18Egalitarian and elitist approach to education
.doc26. Egalitarian and elitist approach to education
Children’s intelligence, musical ability, physical endurance etc., vary enormously from individual to individual: some children are musical geniuses at the age of four or five, and others what is generally called tone-deaf; there are mathematical geniuses, and children who are hopeless at math, we can give many examples, the essence of the problem is that these differences are on the one hand – the result of heredity, and on the other hand – the influence of environment. So, what is the best way to develop children’s abilities and to encourage their talents?
Many people think that in order to develop the abilities of these gifted children, they should to choose elitist approach in education and to study separately from “ordinary” children. Some governments believe in an egalitarian approach which means to give all children opportunities to develop their special gifts. Napoleon laid the principle of this approach saying “Equal opportunities for all”. And the US tried to follow this idea and tried to provide equal education for all, regardless of ability, while the USSR was encouraging talent by setting up special schools for children with particular gifts. They followed elitist approach by selecting gifted children at a very early age, and then sending them to schools in which they are given intensive training for something like ten years. And Americans seeing brilliant results of Russian people decided to follow the Russian system of education. In egalitarian education one can find advantages and disadvantages. For pupils with special gifts it’s better to study by an elitist approach. There they can reach brilliant results because staying with other smart children they will have some kind of competition and it will urge them forward.
For pupils without any special talents studying in the egalitarian school will be both advantage and disadvantage. On the one hand, seeing these smart guys someone will loose his interest in studying, and on the other hand it will stimulate them and will help to work harder in order to reach the same level.
So, it’s very hard to find the best way for our children. Children’s intelligence, musical ability, physical endurance etc. vary enormously from individual to individual: some children are musical geniuses at the age of four or five, and others are what is generally called tone-deaf; there are mathematical geniuses, and children who are hopeless at maths; some girls become world swimming champions at 14, and others are always last in the race; and so on.
Some experts claim that most of these differences are born in the child, others say that they are the result of early experiences. The most sensible attitude is that they are partly the result of heredity and partly that of environment: X% of nature plus Y% of nurture. So, what is the best way to develop children’s abilities and to encourage their talents? One therefore has to accept that there is a wide range of ability between different children, and one then has to decide what to do about in the schools. Some governments believe in an egalitarian approach; others in giving special types of education to suit each different kind of ability – an elitist approach. So one can state positive as well as negative sides in egalitarian and elitist types of education.
Egalitarian education in some way prevents the really gifted-child’s development. But at the same time selection at an early age cannot be perfect: some children who should be at a particular type of school can slip through the net, and others who do go to that type of school can drop out before the end of the course.
Attempts in the US and in Britain to diminish differences in ability between children from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds by giving the latter special intensive training between the age of 5 and 7 have been quite unsuccessful: the differences are already deeply rooted by then.
However, there has never been any conclusive evidence that the comprehensive system does hold back the very intelligent pupils.
At the same time one should mention that elitist education opens wider prospects for the graduated. As an example let’s take universities. The reality nowadays shows that parents more often give their preference to private schools, choosing the name of the school but not its teaching methods. Because even if you come at the interview and there will be a choice between a boy or a girl graduated in Cambridge but not very talented, and another boy or girl who finished one of the comprehensive schools but who is a real smart boy/girl, there a slight possibility for the 2nd one to get the job, because Cambridge speaks for its name. So, the graduate from Cambridge gained some kind of social advantage attending this University.
So to my mind first most children should be sent to a comprehensive school, which is designed to enable every one to pursue the subjects that they are good at, and at the same time to encourage social cohesion. Then when the child’s abilities are discovered he/she can be just provided with some specialised courses or programs. And then when going to university it’s better to choose the top one which would provide a person with all necessary knowledge and at the same time would open numerous prospects in life.
What is obviously right in any society which is interested in developing each child’s abilities to the full is to give all children equal opportunities to develop their special gifts.
26. Egalitarian and elitist approach to education
Children’s intelligence, musical ability, physical endurance etc., vary enormously from individual to individual: some children are musical geniuses at the age of four or five, and others what is generally called tone-deaf; there are mathematical geniuses, and children who are hopeless at math, we can give many examples, the essence of the problem is that these differences are on the one hand – the result of heredity, and on the other hand – the influence of environment. So, what is the best way to develop children’s abilities and to encourage their talents?
Many people think that in order to develop the abilities of these gifted children, they should to choose elitist approach in education and to study separately from “ordinary” children. Some governments believe in an egalitarian approach which means to give all children opportunities to develop their special gifts. Napoleon laid the principle of this approach saying “Equal opportunities for all”. And the US tried to follow this idea and tried to provide equal education for all, regardless of ability, while the USSR was encouraging talent by setting up special schools for children with particular gifts. They followed elitist approach by selecting gifted children at a very early age, and then sending them to schools in which they are given intensive training for something like ten years. And Americans seeing brilliant results of Russian people decided to follow the Russian system of education. In egalitarian education one can find advantages and disadvantages. For pupils with special gifts it’s better to study by an elitist approach. There they can reach brilliant results because staying with other smart children they will have some kind of competition and it will urge them forward.
For pupils without any special talents studying in the egalitarian school will be both advantage and disadvantage. On the one hand, seeing these smart guys someone will loose his interest in studying, and on the other hand it will stimulate them and will help to work harder in order to reach the same level.
So, it’s very hard to find the best way for our children. Children’s intelligence, musical ability, physical endurance etc. vary enormously from individual to individual: some children are musical geniuses at the age of four or five, and others are what is generally called tone-deaf; there are mathematical geniuses, and children who are hopeless at maths; some girls become world swimming champions at 14, and others are always last in the race; and so on.
Some experts claim that most of these differences are born in the child, others say that they are the result of early experiences. The most sensible attitude is that they are partly the result of heredity and partly that of environment: X% of nature plus Y% of nurture. So, what is the best way to develop children’s abilities and to encourage their talents? One therefore has to accept that there is a wide range of ability between different children, and one then has to decide what to do about in the schools. Some governments believe in an egalitarian approach; others in giving special types of education to suit each different kind of ability – an elitist approach. So one can state positive as well as negative sides in egalitarian and elitist types of education.
Egalitarian education in some way prevents the really gifted-child’s development. But at the same time selection at an early age cannot be perfect: some children who should be at a particular type of school can slip through the net, and others who do go to that type of school can drop out before the end of the course.
Attempts in the US and in Britain to diminish differences in ability between children from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds by giving the latter special intensive training between the age of 5 and 7 have been quite unsuccessful: the differences are already deeply rooted by then.
However, there has never been any conclusive evidence that the comprehensive system does hold back the very intelligent pupils.
At the same time one should mention that elitist education opens wider prospects for the graduated. As an example let’s take universities. The reality nowadays shows that parents more often give their preference to private schools, choosing the name of the school but not its teaching methods. Because even if you come at the interview and there will be a choice between a boy or a girl graduated in Cambridge but not very talented, and another boy or girl who finished one of the comprehensive schools but who is a real smart boy/girl, there a slight possibility for the 2nd one to get the job, because Cambridge speaks for its name. So, the graduate from Cambridge gained some kind of social advantage attending this University.
So to my mind first most children should be sent to a comprehensive school, which is designed to enable every one to pursue the subjects that they are good at, and at the same time to encourage social cohesion. Then when the child’s abilities are discovered he/she can be just provided with some specialised courses or programs. And then when going to university it’s better to choose the top one which would provide a person with all necessary knowledge and at the same time would open numerous prospects in life.
What is obviously right in any society which is interested in developing each child’s abilities to the full is to give all children equal opportunities to develop their special gifts.