F- Institutional Flexibility & Accommodating Individual Differences.

The educational establishment has been described as a "one size that
fits everybody" article of clothing. It is the same thing that
stretches for everyone regardless of body build, height, weight,
skin sensitivities or color preferences. Two ways in which the
analogy does not apply are (1) one instructional approach or
environment does not "fit" very many students and (2) shoppers for
clothing have the freedom of choice of selection that is denied
those who want optional educational opportunities.

A delightful fable was circulated at teacher education institutions
a decade or so ago that should have had some influence on the badly
needed but unobserved improvements to the public education system.
The unknown author cleverly likened the present educational
procedures to a school of young animals in which the duck was
required to climb trees and the squirrel was required to swim. All
creatures were expected to do just as well at all activities as
their peers whether or not nature had endowed them with the
abilities, propensities, interests, aptitudes or inclinations. The
policy of the inflexible educational institution is the same. It
requires all students to do just as well at all activities as their
peers whether or not nature has endowed them with the abilities,
propensities, interests, aptitudes or inclinations.

So little provision is made for individual differences that one
wonders if the teachers are aware of the psychological and
educational research in learning procedure preferences, referred to
as "modality." The primary modes of learning are through seeing and
hearing. Touching is another mode preference for some. The "why
Johnny can't read" controversy is probably due to the failure of
educators to recognize that visual mode learners can and do learn to
read words as symbol entities; aural mode learners relate better to
the phonics approach. Which procedure for teaching reading is best
then, word recognition or phonics? The answer is "yes," depending
upon the mode preference, or blend of more than one preference, of
each individual. Learning procedure preference appears to have a
strong correlation with brain bicamerality or hemispherality, the
"left - right" brain theory that is increasingly becoming accepted
as plausible. Providing only one means of learning is as dangerous
as forcing a left-handed person to write with his right hand.
Educators have not had the time, because of the demands the system
imposes, nor, generally, the training to provide the necessary
diagnosis for each student and prescribe the learning procedures
best suited for each student's most effective learning mode.

Instruments are available for diagnosing preferred learning styles.
A list of learning style inventories is included in Robert M.
Smith's book, Learning How to Learn (Chicago: Follett Publishing
Company, 1982). However, the system of public class room education
does not ordinarily permit the individual attention required to
implement the findings of the learning style inventories. These,
incidentally, measure much more than "left - right" brain
preferences.

The ludicrousness of graduation requirements that expect the same
proficiencies of all graduates is manifest in the case of a 50 year
old grandmother who re-entered college after her family had grown.
She could not get a grade in a required physical education course
because she no longer had the necessary physical agility to run,
bend, lift and stretch enough to satisfy the demands of the
instructor. She graduated only after petitioning to have the
graduation committee waive the requirement. Incidentally, within
three years she had achieved her Doctorate at a graduate school
elsewhere and was hired by the institution whose graduation
committee she petitioned for a waiver of the physical education
requirement for the baccalaureate degree.

There are some who consider it similarly ludicrous to deny a degree
(assuming degrees are important) to one whose mental propensities
are artistic rather than mathematical. This is what the California
Community College system has done. It now requires that students
successfully complete a course in college algebra before being
awarded an associate degree. An example of the problem is
represented in this note from a remedial college math student after
taking her final exam: "I have forgotten much of what I learned in
Math 60. Any suggestions for remembering, i.e., retaining learned
math? I had the same problem in hi. sc." Perhaps there are some
students, functional and articulate in most other disciplines, to
whom math will always remain a mystery. Should they be denied the
benefits of college degrees?

The inflexible educational system can further be compared to a
physician who prescribes the same medicine to all patients
regardless of malady. Leonard Dalton is credited with this analogy
directed to teachers:

     Like most educators, I have a mildly active ulcer which I
     jokingly refer to as visceral tensions. It usually behaves
     itself, but one beautiful autumn day, after I had read the
     local news carrying stories of campus sit-ins, teacher strikes,
     parental demands, and budget cuts, my pet ulcer was more
     vigorous than usual. A phone call from home telling of a new
     teen-type in my car fender and a well filled septic tank didn't
     help. So, I decided to look for a local physician who could
     quiet my acid indigestion.

     The first medico I came to was a Dr. Max Rickety. As I entered
     Dr. Max's office, I noticed that all patients were receiving
     the same medicine, so I commented on what a coincidence it was
     that everyone's symptom called for the same prescription. The
     nurse informed me that they didn't have time to worry about
     symptoms; they were giving everyone the same medicine because
     that happened to be what Dr. Max had prepared for that day and
     tomorrow he would prepare something else. Well--as you can
     imagine, I decided this wasn't the doctor for me; and I
     muttered to myself as I left Dr. Max's office, how glad I was
     that we care for the mind in the classroom in a much more
     individualized way than Dr. Max did for the body.

     The next shingle I saw was that of Dr. Speck! As I entered his
     clinic, I was greeted with a psychedelic orgy of pills and
     people. Dr. Speck had his medicine cabinet wide open and was
     inviting each patient to "come right up and pick out your own
     medicine! You know what your problems are so you should know
     what you need!"

     And they were! You never saw such pill popping and tiptoeing
     through the tulips as was being done by Dr. Speck's
     self-realization type program. Well-- I got out of there. I
     didn't know Terramycin from anthrax and I wasn't about to write
     my own prescription for gastritis when it might be cancer of
     the pancreas.

     As I moved on down the street feeling more ill than ever in
     behalf of Dr. Max's and Dr. Speck's patients, I came to the
     medical facility of Robert M. Objective. I was tired,
     discouraged and convinced that the whole world had flipped and
     I was beginning to worry for my sanity when I walked into Dr.
     Objective's office. Now Dr. Objective set about immediately to
     inform me that on the basis of his experience and training, he
     was going to expect a certain performance out of me, if I was
     to be considered a healthy patient. I was expected to exhibit a
     temperature of 98.6 degrees, and a certain range for pulse,
     breathing rate, blood pressure, blood cell count, etc. In order
     to assess my present behavior, Dr. Objective had a pre-test for
     me. This pre-test consisted of apparatus such as thermometers,
     sphygmomanometers, etc. Dr. Objective compared the results of
     the pre-test with the type of behavior he had in mind for me,
     the comparison of which resulted in a prescription (or what we
     educators would call a learning activity) for me. I am
     confident that he would have allowed me to make some decisions
     (quest study) with regard to my activity if I had performed in
     an acceptable manner. He scheduled me for a post-test two weeks
     later in order that he might use the same testing procedure to
     measure improvement. Maybe the thing that impressed me most was
     that he took time to pre-test my condition and he obviously was
     aware of all of the prescriptions on the shelf so he could pick
     one just for me!

     As for Dr. Max and Dr. Speck, even if they post- test as they
     are heard to claim, how do they know for sure that the patient
     was not performing at that level before the medicine was
     administered? And--I must ask the disciples of Max and Speck,
     why do we need a high paid physician to give the same medicine
     to everyone because that happens to be what was prepared or to
     open a medicine cabinet as a smorgasbord approach without
     guidance? A nurse (would you believe teacher aide?) can do that
     for a lot less money.

     By the way--what did you do today that required a college
     degree and a teaching certificate that a well-read housewife
     couldn't have done?

The ideal objective oriented and module-prescribed educational
system is not generally promoted, because most people are unaware
and/or unconcerned about the health of their wisdom. They readily
consult with medical doctors but are rarely aware of their need for
educational doctors. As long as they are not uncomfortable, they
complacently ignore receiving attention. When they recognize a need
for specific information, students get it. As long as they are
comfortable without it, they will not find acquiring it important or
relevant so they will not learn it effectively. If their desire to
learn has not been damaged by the stifling procedures that make no
provision for individual differences, they will learn readily when
they recognize a need to do so.

Educational institutional flexibility must be promoted to implement
means to train students according to their different interests and
rates of learning. Although some learn slower than others, all can
acquire the information and skills necessary to function
appropriately in society if individual differences are recognized
and provision is made for them. The primary difficulty with the
institution is its treating all students the same way in requiring
most of them to learn faster than they can absorb the information.
Why else do only a small percentage receive high grades? The
semester or quarter "time race" leaves many good but perhaps
temporarily disinterested students behind, undermines their
self-confidence and discourages them from continuing intellectual
pursuit. A module-prescribed system would eliminate the legislative
& administrator imposed time limitations and allow a student to
pursue learning at a pace most suitable for himself. He would absorb
more and have more time to use creatively. He would reduce the risk
of acquiring school induced learning deficiencies and anxieties.
Diane McGuinness provides convincing evidence that failure to
recognize individual differences is a primary cause of learning
disabilities. (Why Children Don't Learn; Understanding the Biology
and Psychology of Learning Disabilities; Basic Books; reviewed by
Robin Marantz Henig in the May 1986 issue of Psychology Today.)

The development of creativity has been not only neglected but abused
by the stress on acquiring facts rapidly in order to regurgitate
them at periodic quiz times. In the classroom oriented, lecture
dominated, traditionally inflexible educational environment, too
little attention is given the creative non- conformist. What most
instructors and administrators apparently want are tightly
controlled and well-disciplined classrooms where little learning
takes place, rather than stimulating and exciting activities that
allow creative and productive thought. The following interview with
Dr. Benjamin Fine illustrates some of the problems. Although this
interview took place several years ago, the observations and
recommendations are still relevant.


     Q. Dr. Fine, how many gifted children are there in America?

     A. An estimated 5,000,000. And about 1,000,000 of these are
     underachievers. They get poor marks, they flunk, they drop out
     of school.

     Q. It's hard to believe. Have you actually met any of these
     children?

     A. There is Robert, who was flunking several subjects in the
     fifth grade of a Connecticut school. He finished his
     mathematics book in the first two weeks of the course. The
     teacher bawled him out. Yet a test put his IQ at 170 -- near
     the top of the genius scale.

     Q. How could a teacher fail to recognize such potentiality?

     A. The average teacher simply doesn't have the time or the
     training to cope with these children. Another little girl in a
     public school third grade handed in a 280 page research paper
     on the history of the early Indian. The teacher gave her an F.
     She didn't believe the child had done it. You can imagine the
     emotional harm this sort of treatment causes.

     Q. But can you turn them around? Can you make them start
     studying again?

     A. Randy was far below average in a crowded New York public
     school. After two years in small classes with special
     attention, she has been accepted for advanced standing in the
     University of Wisconsin. Joel was failing in a Long Island
     school. Within a year -- with time and attention -- he became a
     top student. Andy was actually a dropout, but the same sort of
     attention turned him around, too.

     Q. What is the secret?

     A. To make learning enjoyable. At Sands Point, we follow the
     example of the old Greek teacher who gave his five-year-old
     pupils a block of wood covered with honey on their first day at
     school. When they licked off the honey, there was the alphabet
     underneath it. Every school can do this. There are several
     basic rules. Let each child go at his own pace. Make sure that
     the teachers are well trained -- but above all that they have
     warm hearts. And let them teach. Don't burden them with paper
     work, jobs such as monitoring the halls. Finally, classes
     should be small, so the teacher's enthusiasm and warmth can
     reach each child, individually.

     Q. Do students enjoy this kind of schooling?

     A. They love it. One mother called me not long ago, worried
     because her son lamented holidays. He wanted school every day
     of the year. "There must be something wrong," she said. "He
     shouldn't like school that much."

     Q. In a future issue, we expect to publish an article on the
     grading systems in schools. What do you think about them?

     A. They vary so from school to school that they mean nothing.
     For instance, our passing mark is 85. But we minimize grades
     and, as one result, the children don't compete with each other.
     Watching the achievements of these youngsters has convinced me
     that the grading system is American education's worst flaw. It
     creates a sense of artificial achievement. Without grades, the
     youngster works until he himself feels he has achieved -- that
     is, learned -- something.

     Q. How do you get a gifted underachiever moving?

     A. Find his point of interest through special courses in
     advanced math, English, science. In these he can go as far and
     as fast as he pleases. Sometimes the point of interest may be
     athletics, or music. Anything, as long as it involves him,
     makes him feel he belongs. Children can be hurt by teachers --
     and sometimes by parents -- who have failed to understand them.

     Q. What do you tell parents?

     A. Stop nagging. Let him find his own level, develop his own
     interests. So many parents want their son or daughter to excel
     in every subject. But gifted children very often vastly prefer
     one subject and tend to neglect the others. Often, however, the
     sense of achievement in their favorite subject spills over, and
     they begin to work harder elsewhere, too.

     Q. Do many schools specialize in gifted students?

     A. There are only a handful in the nation. We need many more. I
     think every school system should have at least one such school.
     Two or three school systems could pool their resources and
     create a regional school. Parents of gifted children move (some
     of ours have come from Kansas, California, etc.), and some
     children will travel great distances daily (one of our girls
     covers 100 miles per day) to get the kind of education they
     need. America's brain power of the future is at stake. We
     cannot afford to risk our most precious national resource.

Exceptional students do not necessarily excel in many academic
disciplines, yet the one-size-fits-all educational system expects
it. NASA has given scholarships to young scientific geniuses and, at
the same time, has given them handbooks of English grammar. While in
school the young scholars did not wish to bother with learning
English; they were more motivated by scientific challenges. This
eagerness could have been stifled by a self righteous pedantic
teacher who was more concerned about the manner in which a student
writes a report than the substance of the report.

Schools must make allowances for individual differences in abilities
and interests. They are slow to realize this. Schools are more
concerned about herding students like cattle for the sake of good
order. The personnel therein are unaware that the factory whistle
(the school bell) is an unnecessary vestige of an earlier time. The
bell rings, so the students are shunted to another subject or/and
class location whether they have spent sufficient time in the one
they are in to grasp the concept presented or not. All students are
required to be in class the same amount of time regardless of the
fact that one may not need the same amount of time as another. One
may not need to spend time in English that could better be spent in
history or physics, for example, yet the rigidly inflexible school
structure requires him to do so. Regardless of the fact that some
innovative schools have demonstrated that more viable education
takes place when students have control of their time in a flexible
scheduling system, the innovation is not generally practiced.
Students learn, when not required to be in attendance in classes,
what the real 20th & 21st century world is like. If they "slough-off"
they pay the consequences as when later, as adults, they may be
tempted to stay in bed too late instead of working to meet a sales
quota, for example. Students need to be able to make these decisions
in school to understand the consequences of dereliction. They need
some degree of choice about how they spend their time. They need
time for in-depth inquiry, analysis and creativity instead of being
locked into class activities they neither need nor want, but are
forced to participate because the instructors, using yellow,
dog-eared lecture notes, are required by archaic laws to spend the
time with them whether they need the "medicine" or not.

The story is told that after Rip Van Winkle returned after his long
sleep he was on a mountain and nearly got knocked off it by an
airplane. To escape that danger he rowed a boat onto a lake but was
nearly run down by a large steamship. After several other similar
close calls with the modern world he finally saw a little school
house and said, "Ah ha! I'll be safe there. Nothing has changed in
the schools for the last two hundred years."

Schools need to recognize and become flexible to foster the
development of the creativity in all its subjects. The following
description of a creative person, borrowed from the Columbia School
of Broadcasting, should be considered by all school personnel:

     1. INHERITED SENSITIVITY -- a propensity for a greater
     sensitivity to certain types of experience -- mathematical,
     artistic, musical, mechanical, literary. This appears to be
     well established by studies of families which exhibit high
     creativity in certain fields over several generations.

     "Possibly," Seidel says, "the artist's apparently odd way of
     looking at things derives more from the inherited and developed
     sensitivity which makes him more readily attuned to the
     subtleties of various sensations and impressions, than from an
     asymmetrical viewpoint different from the ordinary man in the
     street. . . The peculiar way the creative person may look at
     things derives from a physically based sensitivity toward
     sensations of a certain type."

     2. EARLY TRAINING -- the creative person, more likely than not,
     had his childhood in a home atmosphere that encouraged, rather
     than discouraged, inquisitiveness (although too rigid a home
     environment might drive him to seek new and original answers on
     his own). Creativity is as much a matter of attitude as
     anything, and most human attitudes may be imprinted before the
     age of seven.

     3. LIBERAL EDUCATION -- the creative person is more likely to
     express his creativity if he is exposed to teachers and
     curricula that place a premium upon questions rather than
     answers, and which reward curiosity rather than learning by
     rote and conformity.

     4. ASYMMETRICAL WAYS OF THOUGHT -- the creative person finds an
     original kind of order in disorder; it is as if he stared at
     the reflection of nature in a distorted mirror, where
     "ordinary" people are able only to see the image in a plain
     mirror. Most highly intelligent people (as measured by tests)
     have symmetrical ways of thought, and for them, everything
     balances out in some logical way.

     5. PERSONAL COURAGE -- the creative person is not afraid of
     failure, or of being laughed at. He can afford this risk
     because what is important -- to him -- is not what others think
     of him, but what he thinks of himself.

     6. SUSTAINED CURIOSITY -- the creative person never stops
     asking questions, even of his most cherished ideas. "Those who
     have an excessive faith in their ideas," said Claude Bernard,
     "are not well fitted to make discoveries." A capacity for
     childlike wonder, carried into adult life, typifies the
     creative person.

     7. NON TIME-BOUND -- morning, noon and night are all the same
     to the creative person; he does not work by the clock. Problems
     may take years to solve, discovery may take decades. With his
     personal "window on infinity," time has a personal, not a
     social meaning. Truly creative persons seldom respond well to
     "deadlines" arbitrarily set by someone else.

     8. DEDICATION -- an unswerving desire to do something, whatever
     it may be and whatever the obstacles to doing it. The problem
     will not be left unsolved; the feeling will not remain
     unexpressed.

     9. WILLINGNESS TO WORK -- it is quite possible that no one in
     our society works harder than the artist; the same may be said
     for the creative scientist, inventor, composer or
     mathematician. This may not express itself in the number of
     hours put in on the job, or in obvious physical labor, but in
     the fact that even in sleep or reverie the creative person is
     constantly working for a solution. The willingness to spend
     years simply accumulating data about which a creative question
     may be asked (Darwin is a good example; so is Edison) is
     characteristic of the creative person.

The creative person may lose his creativity by being forced through
the traditional academic mold. Not only can creativity and
exceptional ability be thwarted in the typical school, it can go
deliberately un-noticed and un-rewarded, consequently
under-nourished, as illustrated by the following dialogue between a
music teacher (M.T.) and a school principal (P.):

     P. Why is it you have Kristi Larson appearing so often in the
     Christmas program?

     M.T. She has prepared some very good numbers and has written a
     skit worthy of presenting. What's more, she is the only one
     able to carry the lead in the operetta.

     P. There are going to be some parents complain to me about it.

     M.T. Why? If their kids could do what Kristi can do, I would be
     more than happy to put them on the program as often. Why should
     Kristi be held back from gaining satisfaction in displaying her
     talent just because the others have been too lazy to develop
     theirs? You would not destroy her incentive by preventing it,
     would you? The parents of the others will have to recognize the
     American way: the opportunities go to those who are prepared to
     accept them. I would hate to see it any other way.

     .....................

     P. What sort of spring concert did you hold last year in the
     choral department?

     M.T. The large groups sang three numbers each, and the
     remaining 45 minutes to an hour were occupied by the Southettes
     (a select group of 14 Jr. High School girls).

     P. I don't think that was right; the other groups need the
     satisfaction derived from performing as much as the Southettes.

     M.T. Granted, but they were unable to learn any more than three
     selections each.

     P. But why didn't you limit the Southettes to three numbers?

     M.T. And deprive them of showing what they had the ability to
     do? Absurd. Your suggestion reminds me of an experiment with
     lobsters: Three lobsters were put in a plate with a shallow
     rim. One attempted several times to get out, but each time the
     others grabbed him and pulled him back, supposedly because they
     were too lazy to attempt escape themselves. The analogy is easy
     to see.