children privately -  pay taxes to support them? 

For that matter, why are non-parents allowed to vote for members of the school board?

Logically and legally, our schools exist for some greater purpose than to serve parents. 

But, for all the teacher unions suggest it, our schools don't exist to provide jobs for teachers. 

Nor do they exist to provide opportunities for the self-aggrandizement of career-building superintendents.

Nor do schools exist to prepare students for jobs in the private sector – something which, in better times, the private sector understood.

Indeed, though it's a tougher case to make, our schools don't even exist for the sake of the students themselves.

Schools – public, tax-supported, schools – exist for the benefit of the nation.  They exist, above every other purpose, to produce thoughtful, informed, self-sufficient, contributing citizens for a future America many of us won't live to see.

In seven words:  Public schools exist to produce good citizens. 

It's that simple.

The Long Fight for Marital Equality

Last week, on my national/global affairs blog, Gray's Gazette, I posted twice concerning Hollingsworth v. Perry - taking what is, for me, a difficult position.  For constitutional reasons, as well as considerations of practical politics, I believe progressives and liberals should hope for a Supreme Court decision striking down California's Proposition 8 - but not creating a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. 

I fully support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but - unlike many who do - I believe this step should not come as the gift of unelected judges, but as the hard-won victory of citizens acting through the political process. 

A political victory might not come as quickly as victory by judicial decree, but taking the hard road would have three advantages. 

First, it would require advocates of marriage equality to organize at the state level.  Liberals and progressives have neglected this hard work for the past four decades, with negative results which extend far beyond this single issue.  It's time we got our hands dirty again.

Second, a delay would show respect for the sincerity of 40% of our fellow citizens who have yet to accept the idea of same-sex marriage.  By engaging these folks in public debate, supporters of change would develop their powers of persuasion and honor the democratic process.

Finally, and most importantly, hesitation by the Court to announce a new fundamental right - at this point in our history - would demonstrate the sort of cautious, deliberate approach which the Founders envisioned when they established this republic. 

For, if the Founders were revolutionaries, they were patient revolutionaries.

In time, of course, the Court might properly recognize this new right.  I am absolutely persuaded that the natural rights philosophy which informed the American Revolution embraced the idea that liberty and equality would expand with the passage of time - in part through the discovery of new rights.  

Our Constitution reflects this philosophy.  The Founders inherited it from England's Glorious Revolution of 1688.  As men and women of the Enlightenment, they were part of the trans-Atlantic discussion which developed it.  During three tumultuous decades, America's revolutionary statesmen demonstrated that the philosophy had practical application - as the justification for independence from Great Britain and the creation of a new, republication nation.

The Founders' philosophy held that every individual is vested with essential, natural  rights inseparable from his or her humanity - and that these rights can be discovered by the exercise of human reason. 

Mr. Jefferson said it far more eloquently, in the Declaration of Independence.  But it is useful, on occasion, to paraphrase his words - if only to rediscover what they actually say.

A belief in natural rights, discoverable by reason was the cornerstone of our Revolution.  This philosophy has re-emerged throughout our national history - during the anti-slavery movement; the movement for women's suffrage; the Populist and Progressive movements; the civil rights movement; the feminist movement; and in today's movement for GLBT rights. 

The idea of natural rights - expanding over time - is woven into the very fabric of our Constitution.  No interpretation of the Constitution - no understanding of the men who drafted it - makes sense without reference to this idea. 

This is true, first, because our Founders were products of the Common Law tradition.  As lawyers, as judges, or as businessmen continuously involved in litigation, they were thoroughly familiar with the notion that courts can discover new legal principles through the rational application of existing legal concepts to new circumstances.

This tradition is still very much a part of American jurisprudence.  For example, when the Supreme Court applies the First Amendment's freedom of the press to such later technologies as radio, television, and the internet, it does so by applying common law principles.

Moreover, as a generation shaped by Enlightenment philosophy, the Founders took human progress more or less for granted.  They had witnessed, in their own lifetimes, the growth of freedom in the Atlantic world.  It seemed entirely plausible to them that new liberties would continue to be discovered by future generations, through the use of human reason.

The Founders' Common Law background and natural rights philosophy - which permeate the Constitution and find explicit expression in the Ninth Amendment - make utter nonsense of the idea of "original intent", upon which Justice Scalia and others so often pontificate.

The "original intent" of the Founders was that their Constitution would create the framework of an ever-expanding "empire of liberty".  They expected their descendants to continue to discover new fundamental rights.

That said, the Founders would almost certainly have counseled patience to those of us working to create new rights in today's very different world.  They had taken twelve years to decide to declare their independence from Great Britain - twelve years which had given them time to be certain they knew what they were doing, why they were doing it, and what sacrifices they were willing to make.

For all these reasons, I sincerely believe the Supreme Court should defer creating a new constitutional right at this point in our history.  I'm also fairly sure that's what will happen.

Given Justice Kennedy's pivotal role in this case, when the Supreme Court hands down its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, I suspect that the Prop 8 will either be sustained (5-4) or struck down (5-4 or, perhaps, 6-3) in a way that only impacts California.

If Prop 8 is struck down, it will be a great victory - adding the most populous state in the nation to the growing ranks of states recognizing same-sex marriage.

But either way, the long-term battle for marriage equality will most probably be left to people of goodwill in the 40 or 41 states which aren't there yet.

I fervently hope activists for marriage equality - and their liberal and progressive allies - will be undismayed.  They will need to go back to work organizing to elect state legislators who will enact the necessary statutes, or proposed the necessary constitutional amendments, on a state-by-state basis.

The first battleground will be Virginia, where conservative Republicans hold almost two-thirds of the House of Delegates - all subject to election in November. 

Time to saddle up.

College: The Question No One Asks

For the benefit of my readers outside the Richmond area, here is a reprint of the piece which ran earlier this week on the Back Page of Style Weekly.  A tip of the cap to Scott Bass, whose masterful editing tightened and punched up the piece.

*    *    *    *    *

As this year's high-school seniors enter the season of college acceptance letters — and their dreaded alternatives — those a year behind them, and their families, are beginning to plan college visits.

During my teaching career, I suffered with my students through a dozen of these fraught seasons. In between, I spent a good deal of time talking with them while they wrestled with the perplexities of choosing a college.

Over the years, I often provided an outside-the-box perspective, such as helping students find outstanding schools that their parents, friends and guidance counselors had never heard of.

I even visited small, under-publicized colleges on my own just to learn about what was out there. And I found some treasures, including remarkable bargains at three top-notch, small, liberal arts schools in Atlantic Canada.

But in recent years, I find myself asking my young friends and their parents a more basic, entirely pragmatic question: How long will it take to graduate?

As it turns out, almost no one asks this question. Students, parents and guidance counselors spend hours comparing the annual cost of attending different schools. But they do so with the confident expectation that that annual cost eventually will be multiplied by the number four. Four usually isn't the right number.

Only 38.9 percent of U.S. college students graduate in four years, according to a 2011 study by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute. Only 56.2 percent graduate in five years or fewer. Even at six years, the rate is a stunning 61.2 percent

For too many students who begin college, the number might as well be infinity.

To be sure, these numbers reflect, in part, the increasing number of "nontraditional" undergraduates who enter college with no plans to graduate in four years.

But 80 percent of first-time students expect to finish in the traditional four years, which means only half of them succeed.

There are many reasons for this. Students change majors, or make the dubious decision to double-major, and this can add semesters. Others encounter personal, family, academic or financial difficulties that delay graduation.

But for far too many students, the difficulty begins with their choice of a university that doesn't provide a straightforward, four-year track to graduation because of poor scheduling, inadequate counseling or sheer neglect.

Through the years, these students will be frustrated to learn that their university doesn't provide the required courses — core courses, or those needed for their major — in the proper sequence. Or that two required courses are scheduled at the same time. Or that a necessary course or section has filled without accommodating all the students who need it.

Sometimes these scheduling problems are the result of university or departmental cuts. Other times, though, the university simply doesn't appear to care.

After all, once a student has matriculated, that they've taken longer than four years to graduate isn't exactly the school's problem. The tuition keeps rolling in.

Of course, for a student and his or her family, the financial impact can be devastating. Extra semesters not only increase the basic cost of an education, but also postpone when a graduate can begin using that education to start earning a living and repaying college loans.

The failure of schools, especially large universities, to provide a four-year path to a degree also affects college choices. Many a naive high-school senior chooses a big state university at "only" $25,000 a year over a private, liberal arts college with a sticker price twice as high.

But if the state university winds up not offering a path to graduation in four years, those added semesters of tuition, fees, housing and so on — and the opportunity costs of extra years before entering the job market — begin to alter the calculus. At some point, the private college that has better success graduating students in four years begins to look like the genuine bargain.

There are resources available for those aware of the issue. The U.S. Department of Education mandates that every college and university provide six-year graduation rates. These figures are available, and they can be shocking.

Other sources, such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, provide information on the more relevant, four-year graduation rates. For example, according to the Chronicle's website, Virginia Commonwealth University graduates only 22.9 percent of its students in four years — and barely half of them in six.

Guaranteeing a four-year path to graduation should be the goal, not only of individual students and their families, but of public policy.

By failing to graduate many thousands of students on time, Virginia's state-run universities are wasting enormous sums of public money, beginning with the substantial state subsidies which make in-state tuition rates possible.

In this election year, Virginia's candidates for governor, and those running for the House of Delegates, should address how they would end this vast boondoggle. For starters, students who make a good-faith effort to graduate in four years, but can't because of the university's policies or scheduling, should have costs covered by the university.

It was funny when, in "Animal House," John Belushi's Bluto Blutarski lamented, "Seven years of college down the drain."

Times have changed since the mid-1960s. Today, no one's laughing. S

Virginia's Misguided Approach to Gifted Education

A bit over three years ago, Style Weekly published this piece, which I wrote in response to then-Governor Tim Kaine's instructions to the Virginia Department of Education to look into possible racial disparities in the area of gifted education. 

I'm not aware that anything came of the Governor's directive - or my piece.  But what I wrote then is still true, and still deserves attention.

*    *    *

Thanks to Gov. Tim Kaine, the intermittent controversy over gifted education has once again claimed public attention. Expressing concern over apparent racial disparities in Virginia's gifted education programs, the governor has ordered the Virginia Department of Education to study the reasons for this disparity.

The governor's directive quickly aroused predictable reactions from the usual quarters.

Those whose mission it is to detect racism behind every unpleasant fact of life quickly demanded revised selection criteria for gifted programs.

Those advantaged by the present system were equally quick to detect a conspiracy to impose some new form of affirmative action. 

Educational administrators assured the public of their belief that every child deserves the best and most appropriate education possible — provided, of course, that no one actually expects them to do anything constructive to that end.

Not surprisingly, these predictable exchanges have thus far produced more heat than light.

Most Virginians — including the majority of school administrators — probably have no idea that there are actually two competing approaches to gifted education, or that the approach adopted by most public schools is supported by neither research nor common sense.

Few realize that Virginia's approach to gifted education has been designed to suit the convenience of school administrators — and to satisfy the demands of privileged parents — rather than to meet the needs of our most intellectually gifted kids.

Yet such is the case.

The approach to gifted education used in most Virginia public schools is the “enrichment model.” Under this approach, pupils identified as gifted take the same basic curriculum as other children in their schools — at the same pace. They may take some courses one year earlier, but they take the same amount of time — one academic year — to complete each course.

The basic difference between their education and that of the general population is that gifted pupils go into greater depth — through things such as extra research projects, hearing guest speakers and going on field trips. Indeed, many kids will tell you that being gifted essentially means that you have more homework.

The alternative approach — the acceleration model — rests on the assumption that what we term giftedness is essentially the ability to learn faster and absorb more. In an accelerated program, pupils are encouraged to work at their own speed, completing courses in less than the usual time and moving immediately to the next level.

Accelerated pupils tend to skip at least one grade of elementary school. Most complete high school early. Many apply to college at 17, 16, or even younger.

The research comparing the two models is overwhelming. Pupils in accelerated programs tend to advance far more rapidly than those in enrichment programs. Because they are constantly challenged — rather than merely overworked — they are less frustrated with school.  They tend to develop a stronger work ethic and better study skills. 

There is even reason to believe, albeit the research is not conclusive, that accelerated students have more humility about their intellectual gifts than those in enrichment programs.

All this makes perfect sense. Pupils in enrichment programs are, effectively, being held back. They are taking the same classes, in enriched form, as ungifted pupils. They often feel bored and overworked — but seldom challenged. Relying on native intelligence to earn easy A's, they frequently acquire a sense of innate superiority rather than developing the skills and self-discipline needed to deal with ever more challenging material.

Yet, in America, most public schools prefer the enrichment approach.

There are several reasons for this. First, many parents and teachers share a concern that kids who advance ahead of their classmates will suffer socially. In fact, the research indicates that the reverse is true. The smartest kid in class often encounters social isolation. The whiz kid among older pupils functioning at the same intellectual level ordinarily gains acceptance.

Second, school administrators are never eager to lose bright pupils. Schools love to take credit for success stories — whether or not they can justly claim any role in that success.  Moreover, bright pupils help a school's ratings on standardized tests. An accelerated pupil who graduates early is — from the administrative perspective — a lost asset.

Finally, middle-class parents prefer enrichment programs because their selection processes tend to favor kids from privileged backgrounds.

Because enrichment programs emphasize extra projects and field trips — as opposed to moving rapidly forward into ever more difficult material — they are inherently less intellectually challenging than accelerated programs. Once selected, a hard-working pupil of better-than-average intelligence — with the active support of two educated parents — can survive in an enrichment program. In an accelerated program, a pupil lacking the intellectual prowess to move rapidly through the curriculum will inevitably fall behind.

Since accelerated programs are better at identifying improperly selected pupils, they tend to evolve better selection criteria. Enrichment programs, in contrast, often develop more subjective criteria, favoring pupils who behave well in class, speak conventional English and have supportive parents. Not surprisingly, this preference usually has the unintended consequence of overselecting white and Asian students, and underselecting students of Hispanic and African-American descent.

The solution is obvious — if not politically easy. By adopting the accelerated model of gifted education Virginia would provide an appropriate education to more of her most intellectually gifted pupils.

If Kaine wishes to leave an educational legacy in his final month in office, he should redirect the energies of his study from racial disparity to a comparison of the acceleration and enrichment models.

It shouldn't take until Inauguration Day for an impartial study to reach the obvious conclusions.