Elite schools are indispensable
By Walt Gardner
.jpg?w=728)
If Kim Sang-kon, the newly appointed education minister, goes ahead in converting elite high schools into regular schools, he will unwittingly undermine South Korea’s ability to compete in the global economy. Although it is politically incorrect to say so, elite schools are the breeding grounds for the nation’s future leaders.
Democratization in education is a noble goal, but not when it jeopardizes South Korea’s crown jewels. Elite high schools were never intended to be anything other than what they are. Their mission was ― and still is ― to prepare students with the intelligence, aptitude and motivation to excel in their respective fields of specialization and then enter the top universities in the world.
Overhauling their purpose will unavoidably harm all stakeholders. When students who lack the aptitude are admitted, one of two things will happen. They will soon find themselves over their heads and drop out, or standards will be lowered to maintain the illusion of success.
If it’s any consolation, South Korea is not alone. The United States is undergoing a similar controversy. New York City, home of the nation’s largest school district, is known for the quality of its eight elite high schools. They are collectively known as “exam schools” because admission so far has been based on passing a standardized test.
But because these exam schools are relatively devoid of blacks and Hispanics compared to whites and Asians, pressure is building to base admission on “ethical engagement,” which means service to others and commitment to the common good. These are vague concepts that have great intuitive appeal but have not alone been shown to be sufficient for success. The usual rebuttal is that “grit” will be enough for all students to succeed.
There’s no doubt that what used to be called “conscientiousness” (grit) is important. But it is no substitute for knowledge and skills. Although South Korea currently selects students for admission to elite schools based on their academic records, cover letter and interview, rather than on a single test score as in New York City, changing such a policy to democratize admission will prove to be counterproductive in the long run.
Whatever their title (elite, autonomous, exam, exclusive), these specialized schools are not for everyone. Charles Murray, the author of Real Education, says the notion that college is for everyone is “educational romanticism.”
Although he was referring specifically to four-year universities and colleges, by extension his observation also applies to high schools.
There is nothing more disheartening than to see students drop out when they belatedly realize that they have been poorly counseled. Their self-esteem is crushed when reality finally sets in.
To avoid the pushback that will undoubtedly follow that likely outcome, Kim Sang-kon will feel pressure to lower standards. If he does so, however, he will be shortchanging the brightest students who deserve curriculums and instruction on a par with their abilities. The weak are not helped by pulling down the strong.
Differentiation in education, which is sometimes referred to as “tracking,” has a long history and for good reason. It allows teachers to design lessons in line with the specific needs and interests of their students, rather than to take a shotgun approach in the belief that it will somehow do the job. Let’s hope that South Korea doesn’t buy into the politically correct movement in this regard.
Walt Gardner writes the Reality Check blog for Education Week in the U.S. Write to walt.gard376@gmail.com