Thank you for “The Attack on Excellence” , the insightful and daring article by Charles Sykes. In the current vast wasteland that passes for public education, his comments are right on target.
It has taken nearly 25 years, from the writings of William Glasser and other sadly misguided “education theorists,” for us to reach the point that the field of education has become a silly parody of itself. With the writings of Sykes, perhaps we will begin to see sanity and rational thinking slowly return to our schools.
But until we give up our Utopian dream of a fair world, where everyone is treated equally and success comes to us all by magic instead of hard work, I secretly doubt it.
– Jerry Saxon, Science teacher, Thornton Township High School, Homewood
It has been a constant struggle, as a parent of a motivated student, starting in suburban parochial elementary schools and continuing on to public middle and high schools to receive encouragement and support of gifted/talented or high achievement programs.
Parents scornfully call honor students overachievers, and whine over the lack of attention paid to those they have labeled “average” kids.
Teachers and administrators are responding by lowering standards and hiring advocates of the William Glasser “success for all students” mythology. Glasser was practically booed off the stage by students at a recent school district workshop, so there may be a glimmer of hope.
– Carmie Frey, Niles
In a world where excellence is demanded and quality is the key to success, it is ironic that we should lower ourselves to the mediocrity which is implied by Sykes’ article. But this is the direction in which educationists across the country are leading us, by trying to abolish the distinction between the average and the accelerated student.
As a freshman in high school myself, this greatly concerns me, for I am currently enrolled in numerous honors courses and thrive upon the challenge they provide. By taking equality to such extremes in our classrooms, educators are only lowering my generation’s chances for success in our individual lives and as a nation.
Although educationists may yearn for equality in their classrooms, they seem to have overlooked one very important factor: We live in an extremely diverse nation where no two people are the same.
It seems to me that striving for equity in our classrooms would be a more reasonable goal than this futile battle for equality.
– Deepa Rangachari, Willowbrook
The so-called educators mentioned in Charles Sykes’ article are out of touch with reality. If children find out they cannot fail, they will not apply themselves, they will not work for advancement, they will not learn and they will have a rude awakening when they enter the real world.
We learn from our mistakes, not from being guarded against them.
– Donald H. Birren, Jr., Round Lake Park
I don’t know which I find more appalling, Charles Sykes’ obsolete and ignorant elitism on education, or that the Tribune would print his opinions without even the suggestion that there are seriously opposing views and research on the issues he raises.
Sykes dismisses ethical, democratic and social-cultural issues with a wave of the hand and latches on to antiquated definitions of “intelligence” and “ability.” He also fails to mention a single first-hand observation in a classroom.
And what’s wrong with “feel-good” learning? Learning is a joyous and amazing and sometimes arduous experience. Perhaps if we had more “feel-good” learning, it wouldn’t stop for most people when they graduate.
– Steven Wolk, Teacher and education doctoral student, Chicago
I was struck by the contrasts Sykes offers between sports and academics. Young people are encouraged to strive for athletic achievement, and we reward them with all manner of attention, devotion and public acclaim. Meanwhile, our best scholars strive in obscurity.
I was disgusted to learn that the backlash against academic achievement could reach the bumper-sticker claim, “My kid beat up your honor student.” Until this article, I had been spared this nauseating boast. We’ve reached a sad state when our society, already rife with violence, can harbor such hostility for our future leaders, teachers and best minds of a new generation.
– David N. Napalo, Wilmette
My 9-year-old son was fascinated by the cover of the Aug. 27 Magazine. We talked about it, read the cover and I asked if he knew what the three R’s are. “Sure-reduce, reuse, recycle.”
Welcome to the ’90s.
– Debbie Kretzmann, Naperville
Charles Sykes’ focus is awry.
Our schools are doing precisely what they are designed to do, namely, churning out waves of mediocre students destined to fill the lower and middle ranks of our labor force. It may sound cynical, but, after all, that’s where the jobs are.
Our increasingly service-oriented economy does not require highly skilled or broadly educated workers. Our corporations need only a handful of “high-achieving” students for their most creative or technically demanding positions.
Public schools are a product of the Industrial Revolution. Our society developed a need for a massive work force capable of working at an average level of ability.
Excellence can be seen as a threat to the economic and political status quo. After all, knowledge is power and power is a commodity not easily shared in this culture.
– William Harrison, Chicago
I agree with Charles Sykes that more than two cents of every $100 spent on education should go to provide opportunities for academically gifted students.
But his defense of competitive standards against the noncompetitive ideals promoted by some educational reformers misses the point. We need to teach children to both compete and cooperate: It’s not an either/or proposition.
The “excellence” vs. “equity” debate that Sykes presents in his essay will never be settled because both points of view overlook an important truth about learning: It springs from resourceful and inspired teaching, not from subscribing to the “correct” approach to education.
Reformers of conservative and liberal persuasions would be better served in their quest for either high standards or fairness by urging that a few more pennies per hundred dollars be spent on efforts to upgrade the profession of teaching.
– Paul Caccia, Chicago
Last year my daughter’s grade school started an authentic assessment study. No grades, just checklists, no work sent home. Was there a big uproar? No.
One family pulled their child out to a private school and two of us protested by requesting traditional grades. The rest, about 120 families, sheepishly accepted it. Actually, most thought it was a great idea.
There is one other benefit to the teachers: no accountability, no measuring success, consequently no bad teachers. Hey, we’re all doin’ the best we can! Job security is the name of the game.
Maureen M. Brodsky, Wilmette
Charles Sykes misrepresents my ideas about excellence and equity and their complementary relationship in education. He then adds a statement about what schools should do as if he is summarizing my ideas: “schools should be concerned with ‘adequacy,’ and should weigh nontraditional types of intelligence, such as ‘singing’ and ‘dancing’ at least as heavily as ‘communication and calculations.’ ” The material in quotation marks, attributed to me in the essay, are not my ideas.
My ideas are available in scores of books and articles that Mr. Sykes could have reviewed. Failure to do this is a blemish on Mr. Sykes’ scholarship and also is unfair action toward me and other persons whom he cites.
– Charles V. Willie, Professor of Education and Urban Studies, Harvard University
Charles Sykes responds: Perhaps professor Willie forgets his presentation in October 1989 at a conference titled “From the Eurocentric University to the Multicultural University.” His remarks, arguing for a standard of “adequacy” and discussing the need to weigh nontraditional types of intelligence such as “singing” and “dancing” were reported in the Summer 1990 issue of Academic Questions.
The article quotes professor Willie calling the push for excellence in American universities discriminatory and advocating the abolition of standardized tests because they “terrorize” minority students. “Even more startling,” the article reported, “was Prof. Willie’s statement that ‘excellence’ should not be the business of the university, since the university should instead be concerned with what Willie defined as ‘adequacy.’ “
———-
The Magazine wilcomes letters. All mail should include the writer’s name, address and a daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.
Send mail to The Editor, Chicago Tribune Magazine, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Room 532, Chicago, Ill. 60611. Mail may also be sent to Trib Mag on America Online. Our Internet address is tribmag@aol.com.
