Borders, Voices, Classes: A Response to Mary Ann Duffy’s Review ofOut of Our Minds: Anti-Intellectualism and Talent Development in American Schooling

Abstract

We've accepted the invitation to respond to Mary Ann Duffy's essay review of Out of Our Minds in order to promote continued consideration of the species of anti-intellectualism that schools help to sponsor. Although we intended the book for a U.S. audience, three of six published reviews have appeared in journals outside the United States. Two were Canadian (the other Canadian review is at the following URL: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/ epaa/v5n5.html). We suppose this trend of international reviewing might constitute unhappy evidence for our case.In any event, the Canadian reviewers liked the book and were (productively) provoked by it. In both instances, moreover, the authors were practicing classroom teachers. We wrote with these folks clearly in our mindseven if our analysis is less close-in to practice than practitioners usually prefer. As to our not providing very satisfactory solutions, about all we can do is paraphrase Simone De Beauvoir's response when criticized for writing depressing novels: It wasn't our goal (and may not be in our power) to detail solutions to these problems, but documenting them seems important nevertheless.In the three years since publication, we have seen no works that address anti-intellectualism (anti-intellectism, actually) with equal scope. The recent appearance of new reviews has heartened us somewhat. "Our" reviewers outside the U.S. have exhibited a sharp, shared feeling of passion and commitment for the issues; they have understood why we made the effort. Among U.S. readers, however, the reception has been more muted, if also favorable. We had just hoped that in our native land others might begin to wonder at the relevant issues.In the sections of the response that follows, we try both to explain the choices we made when writing the book (years ago!) and, more important, to engage the enduring substance of issues. Our rejoinders are framed as

Multiple contexts, motivation and student engagement in the USA and Russia

“…Anti-intellectualism in US high schools, where social and sporting success often represents the pinnacle of achievement, has long been lamented by social commentators (Howley et al 1995;Sedlak et al 1986). However, Coleman (1961) noted, even before Bronfenbrenner, that such orientations were not purely the result of a school-based adolescent peer culture but rather originated from the young people's socialising experiences within the wider community.…”

Teachers’ Perceptions of the Socioemotional Development of Intellectually Gifted Primary Aged Students and Their Attitudes Towards Ability Grouping and Acceleration

“…Evidence generally supports the view that there is a positive correlation between children who are gifted and children who are advanced socially and emotionally (Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1995), but there are some dissenting views (Freeman, 2006). Studies report that most gifted students are at least as well adjusted and mature as typical students, and in some cases may have superior social and emotional development (Clark, 2008;Douthitt, 1992;Neihart, 1999).…”

Implications of Postmodern Curriculum Theory for the Education of the Talented

“…Is the field irrelevant? (For other self-critical comments, see Callahan, 1996;Gallagher, 1996;Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1995;Pendarvis & Howley, 1996.) These thinkers from within our field rightfully ask us to look hard at ourselves, but let me attempt to put these critiques into a theoretical framework.…”