Excellence as a standard for all education.

What is excellence and how do we measure it? Gross (1989) equates the excellence motive with the need to achieve, the success drive, and motivation to learn at high levels. Gardner (1961) defines excellence as striving for quality in all areas of a society. Roeper (1996) views excellence as a standard for gifted students to achieve in psychic terms, learning to develop as ethical and moral human beings. Silverman (1993) maintains that excellence cannot be defined as success because our culture refuses to recognize the contributions of many disenfranchised groups, particularly women, who attain excellence in areas like homemaking and childrearing. Thus excellence may be conceived of as a synonym for success, achievement, or psychic growth, depending on one's definitional structure. This author would define it as both the process of working toward an ideal standard and attainment of a consistently high standard of performance in a socially valued endeavor.

In this article, excellence is examined from the viewpoint of individual habits of mind that foster it, the role of the culture in promoting it, the relationship to technical mastery versus world class performance, and the sometimes controversial relationship to equity. A brief commentary is included on promoting excellence in community, school, and home settings.

Excellence as Habit of Mind

My father-in-law, who was a preeminent furnace man, often was known to quip, If a job's worth doing, then it is worth doing right. His view of work is highly consonant with the concept of excellence as a habit of mind. Excellence requires hard work, disciplined application, but above all an attitudinal disposition that implies one will put forth sufficient effort to do any work at the highest level possible of which one is capable at a given time.

There are intellectual habits of mind that can be applied to this excellence orientation. Paul (1992) captured them very well in his model of thinking--intellectual honesty, integrity, and humility coupled with curiosity and intellectual independence born of an inquiring mind. Students, whose thinking is held to standards such as clarity, accuracy, logical consistency, and fairness, learn to improve their thinking in various ways. Passow (1988) sagely noted that many times we enhance gifted students' knowledge without helping them think through the morality of that knowledge. When we engage in thinking and reasoning in the pursuit of knowledge, we need to help students understand that human decision-making has to consider the moral and ethical side of argument lest arrogance and the art of manipulation become the model for achieving ends. Developing habits of mind, then, constitutes an important way to pursue excellence in intellectual endeavors.

Working with gifted students to help them achieve excellence requires that we abandon the oft quoted adage of helping them learn to suffer fools gladly but rather help them recognize the seriousness of the intellectual enterprise and the process of thinking that supports it. To learn humility is to approach all situations as a learner, with an attitude that other people have something to contribute to the full understanding of an idea or problem. Such humility also predisposes one to be open to experience, not bounded by an absolutist approach to learning. Clearly such understanding comes only with maturity, but needs to be instilled early on in order to develop at all.

Ultimately, thinking about excellence as a set of attitudes to be developed and practiced over a lifetime yields an important way of understanding the concept. It also affords a basis for modeling and teaching to excellence as a standard for all gifted students.

Excellence in the Culture

Two important values that must be present in a culture to promote excellence among its citizens are the value of education and learning, and the value of hard work. Those cultures that have embodied these values over time have emerged on the world stage as achieving civilizations. Currently, both Asian and European cultures have a better understanding of these principles than we do in the United States even though we excel in sheer productivity. International studies continue to demonstrate that our students are ill-prepared for the rigors of subject matter learning in comparison to other first world countries. It is difficult to interpret the data in any way that does not indict American society and its culture of schooling, since evidence suggests that students in Japan and Korea, for example, start out at comparable levels to American students in first grade ability yet diverge after that stage of schooling in respect to achievement (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). If ability does not vary, then cultural differences in respect to values probably account for many of these differences in achievement.

In American society, we are ambivalent about education. We enjoy the idea of an educated citizen that engages vigorously in the process of democracy, yet we reject the notion that an education must be worked at, requiring effort and commitment over time. Thus, education is viewed as a commodity, a credential to be exchanged in the marketplace as opposed to an attitude toward learning and living. This narrow interpretation renders the process of learning as irrelevant since it emphasizes a terminal point, not an on-going dynamic process.

American society, then, may not be a hotbed of nurturance for excellence since it understands poorly the role of learning in everyday life as well as the application of learning to specific areas at maximal levels. A culture that holds sports heroes, rock stars, and a cartoon mouse as cultural icons may not be able to support a deep appreciation for learning in multiple talent areas. Yet, other aspects of our society support the development of talent: the freedom and openness, the diversity of ideas and peoples, the emphasis on individualism, all are societal indicators that a climate for excellence exists. These indicators also help explain how individuals have made significant contributions in a variety of fields in spite of the absence of a strong overall value orientation toward intellectual attainment. Those who do value education in this country have access to the most powerful education at the university level of any society.

Technical Mastery vs. Excellence

Frequently there is a misconception about what promotes excellence in an endeavor. Excellence is often perceived as achieving technical mastery in some area, where there is evidence that high level skills have become automatic. Yet excellence implies pushing the envelope of technical mastery to another level, of finding ways to improve on past performance as opposed to merely replicating it. The child, who gets a perfect paper and equates that with excellence, even though the work was very easy, has a misplaced conception of excellence. The high school student, who masters the skills of argumentation sufficiently to engage in a debate, still may have much to learn about being excellent in the enterprise. The teacher, who masters the repertoire of inquiry strategies, found effective in working with the gifted, still can improve on the execution, timing, and relative value of them in a particular context. The scientist, who goes about her work of research in a highly competent manner, still has need to extend herself to work on new questions or to probe existing questions more deeply. All of these examples illustrate the difference between competency and the ethic of excellence.

Excellence demands that one constantly strive to go beyond one's personal best, to try to exceed one's past record, and to make a contribution of worth to a given endeavor. The process of striving for excellence may be best summed up by Browning's oft quoted phrase: Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?

Excellence as World Class Performance

When we speak of excellence in the international arena, we have used the term world class standards of performance. Our own national standards in the content areas have articulated levels of performance for K-12 learners at world class levels. But what does world class really mean? Perhaps our best examples can be found in sports. When Kristi Yamaguchi performed triple toe loops to win the gold medal in the winter Olympics in Norway, she set a new world class standard for women's figure skating. All future skaters will need to demonstrate that feat to be considered world class even though no skaters had been required to perform the maneuver before Yamaguchi. Thus a standard was set for women's figure skating for years to come.

Similar standards are manifest in academics. The International Math Olympiad recognizes world class teams who compete for individual and group honors. Physics also sponsors a worldwide competition. Thus, in several areas of talent we can see the display of maximum competency where the goal is to exceed what has been done before. This standard-raising behavior is the ultimate example of moving a field forward (Feldman, 1983) as in the case of Yamaguchi or performing beyond expectations for one's stage of development as in the academic Olympiad competitions (Stanley, 1990).

Yet not all individuals talented in specific fields can equal these kinds of feats. Does that imply they are not excellent? No, but such standard-setting by its very definition can be accomplished by only a few individuals in a given field. However, such attainment also establishes a higher frame of reference for functioning within a given domain, and makes clearer the path toward greater accomplishments for those who follow the individual making the breakthrough. New upper limits have been established to determine excellence in a field.

For most talented and gifted individuals, the pursuit of excellence is the goal, not the realization of a significant breakthrough. There remains a sense of satisfaction in doing one's best and through it making progress toward the goal. My Latin classics professor frequently commented on his joy of laboring in the vineyards of the classics. I'm sure he did not expect to create a new blend of grape for conversion to wine, but his was a simple pleasure in serving the higher goal. And while he was not an innovator in his field, he did make substantive contributions to it in many arenas.

We cannot claim that our current standards in academic areas are at world class levels. Our students perform poorly on national exams that have clear and high standards, nor do they excel on international comparisons either (Darling-Hammond, 1991).

The argument for national standards is to infuse excellence into our schools through setting high standards for performance. Not since the curriculum projects of the 1960's have we seen such emphasis on what needs to be taught at what levels in American schools. The fact, however, that serious curriculum development work has lain fallow for thirty years calls into question the capacity of schools to implement these standards effectively even when they have them clearly defined. For all of the standards require teachers who are capable of translating both the content and related pedagogy which will enhance learning (Shulman, 1987), a challenge that is far from being met. Moreover, the new standards imply that all students are capable of learning at high levels, a claim that also has yet to be substantiated (Bracey, 1996). In fact, Bracey notes that no state has evidence that all students have even reached eighth grade proficiency levels, let alone the anticipated levels of performance required in the new standards.

The difficulties with the national standards movement, of course, are manifold. Some critics argue that the standards take away local control; others argue that the standards are biased toward particular perspectives in a subject domain, as has been the case of the debate over the history standards. Gifted educators remain skeptical about the new standards because of the room for error in interpreting each standard at too low a level. Yet, all the criticism notwithstanding, if the national content standards became the core curriculum tomorrow, assuming appropriate implementation, a higher uniform standard of excellence would be in place for the education of the gifted. Unfortunately, the standards movement is proceeding more slowly than may be desirable, with each state developing its own translations of the standards through curriculum frameworks which in time get modified further at local levels. This process has a watering down effect on the expectations for both learners and teachers. Thus, the power inherent in the national standards for promoting excellence in each subject domain may already have been compromised.

Meanwhile, other countries continue to exceed our standards with larger percentages of the population while fewer of our students perform at even modest levels. Less than 1% of the eligible school population even takes advanced placement work in more than two subjects. Moreover, approximately only 10% of students taking Advanced Placement (AP) exams, for example, score at the level of an AP scholar (namely, a 3, 4, or 5). Given both the cost effectiveness and standards of excellence employed in this program, it is telling that so few students have access to or choose not to access (since it is also elective) AP at the high school level. A similar situation exists with the International Baccalaureate program in respect to under-utilization by school districts of a rigorous precollegiate experience.

If academic excellence is to flourish in this country, then efforts like national standards and Advanced Placement coursework must succeed. Their limited impact speaks to schools preoccupied with social-political issues and problems, not learning and teaching the pursuit of excellence.

Excellence versus Equity

John Gardner in his classic 1961 book on excellence posed the now famous question Can we be equal and excellent too? In the current stages of school reform in this country, this issue could not be more relevant. Never have we been in greater need for a balance between these two principles in education. Equity issues are powerful in their own right. When we have millions of school children attending schools in substandard physical conditions, with ill-trained teachers, and without up-to-date textbooks, we are brought face-to-face with the realities of inequality among schools (Kozol, 1991). Yet, are the solutions to these problems the same as those that may address the deep malaise of underachievement that plagues even our very affluent schools and districts, where curriculum is rigid not rigorous and age grade lockstep is the norm? I think not. For, while equity and excellence must both be addressed, the approaches may be very different. The focus to address equity concerns must come from outside in the form of resources for building improvement, staff development, and purchasing power for materials. An excellence emphasis, on the other hand, must originate within a school system where a staff has made a commitment to school improvement and positive change. These internal forces can be quite powerful, even without substantial new resources, in affecting a climate of excellence.

Ironically, however, as has been the case in earlier decades of American education, we have swung very far in the direction of equity at the expense of excellence (Henry, 1994). In the process, arguments have arisen against the legitimacy of the quest for excellence itself, with the accusation that gifted education disrupts the community (Shapon-Shevin, 1995), and that the concept of giftedness has been constructed by self-interested groups (Margolin, 1996). To dismantle an infrastructure like gifted education on the altar of equity is at best only a symbolic act, but one that renders real damage to the education of our best students in the process. Excellence for all, if it means the same standards, same curriculum, same instructional emphases, becomes basically inequitable for all since it fails to recognize individual differences. Excellence cannot be perceived as a group norm; rather, it must be construed as an individual quest for higher learning and self-improvement.

True equity cannot disallow the opportunity to pursue excellence at a level and in areas most efficacious for the individual learner. To level the playing field, a phrase often used in support of equitable practices, provides no real benefit to anyone. For those who are handicapped by it, through being held back or asked to tutor others, as in the case of the gifted, this practice is not educational; it is remedial. For those who enter the game at lower levels of proficiency, it does not guarantee an enhancement of skill and ability, only a fair game where no one can move ahead of others because of the rules. For the referee in this level game, the job changes from a focus on arbitrating progress toward individual learning goals based on readiness to obliterating differences among players. So who benefits or even wants to play the game? Authentic learning and the pursuit of excellence are abandoned for an artificial appearance of equity. Bringing the top down does not bring the bottom up; it only lowers the level of play.

We would be farther ahead to acknowledge the fundamental relationship of excellence and equity:

* All students enter the learning enterprise at different levels, based on prior experiences and developed skills and competencies. Excellence should be promoted in all learning endeavors, but at different levels based on personal mastery (my excellent essay may be merely mediocre for you). To offer the same curriculum and instruction to all students is to deny that individual differences exist or matter in the enterprise of learning.

* Equity is present when all students have equal access to potential opportunities, based on reasonable standards of competence. High school students all have access to calculus if the school offers it, the student has taken the prerequisite courses, and is motivated to take advantage of the opportunity. Any of these three conditions not being met renders the educational door to access less open.

* Lack of equity is directly linked to limitations in resources and the will to equalize them or at least establish some parity. Schools are not equitable contexts for the gifted where the resource share is less than one half of 1% of federal and many state budgets.

* To embrace excellence in an educational sense means that schools are willing to promote talent development in all areas of the school and provide appropriate challenges for all learners in that context. Knowing what precocious learners are capable of doing at given stages of development provides an important basis for raising the excellence standards for other learners as well. To be concerned with excellence means a willingness to strive for the highest levels of achievement for all students. Thus, maximum not minimum competence becomes the performance goal.

* Excellence and equity are treated as extremes on a continuum of philosophical perspectives on the purpose of schooling, swinging from side to side like a metronome. Just as force and resistance to force in tandem can create sound in music and as the resistance to the force of electricity creates heat in wire, so too excellence and equity must be perceived as necessary opposites to create effective schools. Only as both are held in creative tension as important values is schooling likely to improve.

Promoting Excellence in the Community

Communities, by the nature of the resources they make available, can do much to encourage educational excellence. Ready access to powerful technological resources is one example of such an effort. In communities around the country like Blacksburg, Virginia, computers are available in all public places, as common as the telephone. Access to information is further enhanced by strong community librarians that provide expertise on information resources to all comers.

Another powerful community support to promote excellence is a university that serves as a learning and communication resource for all age groups as well as for networks of individual communities. Access to the arts in a community is another major public avenue for promoting excellence. Community-based arts and humanities programs provide educational and aesthetic opportunities that enrich all who are interested and motivated to access new modes of experience and learning.

Thus communities can be powerful catalysts for promoting excellence for all individuals. Obviously, however, members of communities need to be made aware of the benefits that accrue for them and their children from such community involvement.

Promoting Excellence in Schooling

The best way for schooling to promote excellence is through a commitment to growth and development through specific improvement mechanisms. There are many indicators of excellence that schools can use as yardsticks for purposes of self improvement. A few of these indicators follow:

* Does the school have a stated mission, philosophy, and goals?

* Does the curriculum use materials and resources that support optimal student learning, based on the school's goals?

* Do the teachers employ inquiry-oriented techniques?

* Do the teachers use metacognitive strategies?

* Do teachers individualize their approaches through diagnostic assessment and adaptation of curriculum based on student needs?

* Is assessment used to enhance instruction?

* Are school leadership approaches consistent with positive change efforts?

There exists a real need for schools to internalize such indicators as important benchmarks to gauge improvement for all learners.

Promoting Excellence in Parenting

Parenting processes can help students acquire the habits of mind associated with the pursuit of excellence in learning contexts (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). We know from studies of gifted families that certain practices can yield powerful positive outcomes for students. Csikszentmihalyi (1993) found that the homes of achieving adolescents were characterized by:

* Clarity of rules and feedback

* Consistency of standards

* Family time for challenging activities

* A high degree of trust and a sense of security and commitment

* Constructive use of leisure time

Bloom (1985) also found that the values of parents of children who would achieve at high levels in adulthood coalesced around the importance of education and hard work. He also noted that monitoring children's learning is a powerful part of the parenting role. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) cite the importance of parent involvement and parent instruction as powerful mediators of student learning in specific areas. Parents clearly have a powerful role in promoting excellence. Their influence is far greater than any other resource available to young learners.

Conclusion

We must reaffirm efforts to promote excellence in our schools, our homes, and our communities. If any group of educators is passionately committed to excellence, it should be those of us in gifted education. Excellence should be the goal on which we base the future work of our field, a goal for all learners including those who are advanced in their development. Finding ways to nture such learners in an ethos of excellence is a lifetime challenge for all of us!

REFERENCES

Bloom, B.S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. NY: Ballantine.

Bracey, G. (1996). Final exam: A study of the perpetual scrutiny of American education. Washington, DC: Agency for Instructional Technology.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The implications of testing policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 220-225.

Feldman, D. (Ed.) (1983). Developmental conceptions of giftedness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, J. (1961). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? NY: Harper.

Gross, M.U.M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11 (4), 189194.

Henry, W.A. (1994). In defense of elitism. NY: Doubleday.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandier, H.M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97 (2), 310-331.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. NY: Crown Publishing, Inc.

Margolin, L. (1996). A pedagogy of privilege. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 164-180.

Passow, A.H. (1988). Educating gifted persons who are caring and concerned. Roeper Review, 11 (1), 13-15.

Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Sonoma, CA: Critical Thinking Foundation.

Roeper, A. (1996). A personal statement of philosophy of George & Annemarie Roeper. Roeper Review, 19 (1), 18-19.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1995). Why gifted students belong in inclusive schools. Educational Leadership, 52 (4), 64-68, 70.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.

Silverman, L. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Stanley, J. (1990). My many years of working with the gifted: An academic approach. The fourth lecture in the series. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360790.)

Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Joyce VanTassel-Baska is Smith Professor in Education, Director, Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary and a member of the Roeper Review Editorial Advisory Board.

Manuscript submitted November, 1996. Revision accepted June, 1997.