Take the Road Less Traveled By
“I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
Robert Frost, from “The Road Not Taken”
A recent front page article in the New York Times re-kindled the never-extinguished fires of passion around gifted and talented (G&T) programs in New York City’s public schools.
Aptly characterized as a “hornet’s nest,” the heat arose when mayoral candidate, and likely next NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani announced his intention to end the kindergarten version of the G&T derby. Critics, who comprised the majority of commenters, bemoaned the loss of an essential component of the process to separate wheat from chaff as early as possible.
There were minority offerings from others who find G&T programs racially discriminatory. There was, as usual, barely a peep from anyone who believe G&T programs to be educational malpractice. I am such a peeper.
NYC previously had a test for G&T admission. That was abandoned for a system of teacher recommendations, which is only marginally less stupid. The selection, by any means, of 4 year-old pre-K kids as gifted and talented is absurd. Given the inarguable developmental differences among 4 year-olds, the “gifted” designation is meaningless, except to proud parents who wear the badge of vicarious honor with fierce pride.
It is possible to discern the early advantages of privilege, if not talent. The benefits of an intact household, economic security, rich early childhood experiences, and plenty of written and spoken language to absorb, will result in some children seeming more able. It is the American Way to reward unearned privilege with unearned opportunities.
The wheat/chaff separation process is also a convenient distraction from the generally dismal state of early childhood education in NYC and most places. “At least we’ll polish the gems.”
The article’s first sentence reveals the more important problem: “Some parents were distraught, fearing that bright students would be left bored and restless at their desks.” 4 or 5 year-olds should never be “at their desks.” They shouldn’t have desks. To leave small children “bored and restless” is no mean feat. It is like the title of Frank Smith’s wonderful book, “Unspeakable Acts, Unnatural Practices.” Smith wrote about reading instruction, but the title aptly characterizes most early “academic instruction.”
To twist Smith’s title, children should be exposed to unspeakable beauty and natural environments. “Play” and “exploration” should replace “reading” and “math” in early education. This is not a romantic notion. It is, to use language I dislike, “evidence-based.” Play and exploration will leave no children bored and restless. I commend Boston College psychologist Peter Gray’s work to your attention.
Shortly after reading the Times piece I encountered a Facebook post about a local (Colorado) school, The Living Arts School, that offers a very different path. I know little about it, other than its rather sparse website, but it seems very much in the natural and progressive direction.
I mention Living Arts particularly because of a wonderful quote it offers from D.H. Lawrence:
The things men have made with wakened hands, and put soft life into
are awake through years with transferred touch, and go on glowing
for long years.
And for this reason, some old things are lovely,
Warm still with the life of forgotten men who made them.
Lawrence remains controversial in many ways, but reverence for natural life runs through his fiction, essays and poetry. He is seldom cited in progressive education circles, but he should be. This site offers support for his inclusion.
The contrast between NYC’s G&T programs and schools like Living Arts could not be more stark. My own career in progressive education leaves no doubt as to which road to travel.
In that work I was constantly confronted with the false choice that seems pervasive in discussions of children and learning. After I waxed passionately about the Calhoun School’s joyful, active, inclusive, human and humane approach to learning, NYC parents would ask (or think to themselves): “That sounds soooo wonderful, but will my darling child get into Harvard??” They had been conditioned, as have most people, that education is a race to the top and that an early start, along with lots of grit and competition, is the path to conspicuous success. What to do? What to do?
If top tier college admission and conspicuous success is a parent’s end game, a progressive approach may not be their cup o’ tea. They seem willing to risk the well-documented collateral consequences of stress, depression, and eating disorders.
Ironically, a child may have a better chance of fulfilling that parental ambition by way of a patient, joyful, natural educational experience. The only risk on this road is that such children may actually learn what they love and diverge from the path chosen for them.
For so many students I’ve known and loved, as Frost wrote, “. . . that has made all the difference.”
Steve Nelson is a retired head of a leading progressive school, a grandfather, author and newspaper columnist living in Colorado and Vermont. His book is First Do No Harm: Progressive Education in a Time of Existential Risk. This article was originally posted on his blog, First, Do No Harm, and is posted here with permission from Steve Nelson.
Like most of the pictures on TeensParentsTeachers, the picture posted with this article is courtesy of a free download from Pixabay.com.