Malcolm Gladwell’s most recent book, Outliers: The Story of Success , gives the educational realm and nefarious achievement gap an intriguing twist. Gladwell’s anecdotes and empirical observations suggest our nation has to re-assess, to no one’s surprise, our handling of educational inequity. There is certainly no denial that students in inner cities enter schools on an unlevel playing field, treading water against rip currents. The obstacles of poverty may be more than what meets the eye. Teachers, administrators, parents, and even the Department of Education may be missing subtle nuances that compound our nation’s educational issues, and significantly disadvantage those who are already behind.
Gladwell invokes renown sociologist Robert Merton’s ballyhooed phenomenon known as the “Matthew Effect.” This concept comes from a passage from the Gospel of Matthew which states: “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” In essence, this trend suggests that success breeds more success, while failure may formulate a bubble of prolonged and greater failure. To put this into a real world context, we can look at almost any domain to see the “Matthew Effect” permeating, widening the gap between success and failure. Take politics for instance, nearly 93% of incumbent representatives are re-elected every year. This is not to necessarily say that all of these incumbents have high approval ratings or stellar performance and attendance, but their experience has granted them near immunity from defeat. Politicians have learned to mobilize, refined the song and dance to attract voters, have constructed political machines that raise funds and attack fledgling opponents, sprouting weeds around seedlings of prospective competitors. Even Former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest standing Republican in the Senate, nearly was re-elected after being convicted of scandal. A felony and the prospect of jail time were barely enough to prevent re-election. The “Matthew Effect” pervades economics. Who are the people getting the majority of the tax cuts at the moment? The answer of course is the exceedingly wealthy, those with the capacity to insulate themselves from the lower class, who already have safety nets available to them, but can promote their own interests using their own networks, lobbying, and money. In business we see the prevalence of the “Matthew Effect” as companies like Google corner the market. Success breeds more success, as the most introspective minds seek out companies at the top and perpetuate their position (the financial companies may be a recent exception although the ones still standing were the three biggest and most successful investment banks).
Using sheer empiricism and a ever-vigilant eye we can detect the “Matthew Effect” close to home as well. Gladwell uses hockey and soccer as an example, noting that a disproportionate amount of professionals are born within days, weeks, or months of the cut-off age. Why might this make a difference? When these players first start playing sports as early as the age of 7 or 8 (or in some cases earlier), being born closer to the cut-off date could have an astronomical difference. Consider being an eight year old playing against opponents who are 1/12th your age. These several months of advantage will not only give you a physical advantage, but a mental one as well. Those closer to the cut-off date are older, have had the benefits of added months of practice, may be more physically imposing, intellectually mature, and have the bonus of developed hand-eye coordination. The advantages do not stop there. These older athletes tend to be more successful on the proverbial field, court, or arena, which condones praise, more teaching, coaching, and attention. These become the athletes who are picked for all-star teams and get to sharpen their skills against better competition, whose coaches polish and cultivate them, and who have the added advantage of a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” They are treated as stars, and are well aware that they stand out. They have become anointed at an early age, and this success reverberates, placing them on a fast track to success. While these athletes are being groomed for the athletic Promised Land, others who have not developed or lack the physical or mental maturity are left on the sidelines.
Within the educational sphere we must also be watchful of the “Matthew Effect.” Too often, the best students get the recognition, awards, and most attention. This is not to say that they do not deserve it and should not be distinguished for their achievement, their hard work and accomplishments are worthy of merit. But teachers should focus on those who are already behind. These are the students who need the most help, and whose education and prospects could turn to gold or dust based on their ability to succeed in the classroom. As a first grader, I had difficulty reading because I opted to memorize words rather than to sound them out. I was stigmatized as one of the slow kids, and put into an extra help and lower reading group. Under the attentive gaze of a supportive teacher, I began to make progress, and rapidly moved into the highest reading group. Now, had that teacher focused on the “prodigies” rather than those at the lower performing end, there is no telling where I would have ended up, but it would most certainly not have been a prestigious college, earning a Masters, and being a part of Teach For America.
Sociologists term these little benefits such as age or resources as an “accumulative advantage.” One starts off with a seemingly imperceptible advantage – age, height, looks – and this small advantage snowballs into much larger ones down the road. The seven year eleven month old student in a class of seven year two and three month students may be intellectually more developed. Those added months lead to awareness by teacher and peers, and the child is dubbed “the smart kid.” The attention and admiration of peers creates billowing confidence, and begins to fulfill this “self-fulfilling prophecy” of intellectual superiority. What was once a small advantage has swelled (perhaps like the students’ head) into larger ones until an apparently average student has become a phenom, an outlier.
What are the implications for the education system? How can we mold these outliers, while addressing those who have not shared their advantages? There are many things to consider- leveling classrooms based on skill, test scores, or merit, dividing students by age (at least initially), or remediating students with mandatory additional class time (to be discussed in the near future on this blog). Each one of these potential suggestions opens the education system to the law of unintended consequences, and has the potential to do more harm than good. However, these seemingly minor changes, just like these seemingly minor advantages, may be a step towards revolutionizing the way students are educated.
-Evan Piekara
3 Comments
December 1, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Grouping children in school classes developmentally instead of by age could provide a remedy for the advantages that children close to the cutoff date have. I had the advantage of having been one of the oldest children in a class as I progressed through school and I believe it worked to my advantage. I was always near the top of the class. When in kindergarten, it was thought that I could be advanced to first grade and I spent a brief time there after which it was decided that an advancement was not appropriate.
Double grades are common in many school districts but they are established for the economic convenience of the district. If there aren’t enough students for another first grade and not enough for another second grade, then voilà, a double grade appears. New teachers, often not equipped to deal with executing a curriculum that serves both simultaneously when possible and separately when needed, are often assigned these classes. I did work in a school district that had a developmental class for K-2. It had 55 students and 3 teachers and an assistant. Children moved between groups depending on where they were in math and reading. I thought it served the children well.
December 28, 2008 at 2:57 pm
This book sounds similar to Ruby Payne’s work with poverty class. I’ll have to find it!
I liked the analogies of cut-off dates with sports. But don’t confuse physical strength or size with intelligence. I was one of the youngest in my class (started kindergarten @4) but because my IQ was 139, I was in the top reading group, excelled at math, and eventually was placed in the gifted program.
December 30, 2008 at 12:40 am
I certainly recommend this book. I think it is currently #1 on the Bestseller list.
Thank you for sharing your own experience. As always, there are always exceptions. I did not mean to generalize by analogizing athletic abilities with intelligence. The point I was trying to make – and which your situation discredits – is that if we look beneath the surface we can sometimes find reasons that contribute to success. Although it is not a hardline rule, those who are closer to the cut-off dates do have advantages because it may have the potential to give them a physically, mentally, socially, emotionally developmental advantage over others.
Again, thank you for reading and sharing.