No child left behind — unless he’s gifted

Does the Declaration of Independence say all men are equal? Certainly not. It says all men are created equal — a more than rhetorical distinction.

There is no guarantee of equal outcome, nor should there be.

Enter now the federal government-school reform act known as No Child Left Behind.

Of course every child deserves an equal opportunity at school, regardless of race, economic class or other factors. But at some point, opportunities shall and must become less equal, based on each child’s achievements.

If there are a limited number of seats in an advanced math class, the child who has not yet mastered his sums must be told he has no “equal” opportunity to attend until he masters the prerequisites. The kid who ditches class and fails to answer half the questions on the exam retains no “equal” right to receive a diploma.

Does No Child Left Behind merely mean every child will be given equal attention — equal opportunity? Or does it in fact mean that less gifted students now merit the vast majority of their teachers’ time, while gifted kids — that 2 to 4 percent of the student body who will most likely become the next generation’s captains of industry and finance, professors and generals and doctors and engineers — are set adrift?

The latter, it would seem.

“Some scholars are joining parent advocates in questioning whether the education law No Child Left Behind, with its goal of universal academic proficiency, has had the unintended consequence of diverting resources and attention from the gifted,” The Washington Post reported this month.

Public schools are already focused on a broad middle group of students at the expense of those working beyond their assigned grade, these advocates explain. Now, under the new federal mandate, schools focus on an even narrower group: students on the “bubble” between success and failure on statewide tests.

“Teachers struggling to meet the law’s annual proficiency goals have little incentive,” critics tell The Post, “to teach students who will meet those goals however they are taught.”

Said Nancy Green, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Association for Gifted Children: “Because it’s all about bringing people up to that minimum level of performance, we’ve ignored those high-ability learners. We don’t even have a test that measures their abilities.”

A study published last month by two University of Chicago economists, analyzing fifth-grade test scores in the Chicago public schools before and after enactment of the 2002 NCLB law, found that performance rose consistently for all but the most- and least-advanced students.

“We don’t find any evidence that the gifted kids are harmed,” says Chicago economist Derek A. Neal. “But they are certainly right, the gifted advocates, if they claim there is no evidence that No Child Left Behind is helping the gifted.”

Egalitarianism is fine, up to a point. Eventually, though, if we want doctors and generals, we must encourage some of our kids to attend medical schools and military academies — and exclude lots of would-be doctors and commanding officers who haven’t shown the aptitude.

To leave behind a struggling kid in the 32rd percentile would be a misfortune for that child. But to lose a rudderless kid in the 99th percentile by offering her no challenges, by failing to stress the kind of future she can have if she applies herself, is a tragedy for the nation and the world.