Too Much Leads to Mediocrity
(Sports are a microcosm of our culture. It is constantly measured and evaluated and the seasons represent real-time project management. Sports can be useful to draw parallels to other social issues.)
If you discuss professional baseball with purist, they will say that there are too many teams in the major leagues and as a result, the sport has been diluted. The claim is that there are not enough elite professional athletes that can keep all teams competitive. A look at the current leagues standings and the woeful performances of the bottom half of teams and it is hard to disagree.
The result of major league team expansion has been to create a few outstanding teams, a majority of mediocre teams and a few very poor performing teams. The winning percentage of the teams create a bell shaped curve where the bulk of the teams fall within one standard deviation of the mean and the extremes with around 10 percent of the outstanding good or bad teams.
To preserve the concept of players that comprise the major leagues are the elite athletes of the sport, it would be necessary to eliminate the lowest performance teams each year and stock the remaining teams with the best players. The result is 12 to 16 teams that survive and the quality of the game ultimately defines the standards for an elite professional baseball player.
Considering that this is a sport played by young men across the world, plus the hundreds of thousands of US-born ball players, it is hard to imagine that there are not enough quality players to stock all the pro teams but the reality is a shortage of elite players.
Players are drafted, given professional coaching, play in the minor leagues to sharpen their skills and eventually, if they are good enough and they avoid injuries, they reach the major league level. These athletes are seasoned veterans at that point having played five or more seasons in the minor leagues before the call-up to the “big show.” So why aren’t there more elite athletes? Dilution because of quantity.
With so many young men vying to become professional baseball players there are not enough quality coaches available to teach the game, its strategy and develop skills. As a result only a few continue to advance, mostly based on talent not coaching. The sheer multitude of numbers prevents most players from advancing as coaches can’t spend enough time teaching. Instead of a higher quality product because of well-coached and talented athletes, the game is dominated by average players with minimal chances for long-term success.
It seems contrary to think that fewer would be better, but in the case of creating elite talent, fewer are better. In professional sports were the individual is the focus such as golf, tennis, swimming or track, athletes are coached one-on-one. There aren’t as many participants just the elite athlete representing his or her sport.
So where does this analogy lead us? The questions surrounding a political concept like Leave No Child Behind. Do we really need every student to succeed at every level through grade 12? Or is it only necessary to be proficient in reading and math at the eighth grade level? Is it realistic to expect high performance from a large volume of students or just from those in the upper percentiles as measured by academic performance?
In the real world, be it sports or business, there is a funneling effect where only the best continue. In school, only those students demonstrating a talent and dedication for learning should continue. The very best or elite students are the high school students who go on to college. (The ripple effect means that there will be fewer students at the college level thereby increasing access to professors and individualized teaching.)
Just like the case of individual one-on-one sports, elite high school students are now engaged in small classrooms where teachers are focused on the needs of each student and students choose to excel because they are part of a highly-motivated select group. Mediocrity is now out of the equation; even the lowest performing students will be above the mean.
So does this suggest that there will be a greater distinction among the classes? Yes; and it has always existed and it will continue to exist. The difference is the enhanced preparation of students to embrace quality thinking and problem solving creating new opportunities ultimately benefits everyone.
Does this mean there will be an even greater number of people under-educated and dependent upon social systems to live? No. From the very first day of school until the end of eighth grade, all students get the same fundamentals of reading, writing and math. The goal is to eliminate reading and math illiteracy and create a functioning society.
At the end of eighth grade, school becomes one of two tracks: education or training. Education prepares students for the scholarly pursuits of learning that creates the critical thinkers needed to address future needs and problems. Training prepares students for a variety of work related opportunities (apprenticeships or service skills such as practical nursing).
This solution is about maximizing resources. It is not a closed door or one-shot deal. Some scholarly-bound students will drop out and choose to go into a training curriculum. Conversely, some training students will realize they underestimated their talents and choose the scholarly track. This should be allowed to occur at any age, not just before 18. As it is often stated, commencement is the beginning not the end.
If we embrace the concept that education is a life-long commitment, the idea of high school for all and finishing 12 grades is irrelevant. What we need are options that develop the best students at the highest possible levels and at the same time provide employment training opportunities for all others.
GROWTH <> LEADERSHIP <> EXCELLENCE
© 2007 3 Minute Learning LLC
No comments:
Post a Comment