Anti-Intellectualism: Graduation Season

Erin Morris Miller, PhD

(This blog was originally published on the discontinued blog thegiftedscholar.com)

It is the end of school year. When the tests are given, the grades tabulated, and attendance monitored, it is time for the awards assembly. And with the awards assembly comes the memes.

Such as:

People should be nice. Kids who do not get academic awards are valuable and appreciated. But the subtext is that being a part of the gifted program and trying to help classmate who is lonely are two mutually exclusive pursuits. There is a suggestion that acknowledging some kids’ academic accomplishments somehow takes something away from other kids.

It is only academic accomplishments that are written about in this way. Anti-intellectualism has a long history in the United States and other countries as well. One of the essays required for my Ph.D. in educational psychology was how one should reconcile the dual principles of equity and excellence driving US educational goals. There is no easy answer. However, it is only a certain kind of accomplishment that is disparaged. As many parents of academically gifted students have pointed out, there is no meme saying that parents should be more concerned about their child being kind than about making the basketball team.

One possibility is that there is an element of understandable jealousy. Although there are many complicated factors involved, incremental increases in academic ability is linked to adult salary in a way that incremental increases in athletic ability is not. There is less than a 1% chance of becoming a professional athlete, but intelligence and academic ability has a positive relationship with myriad advantageous outcomes.

Another possibility is that the field of athleticism has done a better job of communicating about the role of genetics and environment in developing athletic talent and does a better job of managing participation in organized sports. In a 2010 article about what the field of sport psychology contributes to athletic performance, Chris Gee defines two aspects of athletic performance that are commonly understood by athletes. There is the absolute performance, which is the theoretical optimal performance. The upper limit of absolute performance is determined by physiological factors that are heavily influenced by genetics. For athletes these are factors such as height, stride, reaction time, and peak oxygen deficit. These factors can be trained, but athletes with initial genetic advantages can also train and improve beyond individuals who do not have these initial advantages.

The second factor is relative performance. This is the actual day-to-day performance that is affected by situational factors such as training, nutrition, fatigue, anxiety, and distractions. Relative performance is expressed in proportion of absolute performance potential. For example, the relative performance of an athlete who has suffered an injury might be 75% of their absolute performance potential. This analysis of Michael Phelps describes how absolute performance and relative performance interact to result in athletic achievement. Michael Phelps has superior absolute performance potential which he maximizes through training and diet.

It would be a fair criticism that at the local and state level the field of gifted education focuses too much on trying to measure absolute performance and too little on maximizing relative performance when determining who should receive additional academic services. In athletics, it is the opposite. Relative performance is the focus. In sports it is impossible for one’s relative performance to exceed their theoretical absolute potential. But in education there are people who try to differentiate between “overachievers” and the “truly gifted.” The concept of academic overachievement is like saying that a track athlete was running faster than their ability to run. Silly, right?

One difference between sport and academics is that with sport, kids (and parents!) always have the hope if they work hard enough they could make the team. The door is not closed by the system and so even when a student does not make the team there is always hope. Also, with the focus on relative performance, there is less of an issue of children and parents wondering why some kids get to have additional opportunities when other kids are performing at the same level, although they may need to work harder for that performance. There are many in the field of gifted education that are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that hard work could drive participation in services for the gifted. They would prefer that the focus be on the gift, the theoretical absolute performance. I do not wish to single any school district out, but a simple Google search for “gifted vs high achiever” will provide ample evidence. Luckily this search will also lead to an excellent blog post by Scott Peters.

The comparison between intellectual and athletic performance is not perfect. Sports require intellectual elements and certain intellectual endeavors require physical traits to accomplish. Scientists know more about the affect of transfer of training to performance in athletics than in academics. Athletic underachievement does not carry the same stakes as intellectual underachievement. The primary purpose of public school is academic development**, not athletic development. However, the relationship between absolute potential and relative performance is similar. Hard work leads to improvement in performance. Factors such as prenatal environment, nutrition, resources, community norms, stress, social and emotional struggles, etc. affect both academic and athletic performance.

This perspective about the relationship between absolute and relative performance is not new even if the vocabulary used to describe it is different. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model and Advanced Academics model both focus more on providing services in response to relative performance rather than determining theoretical absolute potential. As we seek to advocate for gifted children it may improve community buy-in if we looked to the field of athleticism as a model of talent development.

Select References

Gee, C. J. (2010). How does sport psychology actually improve athletic performance? A framework to facilitate athlete’s and coaches’ understanding. Behavior Modification, 34(5), 386 – 402. doi: 10.1177/0145445510383525