Real Education: Ability Varies

How does our society deal with controversial ideas? Our first reaction (regardless of our place on the ideological spectrum) tends to be to label those with whom we disagree in order to cast them in the worst possible light. If the ideas of those we disagree with happens to have empirical backing, another successful strategy is to simply ignore their arguments. A great example of this is Charles Murray. I hesitated to pick up his new book, Real Education, because of memories of intellectual pressure from my college days: The Bell Curve was supposedly the work of a reactionary, and by extension anyone who read and engaged with a work by such an author was guilty by association.

This knee-jerk reaction is truly unfortunate, as Real Education is an important book which deserves interaction, regardless of where we fall politically. Short, readable, and with a good bibliography, Murray proposes “Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality.” These four truths are:

• Ability varies


• Half of the Children are Below Average


• Too Many People are Going to College


• America’s Future Depends on How We Educate the Academically Gifted

I plan on addressing each of Murray’s ‘truths’ one at a time, as each is important and deserves consideration.

The first point, “Ability varies”, seems obvious yet offensive at the same time. Murray starts by describing Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences. This is a good point to start, regardless of the theory’s validity, as most educators accept the concept as a matter of faith. Some students excel and have a natural ability to perform well in sports. Others have strong interpersonal skills. Others have a greater degree of musical ability. In many ways this seems to be common sense. I am not gifted with athletic ability and never had “professional athlete” in my future, even though I enjoyed sitting the bench with my basketball team in high school. Similarly, I recognize that some of my students have a greater musical aptitude than others; one student may be capable of majoring in music in college while others might simply enjoy the experience of participating in a high school band. Most people would not find such a perspective controversial.

Suggest that some students have greater mathematical or linguistic abilities, however, and a rotten can of worms has been opened. Making a statement such as this contradicts the Romantic ideal at the heart of our education system: that children come into the world as clean slates and are profoundly malleable by society and the State. Consider the educational truism: ‘All children can learn’. Perhaps so; learning is part of what makes us human. But can all children learn the same things equally well? Our current educational system seems to think so, and operates under the assumption that this should be true. Can every child achieve proficiency on a government test, or will there always be a spectrum of results? I would argue that an approach which confuses equity with sameness (identical results) is fundamentally unfair to all students as it ceases to treat them as individuals.

An additional point which Murray makes which deserves consideration is his contention that ‘abilities’ tend to be linked, citing research which shows a correlation between six of Gardner’s seven ‘intelligences’. In other words, students with a high ability in linguistics tend to also have high spatial and logical-mathematic ability as well. The logical conclusion here is that educators are engaging in mythical speculation when we posit that Gardner’s theory stipulates that every child must have at least one ‘intelligence’ with which they can be labeled ‘gifted’.

At this point I think it is important to avoid falling into the trap of equating ‘intelligence’ or ‘ability’ with ‘value’. Every individual is unique and has value as a human being regardless of their I.Q., or what they are able to “do”. Recognizing that there is always someone who is smarter or more talented is as essential in learning the virtue of humility as is working with individuals who are not. As educators, perhaps we should students to the best of their ability, recognizing that results can and will vary…and that’s okay.

Book Review: Smart Kids, Bad Schools

Brian Crosby has been in the “trenches” of the education system for a long time. As a twenty-year veteran of the Los Angeles school system and a National Board Certified teacher, Mr. Crosby brings a bluntly honest perspective to the topic of education reform in his latest book, Smart Kids, Bad Schools: 38 Ways to Save America’s Future.

Mr. Crosby’s book contains a little bit of something to offend everybody. This is a good thing when dealing with a system as entrenched and archaic as the public education system. His book is literally packed with ideas on ways to make the school system work better, such as creating career ladders for teachers, curtailing the power of teachers unions, modeling administration training on MBA programs, increasing vocational education, and near and dear to my heart, mandating arts education.

Smart Kids is at its best, however, when Mr. Crosby tackles all the little indignities which pile up on teachers to destroy their sense of professionalism. His blood truly boils as he describes the “Sweatshop Schoolhouse”. Anyone who has ever worked in a public school will immediately sympathize with his description of buildings and schedules which are nearly indistinguishable from prisons, teachers denied keys to their own offices (classrooms…as if most teachers had an office!), and administrators who take meticulous roll at faculty meetings but never visit classrooms. In what other profession do adults with masters degrees need to ask permission to use the bathroom? What other profession asks employees to put in countless hours of overtime without financial remuneration? Mr. Crosby hits the nail on the head as he describes the lack of trust afforded classroom teachers by administrators, and the lack of respect given by parents and communities.

Those who have never taught yet think that teaching is an “easy” job with great perks and benefits owe it to themselves to read books such as Mr. Crosby’s Smart Kids, or his first book, The $100,000 Teacher. The stark reality of what teachers face every day can truly be a shock for those who have never stood on the teacher’s end of the desk. If we are ever to truly reform our educational system to provide students with the opportunities they deserve, we need more brave educators like Brian Crosby to stand up and be honest about the failings of our system.

Marching in Lockstep

Sometimes the small controversies in our own profession can provide a perspective on larger trends in our culture. A proposal is floating through the Florida Bandmasters Association (FBA) which would limit band directors to participate in no more than four marching band contests/festivals each season. For those who don't follow the sometimes byzantine intricacies of marching band from state to state, FBA runs a district-by-district Music Performance Assessment similar to Concert Band Festival, while a seperate organization, the Florida Marching Band Coalition (FMBC) runs an independent competitive circuit which includes multiple regional contests and a State Championship event held in Tampa each November. In other words, a given high school band could participate in three competitive events in addition to the required FBA MPA.

My understanding of this proposal is that it is a measure to protect the time of our students, born out of parent complaints to administrators which were subsequently passed on to the Florida Music Educators Association (FMEA). Obviously this is a significant issue, as our students have many more demands on their time with work, academics, and other activities than they did 20 years ago when I started as a high school freshman. I think that it is very appropriate as educators that we keep music education at the top of our priority list, and that we act in a responsible manner to protect the time of our students. I have found that students and parents appreciate any efforts in this. Being considerate of our students’ hectic lifestyle increases loyalty to the band program, and reinforces the importance of the events we do schedule.

This being said, I am worried that the current proposal is missing the mark in a fundamental way. As a specific example, during the first semester of the 2007-08 academic year, my students had around 32 public performances prior to winter break. Only a five of these were Saturday marching competitions/festivals. We averaged nearly 1.5 public performances a week, and I know that this is not uncommon in our profession. Bands are called upon to perform a multitude of services for our schools and community, many of which are only indirectly related to the teaching of music. It isn’t an uncommon complaint to hear directors wondering when they have time to actually teach music content amidst the preparations for the next performance. Many of these performances are mandated by administrators who view the band as an entertainment resource for the school community.

With this in mind, the proposal to limit the amount of marching competitions seems less designed to protect student time than a proposal to proscribe certain types of performances. My critical observation is that this particular policy will, in effect, curtail the ability of band directors to structure their program freely without necessarily having the desired results of protecting students' time from abuse. I would hope that the FBA would be able to find a way to put together a coherent position on this issue without lapsing into a mindset of enforced conformity and standardization. While I am personally ambivalent towards competitive marching band, I also believe that divergent approaches towards teaching band strengthen our profession. My fear is that what we have here is the tyranny of good intentions, something we must always remain vigilant over. After all, I believe part of our mission as educators is to foster critical thinking skills in our students which will enable to resist broader authoritarian trends in our society.

First Blog: What am I thinking?

Here I am…stepping into the world of online blogging, adding a little more white noise to the oversaturated online world. For anyone who knows me, I’ve never been particularly shy with my opinions on any number of different topics, which makes the entire idea of blogging just enticing enough to be dangerous.

As of the moment, I’m planning on this blog being primarily focused on issues that come up in my professional work. As a secondary educator, I am in profession which allows teachers little to no “voice” within the system. Thinking outside the box tends to be discouraged, yet those “outside” contrarian thoughts are what I’m most interested in discussing. To clarify, too often (in any of our professions) we view things in parts rather than as whole systems. As such, what I do as a Band Conductor is related in not so distant ways to all other aspects of society. So I’ll probably touch on my other intellectual passions, politics and religion, as well, with the view that life can’t be compartmentalized, and I don't want to limit myself or others to a single topic. If others are interested in joining the discussion, great! Otherwise writing can be therapeutic in and of itself!