Competition, teamwork, and individual strengths
Comments are pouring in to a post at Joanne Jacobs about an administrator who set out to reduce (eliminate?) competition in her district. I'm going to skip the I'll-tell-you-how-to-teach nonsense that permeates education leadership and comment on competition, teamwork, and individual strengths. First a current post from the business world:
Yes, we compete. But, as this letter suggests, it's usually in teams. (Not always, but even in individual sports, there's a team behind the competitor, whether it's just Mom and Dad at the lowest levels, or the entourage that travels with a top tennis or golf competitor.) In business, it's virtually always teams. Why? Because, as noted above, individuals just can't produce enough -- both because of time and because no one has ALL the strengths needed -- to compete in "the real world." Second, can anyone seriously think that competitions are the best way to get kids to learn any specific knowledge or skill, much less to discover and develop those personal strengths that will let them contribute in the future? Think about it for a moment. The teacher announces a competition based on _________ and what happens? Two or three, may be even four kids who have the ability to "WIN" gear up to "go for it." But, they also face a sense of pressure that lessens the chance they might learn something unexpected. And, they face a definite "turn off" after the competition to the subject matter involved. The rest of the kids, including some that might have had the ability, decide to put in a lesser effort than they might have otherwise since they have no intention of trying to "WIN" and don't want to be seen as having tried and failed. The higher the stakes, the more severe these consequences. Finally, the artificiality of most competitions -- narrow rules forcing the competition onto equally narrow fields of performance -- is very different from "real life." Take the competition most folks are thinking positively about when they praise competition -- the free market. Yes, there is competition for my money by potential vendors. But, it is not on narrowly circumscribed terms. Each individual, team, or company is free to come up with wonderfully differentiated offerings to attract my money. And, since buyers differ in what they value and the ways in which they value it, what "wins" with me may not even be in the running for you. See the difference to the artificial competition in schools? |
Now, I'm not against narrowly-circumscribed competitions such as sports. I've loved watching my older son play baseball. We're enjoying the Tour de France on OLN. But, all such competitions ultimately become mental games. Can I perform to my capacity without getting in my own way? Can I call forth from myself something more than I've ever done before? And, these questions can only be answered in the arena of top-level competition for those athletes who have world-class capabilities. Is there an equivalent in academics? Yes -- academia. The pursuit of contribution and recognition at the highest levels of intellectual achievement. But, just as running a high school athletic program with what's best for future pro athletes in mind is a bad idea, so running a high school academic program (much less elementary or middle school) with what's best for the occasional future college professor is likewise a bad idea. And, even if that were the goal, who's to say that constant, grinding competition is what's best for those kids? Lots of kids get burned out on sports, and the same can happen with academics. Get 'em to engage, to read, the think, and to write. Help them learn to think mathematically. Try to get them started aquiring the breadth and depth of knowledge that citizens of advanced economies and democracies need. That's enough. The rest can come later.
Comments