On improving the world: the value(s) of WICS

Abstract

Models of giftedness are not versions of the way the world is, but programmes for improving the world. They uphold visions of the good life, good society, and worthy character. They are vehicles for values. Sternberg acknowledges this in his conclusion: ‘The important thing is to work together toward a common good—toward devising the best ways to select students so as the maximize their positive future impact’. The important questions to ask of WICS concern values, e.g. Is the job of schools and programmes to select future leaders and not, say, to foster the self-realization of all citizens? Can other conceptions of giftedness also help improve the world? Is it better to see ‘gifts’ as things that can be ‘squandered’ as judged externally or as self-defined aspects of a person that carry no investment obligations? The world would, no doubt, be better if some gifted schools and fellowship and scholarship programmes adopted WICS. The world would not be improved if they all accepted Sternberg’s proposal to adopt WICS or any common model of giftedness. The proposal is unrealistic, morally questionable, and undesirable. Why would we expect large numbers of programmes to adopt a common model? In a world with diverse cultures and values, wouldn’t programmes adopt models tied to their particular missions and world views? WICS, for example, has an implicit ethic in which ‘great’ leader, ‘contribution to society’, ‘positive future impact’, ‘wisdom’, and other value-laden concepts have specific meanings. Sternberg assumes we share a notion of the ‘common good’, but he offers no reason to expect that institutions with specific missions (e.g. a Krishnamurti gifted school or a socialist scholarship programme) would share values. Why should programmes adopt a common model? Efficiency and presenting ‘a common face’ are not compelling reasons. Should scholarship programmes and gifted schools accept only students perceived to have a ‘positive future impact’ or a capacity to deliver a good return on the effort invested in educating them? Where should the ‘Dennys’ of the world, whose future failure Sternberg assumes is determined long before college, attend school? Why would we want all gifted schools and programmes to adopt the same model of giftedness? A common model is on Sternberg’s own terms an ‘uncreative’ strategy. We don’t know what sorts of people will become ‘leaders’ (we wouldn’t need models if we did); we don’t know the future; we don’t how to educate to guarantee specific outcomes. In an unpredictable world, isn’t it better if schools try