front page - editorial archives  - search - community

Class Notes
	Competing in class and in life (Published March 10, 2003) By H. WELLS WULSIN

Thomas Jefferson, to justify providing three years of free education, wrote, in Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), "By this means twenty of the best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish annually, and be instructed, at the public expense…."

Schools, as Jefferson envisioned them, would sift through the dregs of society and pull out the rare gems, which would then be groomed for greatness. Two centuries later, our giant school buildings, cafeterias, parking lots and athletic fields bear little resemblance to the post-revolutionary schoolhouses that were typically run by a single teacher, designed for only a few grade levels, and exclusive of all non-whites.

What persists in our schools from Jefferson's era is his notion of schools as "sorting mechanisms" - institutions that weed through the population to discover the gifted few who should be cultivated into our leading scholars, scientists and statesmen.

We no longer refer to the teeming masses as "rubbish," as Jefferson did so coarsely, but we certainly still do exalt those at the top. Education is sometimes cynically seen as a giant charade, its true purpose only to identify for the likes of factories, hospitals and law firms those people who ought to get the best jobs, and those who should have the worst.

Though education is about much more than lining up children from best to worst, the fact is that students do get ranked in schools. In classes, students are assigned letter grades based on performance, which mark them as high, medium or low achievers. Within a grade level, students are usually tracked into advanced, regular or remedial classes, which determines what curriculum they will learn and what peer group they will be exposed to. At the school level, a student's grade-point average (GPA) is used to calculate class rank, and scores on standardized tests can position that student with respect to other students across the nation and the world.

As a teacher, I have to sort and categorize students every day. Though grades are determined from a standard scale (not curved), still comparisons between students are inevitable. When tests get passed back, I know to expect the usual jibes and exclamations. "Dang, how'd you get an A without even cracking your book?!" "Oooooooh, girl you're gonna be in big trouble if you take that grade home!" Sly glances inspect a neighbor's paper to gauge how others have fared. Friends and rivals query each other to keep tabs on the competition.

Though it rarely stays a secret for long, I try not to identify the top scorer on a test. Instead, I just announce the highest grade - a target for others to shoot for and proof positive that greater success is possible. But when the top scorer is someone unexpected - a jock or a goof-off or a troublemaker - that's when I can't help but blow my cover. I'll save that person's test to deliver last, so that the cries of exultation clearly identify the lucky recipient. A genius earning the highest grade is nothing to bat an eye at, but when the class clown makes the top score - well, that's real inspiration for the average Joe.

Whenever possible, I add competition into lab activities. Even if there's no actual reward, the pride of winning makes the critical difference between a boring drill and an engaging, team-driven activity. One of the simplest mini-projects in physics class is also the most fun. Each team of students receives one newspaper and a roll of masking tape. Their task is to build the tallest tower possible using only those materials. Some teams try rolling, some try folding, and some just use massive amounts of tape. By the end of the class, the winning team usually has built a rickety, fragile structure with several angular supports that nearly touches the ceiling - no small feat of engineering. Throughout the building phase, the drive to win is palpable and often leads to risky architectural designs that result in collapse. Competition fuels motivation, fun and laughter.

But now, more than ever, expectations of superb grades, athletic performance, demonstrated leadership and top college acceptances are turning many schools into pressure cookers - confined spaces where over-energized youthful bodies are expected to channel their efforts into "productive activity." Top students quickly learn the art of juggling - first handing in a European History term paper, then playing violin at orchestra rehearsal, then winning a tennis match in the third set and, finally, drafting a speech for the student government elections. Their lives are more tightly scheduled than many CEO's, and still these over-achievers push harder, struggling to reach that ever-elusive pinnacle of success.

Stimulating, engaging activities spur development, but in excess they overwhelm. I remember vividly one snowy winter day in my own sophomore year of high school, when after school I walked to the back parking lot and broke down into tears, besieged by ballooning commitments to AP courses, the marching band and a varsity sport. Inability to excel in multiple arenas is often mistakenly translated as a mark of inadequacy. All too quickly, competition can turn from motivator to destructor.

As educators, we need to reinforce to students the fact that most of life is not a zero-sum game. While one basketball team may win and the other lose, both are stronger after having played. Two nations, working together, can sign treaties that help both countries. The success of another does not translate to a loss for the self.

If we can't live with competition, neither can we live without it. Just as we embrace competition in the free market to strengthen the economy, it can also strengthen our schools on many levels - beyond physics lab activities. The lure of top grades drives students to study harder and learn more. Standardized tests can provide valuable data about the progress of individuals and groups of students. To hire the best teachers, school systems compete to offer better salaries and benefits. Competition for acceptance into top colleges persuades students to take a more challenging slate of courses.

Ultimately, ranking and sorting are realities we must be prepared to accept, because without them we lack important indicators of performance. But even while assigning grades and encouraging healthy competition, we should emphasize to students that where one falls with respect to the group is far less important than how much of one's potential is finally realized. They can't fail by missing the expectations of others, but only by giving up on their expectations for themselves.

***