Scorecards

Perhaps competition has been misapplied in education more than anywhere else. Most competitions in education become denigrations of competition, when they are actually misapplications of it. The issue begins with the scoreboard (grades) which has not appreciably changed over the years despite our advancement in understanding learning and talent.

Grades are often cited as unhelpful, placing too much pressure on the student (amongst other issues). This can not be true unless misapplied, and critiques of grades are at least partly because they are often the only scoreboard and therefore over emphasized.  Grades are an effective method of providing periodic measurements of progress and a fair base line of knowledge, and therefore give needed feedback.  Grades also tend to predict further educational success.

But grades should be supplemented by other scoreboards. Grades, like IQ, are not a good predictor of career success or happiness or riches. A simple 10 minute test of emotional maturity is statistically a much better predictor of SAT scores and professional success than IQ or grades.  As such it deserves much more formal attention.  Likewise, emotional instabilities are much more often the cause of student failure than lack of mental ability.

Educational systems may do more service by adding emotional scoreboards, exercises, and indices, in an effort to maximize individual potential.  It is arguable that without addressing significant emotional issues, it is pointless to send the failing student through school.

A talent scorecard could also add value.  Marrying direction with talent certainly improves effectiveness.  It may also increase happiness.

Misapplications of competition

Competitions in immeasurable disciplines such as art often only measure the performers’ propensity to produce to the norm. They do not necessarily measure creativity or talent or future success. Competition in these instances would be more productive if they were more narrowly defined; a competition to identify those artists who can replicate modern art is exponentially more useful than an open ended art competition judged by only a subjective few.  Then it is possible to know and understand what the competition is about, and give the performer accurate feedback.

Organizations often fall into a variation of this mistake as well.  They make only very broad goals, or they measure creativity in a manner which impedes or misdiagnoses it.  Hierarchies benefit from very specific, focused relatively simple goals.  Smaller teams can deal with ambiguity better than large ones.

Sometimes losers are relieved from competing altogether, rather than helping them to perform, regardless of the talent or the endeavor. The thinking is often that comparisons to others places too much pressure on the performance, which is harmful.  This is short sighted thinking.  After all, the competition is not primarily a comparison with others, but about expressing oneself and feeling  good about that action.  Withdrawing from the competition impedes that development.

Too often children who have difficulty performing to their potential in a basketball game or a test are revealing something of their emotional maturity which will need to be addressed if they wish to meet their potential in life.  This is true not because the world is full of competition.  It is true because realizing one’s potential demands confidence in self regardless of time constraints, audiences and other public and private pressures.  The challenges of life require emotional maturity.

Actualization

Well coached and nurtured competitors learn to consciously build their spiritual and emotional strength.  Whether the stage is acting, painting, playing basketball or guitar, the challenge is identical.

In this way even eastern mysticism shares common traits with competitive development; both are efforts in self-actualization.  We have a desperate need to help each other authentically be in the world and develop in the world.  That is an individual journey that addresses all portions of our being.  And it demands nurturing, coaching and formal feedback in all of them.

Robinson makes the point that education must evolve to appreciate the diversity of aptitude. That evolution is greatly aided by coaching and multi-dimensional feedback.